Wikiversity:Nominations for checkuser/Erkan Yilmaz

Erkan Yilmaz
copied from colloquium

I've noted over the past few months that User:Remi and User:Erkan_Yilmaz are often quite curious about Checkuser actions (and CU-related blocks), and I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to give them the tool so they can see for themselves, as well as probably catching problematic accounts that JWS and I aren't catching (we're both a bit less active on RC patrol than we used to be). While we clearly don't need an entire platoon of Checkusers running around the place, both these users have a long history of doing good for the project, and being very patient even with those who are clearly seeking to try our collective patience. The CU tool gives us a powerful ability to both identify problem-causers, as well as allowing us to avoid "collateral damage" when blocking IPs (since it allows us to check an IP before giving a hard block). --SB_Johnny | talk 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Accept/decline the nomination
Nominated CheckUser candidate: please indicate if you accept the nomination. Note the requirements at CheckUser policy.
 * I accept, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) PS: Tag a learning project with completion status !! 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting for CheckUser

 * 1)  - similar as above, good editor - patient custodian --Gbaor 10:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) . --McCormack 11:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Teemu 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) . --Bduke 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) . --JWSchmidt 02:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) . --Michael Reschke 12:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) . Cormaggio talk 21:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8)  (of course!) --SB_Johnny | talk 15:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  e.c. 20:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 10)  --Whiteknight (Versity) (Books) 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  -- Countrymike 03:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 12)  --   Terra  19:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 13)  --Remi 12:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 14)  --mikeu talk 13:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) . -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * --Juan 15:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I understand a role of checkuser as a very "sensitive" role. From the communication with Erkan (mostly on IRC) I dont think so he could be a good checkuser (slightly afraid of function abuse). I also think that to recive a checkuser rights is not a need, but tribute to the user and the same time also to the community.
 * This comment surprises me. I agree that Erkan is aware of the potential for function abuse - and I would have thought this would be an obvious point in favour, so how does this end up as a point against? (Or did you mean that you were afraid that he would abuse the power?) I'm also puzzled by your second sentence - checkuser was and remains an urgent need on WV. When we first had CU's last year, the incidences of serial vandalism dropped massively. --McCormack 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes he. Well, I dont think so we should give a vote to every candidate even there is a lack of CUs.--Juan 08:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Yes he" --> do you mean that you are agreeing with my alternative interpretation that "he [Erkan] would abuse the power"? If so, please describe the IRC exchanges which led you to think this. I think a reason is important. Thanks! --McCormack 09:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am a little bit affraid he can abuse it. Is my English so bad? Well, I found out that Erkans communication on IRC is not so "sensitive", so I can imagine how he can "sensitiveli" act like a Check User.--Juan 09:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Juan. You are correct that Erkan's communication style on IRC is very, very different from his public behaviour on Wikiversity. However that is also the case for a few other users. And this is normal for all Wikimedia projects. Stewards and senior developers also behave in amazingly infantile fashions on IRC, because IRC is often used for stress relief - usually by humorous means. Perhaps you are not familiar with Wikimedia IRC? Or perhaps you find Erkan's idiosyncratic sense of humour difficult to understand? (I find it very difficult to understand...! But it kind of works...). --McCormack 09:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thats why I will probably stay with my opinion. But dont think so Erkan behave like a baby.--Juan 10:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the feedback and I'd like to invite anyone to drop a msg anytime here at WV, email or chat if they are disturbed by an action of mine so we can find a solution in a timely manner. As in real life we all take different roles/behaviours in different situations. If I would behave always the same that feels for me like being a bot. But I want to "breathe". So, depending on the situation I use different behaviour (thinking, language, humour, ...). The above described behaviour is just one facette and should not be mistaken as the only overall behaviour. I am aware that CU work is "serious business" and I respect and will be respecting CheckUser policy.
 * Tribute/need: I see it like in a job interview: one person comes as applicant for a job, but at the same time the job provider also has to compete for person(s). Through the CU tool I will be thankful for learning yet another tool, developing other experiences/thoughts in the usage - or better - non-usage, ... At the same time the community will also benefit by this. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 23:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, now after some discussions and answers, changed a little bit my opinion. I think, why not to give a chance Erkan to study something new. We have a proverb in Czech which says that if you do wrong, it teach you alot. More than if do right, as you havent got feedback. The only problem of checkuuser mistakes is, that they are not reversible - because that touch people on the personal level. The system of MediaWiki - gives a chance to all people to reverse, what they did, but on the personal level, it mostly stays with you.--Juan 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- Helpful yet Not Authoritarian at all. Thuvack 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Erkan has helped me (even when I was irritated and impatient). He was quick, professional, responsible, reasonable and responsive.  I strongly support.  TWFred 14:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  --ZaDiak 10:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  Good editor, very helpful and civil. I support him, of course! :) Srhat 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  Erkan is involved in many wikimedia project and has skills as admin. CU lifes also from the system, that the CU users controll each other, so one more active prevent misuse and other unlikely things -- MichaelFrey 14:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8)  Erkan is a great guy! --Jomegat 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  Per support from users I know and trust. Look forward to working with this new CU. ++Lar: t/c 23:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 10)  This editor is very active here on Wikiveristy, has made many contributions, and has helped with the details for projects to succeed. Dzonatas 00:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  &mdash; checkuser IMO like custodianship should be no big deal. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 01:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser access was given on August 3rd 2008


 * 1)  Eadthem 13:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
When we use a tool, it is possible to make mistakes. When using the checkuser tool, it is possible to act on incomplete or incorrectly interpreted information and this can lead to poorly-justified invasion of a user's privacy. Are there times when a checkuser should ask another checkuser for a "second opinion" before using the checkuser tool? If, as a checkuser, you ever discover that you have made an error in your use of the checkuser tool, what will you do? --JWSchmidt 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what is meant with "second opinion" but if it involves opinion/info about general approach of CU work: since it is new terrain I am sure at begin this will happen (even after reading the pages about CU). And for this is available then the checkuser-l mailinglist (hopefully with accessible archive to search first and then ask efficiently). The advantage of this will be to minimize violation against Wikimedia's privacy policy: better safe than sorry.
 * If I have made an error in use of the checkuser tool probably I will think first: "Oh no!" - then I will inform the checkuser-l mailinglist and/or Ombudsman commission. Communicate with them about the next steps. If it doesn't violate Wikimedia's privacy policy: apologize to the person(s) who got harmed during that. And hope we don't lose the contributor(s) here at Wikiversity. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) PS: Tag a learning project with completion status !! 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you replies. The phrase "second opinion" will sometimes be used if you visit a doctor and the doctor says, "Oh, you have a splinter in your finger, so I suggest that we amputate your arm." It would be wise to go to a second doctor and get a "second opinion" (which might be something like, "Oh, I'll take the splinter out of your finger.") --JWSchmidt 02:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Community discussion

 * regarding this comment: every usage of the CU tool is recorded in the logs. And misusage will lead at least to removal of access (the Foundation has also the ID of CUs). Perhaps this opportunity could be used to get more info which behaviour led to this comment. It will surely help the interacting persons (see also: User:Erkan Yilmaz/PLE), also to define what characteristics a CU-candidate/good CU must possess. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)