Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Eusebius

< Commons:Checkusers | Requests
 Support = 41;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 0 - 100% Result. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebius

Vote

Links for Eusebius: Eusebius (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

NOTE: CU requests at Commons run for 2 weeks minimum, this request will end no earlier than 10:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The rationale - Despite the apparent number of CUs on this project I would be inclined to discount Stewards who frequently have issues to deal with elsewhere and so are less available on a day to day basis. I have no problem with them having rights on hub projects such as this and Meta but in some senses they should be ignored (...). Gmaxwell & SB Johnny cannot really be called active on Commons by most people's standards I imagine. As such Martin H. & Tiptoety now are actually the only truly active Commons CUs. To me having one (or 2) more for a project of this size/number of users is no big issue if there are suitable candidates.

The candidate - As stated at Tiptoety's nomination these are rights for active trusted Commons admins. I've interacted with Eusebius for some time now. I have found him communicative (quite unusual and important), helpful and hard working (35,000 contributions leaves him far more active than most who will vote for him myself included). He declined my previous attempt to get him to take these rights but he indicated he is happy to do so now. He has good language skills and being a member of OTRS understands the need for handling sensitive issues well - a necessary trait in CUs. He has initiated a number of the recent CU requests - a diligent admin deleting copyvio images will often find previous deletions leading to puppetry (I know - I found a fair few) so the rights are highly appropriate to this user. It is of no relevance to this but he is a pretty good photographer too . I hope the community will support this nomination. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the nomination and would like to thank Herby for finally convincing me to do so! --Eusebius (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.  Support --Herby talk thyme 09:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support, I completely trust his judgment, and seeing all the hard work he's doing as an admin already, I trust he'll be an active member of the CU team. –Tryphon☂ 09:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support -- User:Docu at 10:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support --Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Trustworthy editor, uploader and Admin. -- Bidgee (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support per Herbythyme. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Trustworthy editor, uploader and Admin. Otourly (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support --Foroa (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support Trustful user. Pymouss Let’s talk - 11:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support per Herby, despite the digs at Stewards :) ++Lar: t/c 11:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There will always be exceptions that prove the rules. More seriously Commons is quite fortunate with the stewards it does have, however they also tend to have quite a bit to do elsewhere. --Herby talk thyme 11:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support Multichill (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support, et même plutôt deux fois qu'une :-) -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support Rama (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support as per Herby --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support Rocket000 (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support - We could use some more help. Tiptoety talk 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support of course. Trustworthy editor.--Bapti ✉ 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support per Bapti. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support Ça marche — Xavier, 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support VIGNERON * discut. 11:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support --myself488 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support --Ex13 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support I trust both Eusebius and Herby. -- Avi (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support Happy with the responses to my question below, and sorry for making it such a big deal. A CU role just happens to be a big deal for me.... --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support – Innv | d | s: 06:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support, highly trustworthy. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  OK — Dferg (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31.  Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32.  Support I trust him Nillerdk (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33.  Support - No worries, Cirt (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34.  Support - just another tool for administrator to act more efficiently --Justass (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35.  pour Sure! Bastique demandez 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37.  Support Of course. odder (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38.  Support per Herby, also both Eusebius and Herby are highly trustworthy.   ■ MMXX  talk  22:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39.  Ja Pmlineditor ∞ 11:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40.  Support —§ stay (sic)! 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should modify your signature to point towards an existing account... --Eusebius (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41.  Support a third active CU makes sense billinghurst sDrewth 16:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  Comment My immediate reaction when I saw the nomination was that I should support unconditionally as Eusebius is on my top-top list of people I trust here on Commons. However, given the extreme discretion needed to possess access to the CU tools I would like to ask a question, relating to a personal experience here, where I first understood the sometimes very difficult dilemmas a CU can be faced with and how vital good personal judgement is. So this is a kind of question I could have asked at any RFCU and is not related to the specific user being nominated. (On the contrary actually). --Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Assume that as a CU you receive an email from a Commons user, which you know (perhaps not so well). The user contacts you because the user has received a private message from another user mentioning thougts about wanting to commit suicide. The user contacting you expresses a doubt if the message is a genuine threat to commit suicide or is more a message requesting for attention or a cry of despair/frustration. Considering that the mentioning of suicide maybe should be taken seriously, the user, who has contacted you asks you to consider using the CU tool to track down the approximate location and possibly contact local authorities in case it could be a real threat. How would you react to this situation? --Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim. Nice to see you there. Aren't you supposed to be on a very very very long wikibreak? :-)
As a preliminary disclaimer, it is impossible for me to resolve a moral dilemma of this kind in its abstract form, I need to be faced to the instance to react. I suggest to examine several ways of actions and to evaluate them. The final choice depends on the precise parameters of the problem instance.
  1. First hypothesis: I ignore the message, or tell the user that it is not my role, or tell him that I do not think that the threat is real. I may put myself in a difficult situation if the events prove me wrong (I might be blamed for that). I would try to avoid that.
