Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Krd

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 27;  Oppose = 1;  Neutral = 1 – 96%. Result: Successful. odder (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krd

Vote

Links for Krd: Krd (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 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Following off-wiki contact I hereby nominate User:Krd to become a Checkuser. After the resignation of INeverCry he contacted me privately to hear my opinion about him candidating for CU and I immediately replied enthusiastic. That's also because I've known him for years already and I trust him completely. For those who don't, see below:

Krd began working on WMF projects in 2009. Early 2011 he also started editing on Commons, and with 54,000 edits overall and 12,000 on Commons you can safely say he's very experienced. In August 2011 he became an OTRS agent and from the beginning he has been a very hardworking volunteer. Not only on OTRS, but also on Commons. His succesfull RfA in December 2012 made him even more connected to Commons. Commons isn't the only project he edits on though. He's also a member of the German Arbitration Committee for three years (until the end of his term this month) and is right now also an admin on the German Wikipedia.

Also: CU is not about numbers, but these statistics clearly shows the gap after INeverCry left last March (and hasn't filled in yet by the current CUs).

What's important is that a CU can be trusted and with his experience as a [former] arbcom member and an OTRS agent that's not even a question. Besides that: Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. and thus it's useful to sometimes discuss cases with other CUs, one more CU definitely can't hurt then. I hope the community agrees with me.