  2. Second hypothesis: knowing that I am not good at (electronic) psychological evaluation (and that I have no right to perform any), I choose to do what I can to prevent a possible tragedy, on my own. I use the tool to get an IP, perform a few traceroutes, call the closest police office, give them an IP, an ISP and a pseudonym and get laughed at. In the most optimistic scenario, they take me seriously, they contact a judge to request an identification based on the IP (I take example of what I know of French procedures), they get laughed at, they convince him anyway, the judge asks the ISP to identify the customer, the police gets the ID, they send a psychological support unit, the user is definitely convinced of the beauty of life but is a bit offended by the privacy breach. If he's in France, he gets a free 30 year record in various police files. Let's think about the scenario independently of the fact that I am convinced that electronic contacts aren't in the best position to help (in that way), and more specifically that the information given by the CU tools is really not something practical for that purpose. I had to use the CU tools, and then to reveal private information. Using the tools in that context is out of the intended scope expressed in the CU policy ("It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects"). The disclosure, though, is authorized "where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public". Which makes me say that if it was obvious, or at least probable (which is really not the case here) that using the tools could prevent a user from getting harmed, I would do it regardless of the phrasing of the tool usage policy, since the disclosure policy gives me a firm argumentation ground with the WMF if my actions are questionned (but if the physical security of someone is evidently at stake, I guess I wouldn't care too much about what the WMF could tell me anyway).
  3. Third hypothesis: If the private message received by the worried user is a direct e-mail, I explain him how to get the sender's IP from the headers, so he has the same info I would have if I used the tools, plus the personal relationship/contact he already has with the user, making him the best person for acting upon the case.
  4. Fourth hypothesis: A mix of the various scenarios, beginning with private communications with maybe another CU and probably a WMF official, if possible from the same country as the possibly suicidal user (because if a WMF rep from the same country can take the data and act upon it in my place, there's no reason for me to do it myself unless I know the user). Unless something makes it impossible or undesirable for some obscure reason, starting with asking a few chosen opinions is what I'd do, because this whole scenario is totally off-limits in that it has to do with the kind of info I would manipulate with the tools but not with the responsibilities of a CU. My responsibilities and my tools both coming from the same authority, I may as well pass the info if I'm convinced that it won't delay any necessary action.
In any case I think I would avoid contacting the "unstable" user myself if I don't know him, because I know what I can't do. --Eusebius (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eusebius, en:wp CUs and others have given a great deal of thought to this particular case, and there is fairly established policy already, you should reach out to them (us :) ) and your fellow Commons CUs (us again :) ) when you are elected... the CU mailing list is also a good resource for these sorts of things, cross wiki. ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I forgot about the mailing list. Also, another comment: Quite often, identifying a user might be easier based on the information already disclosed by him (on WMF wikis and other websites) than with an IP. --Eusebius (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eusebius, well it seems like 2010 triggered an awakening from wikisleep. Thank you for responding in depth to my, admittedly, hard question. I agree with you that it is presented in such an abstract form that the exact actions to take would depend on the details. A few remarks as an ordinary user, not 100% familiar with CU policies, but more as a representative of the "concerned user" role.
  • Concerning hypothesis 1, I would say that ignoring the message is not a good solution in any case. Suppose the message is obviously only send to disrupt, then the user should clearly be told that you consider it a (serious) disruption. If you think the threat is not a serious threat I certainly think the concerned user should know that as well, as it may be difficult to see what is a sincere threat and what is not in the role of a concerned user. Assume you as a CU are in a current mental state yourself where you feel like not being able to cope with it right now - you may be very tired and overworked, have just come home drunk from a party, at the very least i think the concerned user should get a reply informing that you are not capable of handling the situation right now, urging the concerned user to contact another CU. When I had the experience myself, the first CU I contacted chose never to respond albeit being visible on IRC. I was dissapointed at the lack of response as I felt time was running. A few hours later I then contacted another CU, and I established a good contact and dialogue with that one. So I certainly agree that having several available CUs on the project is important.
  • As lar also mentions, it is a very good idea to actively use the network of CUs to share and debate the specifics of the incident. They may have prior experience with the specific user, may have input to the psycological evaluation of the seriousness of the threat, or may have important insights into how to best handle local authorities. You mentione how it would work (or not work) in France, being a very uphill path to follow. I think that elsewhere it can be quite different. For instance in Denmark, I think such threats are generally being taken quite seriously and the responsiveness and agility in reaction is quite fast (better safe than sorry), and here the user threatening to commit suicide would not be stigmatized by a record having around for 30 y in some police system. Recently, there have been cases here in denmark at least, where people in chat forums have mentioned thoughts about suicide triggering a fast emergence of professional help ion the location of the user.
  • You mention one path to go, where you help the concerned user to track down the user by his/her own. I am somewhat concerned about that path. I agree the concerned user has a vital role to play as the email contact between the concerned user and the suicidal user can be used constructively as there is probably a personal relation between the two, which implies that the suicidal user would be willing to receive some guidance from the concerned user. However, you thereby also put responsibility back on the shoulders of the concerned user, who may be enough under mental pressure already having a personal relation to the suicidal user.
  • I am pleased to see your comment about knowing what you can do and can't do. I think having a good knowledge of own personal capabilities/limits and when to seek assistance from fellow CUs is an important part in having this role.
Hope my comments makes somewhat meaning to you. --Slaunger (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Speaking as an EnWiki CU, we just had one of these on en.wiki yesterday, and we decided to contact the police. From my experience in these cases, the police do want to be contacted, as in that 1 time out of 10000 that it is real… -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which just conforts me in my expressed preference for the fourth scenario, with the difference that I would not just contact only one CU privately but rely on the existing communication tools of the cross-wiki CU community, as suggested by Lar. --Eusebius (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Eusebius&oldid=35265435"
  NODES
Chat 1
eth 2
see 6
Users 6