Trijnsteltalk 08:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance: I accept the nomination. Thank you. --Krd 08:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.  Support as nom. Trijnsteltalk 08:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support I have never had problems with him in deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support; despite of the overall number of CUs, we need a "replacement" for INeverCry, if that is possible at all ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support; without any concerns. Maxxl2 - talk 09:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Trusted user. --Denniss (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support Trusted colleague. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Rzuwig► 10:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support per nom. and per Túrelio. Trusthworthy and reliable on both Commons and DE-WP. Green Giant (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support I am confident the candidate has the necessary trust and skills. @Krd: If you really want this burden, you shall have it; thanks for volunteering. -- Rillke(q?) 12:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Neutral sorry, but don't meet my criteria to become a cu (in the last 12 weeks Krd has only acted to block 3 accounts and protect 3 pages). I think we should give this right to highly active users like Túrelio, Yann, Denniss... Neutral for now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support I don't know him, only from some DR to give keep on clutter. So why not let him do other important things. -- Perhelion (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support: Trusted (a lot), while 7 CUs are just not a lot. Also, CUship is not really a big deal in my opinion.    FDMS  4    19:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support BTW, I don't wish to be a CU at this time (re. comments below). Yann (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support Absolutely -FASTILY 20:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support - has showed himself trustworthy on de.wp, which is among the best regulated projects that we have. I trust him completely. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support --Graphium 16:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support --Wdwd (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Oppose I want to make it clear this is not against Krd personally, however, I do not feel comfortable at the present time in supporting any further checkusers on this project, due to potential abuse of the tool as it relates directly to myself. Last year, I closed this RfCU in which editors from German Wikipedia, such as Marcus Cyron (talk · contribs), raised the issue of possible abuse, and unfortunately my case would bring it from hypothetical abuse (as was presented at the RfCU) to potentially real abuse. It has taken me some 12 months to even get a straight answer of whether a secret CU was done on this project. Now that I know that a CU was indeed run, the CU's refuse to give me any further information because, in the words of one CU, they only see disadvantages to this. There is obviously no community transparency amongst the CU group here on Commons in relation to usage of the CU tool, and I simply can not support the addition of any more CU's on this project whilst abuse of the tool sees our CU's circling the wagons around each other to protect against uncomfortable questions being answered. russavia (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A big concern; but more suitable for Commons talk:Checkusers as whether krd get elected or not makes no effect on this matter unless we remove all CUs. Jee 16:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fæ, I get an idea of the intention of your interrogation, but I don't think that there is a answer that satisfies you. I cannot give a qualified answer without knowing the facts, so you are safe to assume the worst and give yourself a chance to get positive surprised.
    But to at least give you a hint of my attitude, if I shall be approved as CU I probably will make myself a picture of this incident, but under no circumstances I will publicly comment on past cases which already have been closed.
    As said before, it is not my intention to change existing procedures. It may turn out, though, that procedures can be improved. But again, without insight it not possible to assess. I highly trust the current checkusers I know, but it shall never be forbidden to challenge rules if done openminded and in a civil manner. --Krd 17:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was clear by saying "which is below", that I was referencing a question that was generic. I agree, asking you to comment on a case you do not have access to would be illogical and I have no idea why you would want to be seen responding to straight forward questions with odd and tangential assumptions. --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support - Good candidate and we need more CU's. Natuur12 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support -Trusted, experienced, and willing to do the work.--KTo288 (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support -- It sounds like there is a clear need for more CUs. Liz (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support --High Contrast (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support -- Per the horde of others. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support Trusted. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support Known as a trustworthy and valuable contributor. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Krd, as an editor from German Wikipedia, could you possibly tell us how you see the role of a Checkuser on Commons, and how would you differentiate that role from how it is on German Wikipedia. At a past CU request nomination we saw that some German Wikipedians obviously see the role in a different light; perhaps @Marcus Cyron: would like to pipe in here at some point as well I am sure. russavia (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am offering to support the checkuser team under existing terms. It is not my intention to make up new rules, so it is also not my intention to transfer the rather strict dewiki checkuser rules to Commons.
The linked past RfCU shows some individual mistrust and general objections against checkuser rights. This is something I cannot reply, except that to my opinion a general review of policies is not really in scope of a RfR page. One is free to vote No, of course. --Krd 10:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Hi Krd, what would you say are the circumstances where you would be prepared to accept a CU case where there were allegations of sockpuppetry, but none of the identified accounts was currently blocked, and there was no evidence of deliberate misuse of multiple accounts, such as manipulating a consensus or block evasion? --Fæ (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice that you are still waiting for an answer as you already voted.
There are more types of misuse than the ones you named; one important at Commons, and at the same time the probably most different from Wikipedias, is uploading of copyvios from different accounts.
If there is no reasonable evidence at all, I think no query shall be done. The call if there is reasonable evidence is up discretion of the individual CU, though, as there may cases where not all evidence is public. --Krd 16:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To check your intention here, you would take on a CU case where no previous block existed for a contributor, nor specific warnings from an administrator, but there were files deleted as copyvios and had been uploaded by alleged alternative accounts (but not necessarily the user's declared account(s)). Is that a correct scenario? If not, please explain how this scenario does not fit with your reply above. --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I get your scenario right. A single inadvertent copyvio upload of a contributor in good standing obviously doesn't indicate a check, whereas obvious vandalismlike uploads from throw-away accounts possibly do. --Krd 17:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The scenario implies an allegation of multiple accounts, some of which have uploaded files deleted as copyvios. There is nothing in my scenario to say which accounts have created copyvios, nor does it include obvious vandals as that would be a quite different issue. If you need to qualify the scenario, please state these as logical branches, personally I see no reason to over-analyse this, the underpinning issue and the nature of my concern for CU decisions, should be obvious to anyone with CU powers. --Fæ (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are expecting an to be more specific than the questions, don't you? Well, it depends, but if you need a yes-or-no, please take it as Yes. --Krd 18:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Trijnstel: There are significantly more active user in this area, why exactly Krd. Why not Túrelio (for example)? --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Activity is one of the criteria I look at, but not the most important thing to me. Krd has proven to be a hardworking volunteer and I've seen how much he has done on OTRS. I'm confident that he will be an active checkuser as well. And unlike previous nominations from me, Krd came to me this time - for the other cases I approached people myself. To me this also proves that they are willing to help and thus willing to actually do stuff. The question why not Túrelio is simple: he doesn't want it. I've asked him multiple times and we can't force people. And Yann has been a CU years ago. So, activity alone is not on the top of my list; trustworthiness and skills are. Trijnsteltalk 12:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) What is the relation between "activeness" and CU? A CU must be trusted user as "he can see private data for a user." He should be free from disputes and able to act out of emotions. I don't know Krd; but never support saw his names at AN/U. I will never some most active users due to this matter. (No names now; but not talking about Túrelio. INC was a good example. You can see I contacted her several times even if we were on opposite side in many discussions. I don't think not many people here have that level of maturity.) Jee 12:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen him active in this area. "Yann has been a CU years" is not a valid reason. There are moor active and trusted users... --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, activity is not on the top of list. And Krd is trusted. Besides, eh, what's your point with this? What "game"? Trijnsteltalk 13:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) The above two comments are interesting. I think the nomination was flawed in this regard. The quote of 12,000 edits being used as evidence of being "very experienced" on Commons was a yellow flag to me. My general impression is that Krd's activity profile over the last year on Commons is not high compared to our other active administrators. Statistically, Krd is at 821/928 on my active users with more than 10,000 edits list and their contributions in the last 30 days are relatively low at 1,704 edits. It would be more convincing if there were a summary of Krd's relevant activity as an administrator on this project (rather than their history on other projects), highlighting a couple of difficult cases such as blocking abusive sockpuppetry, that would show of their skills and experience. --Fæ (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that he also has a bot running and doing useful work and that he frequently deletes copyvios (which is where you stumble across sockpuppets as well). Furthermore I think Krd can answer those questions better than I can so I'll leave it up to him now. Hope this helps. Trijnsteltalk 13:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting it, though Krdbot is also on my list, it makes relative few edits (for a bot) and appears limited to "Update Austrian Cultural Heritage Monuments", which would seem to have nothing to do with experience for CU though I have not spent time investigating any further than the bot's defined scope. --Fæ (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)I checked the link you provided and he is #17 there, which is not very bad. There are some alternatives like Rillke I know. Túrelio is also OK. But unless you can provide some genuine complaints against Krd, I can't see any issue. I will not vote as I don't know him. Jee 13:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The number, "17", is not very meaningful on its own. The table tells us that in the last 12 weeks Krd has only acted to block 3 accounts and protect 3 pages (a low activity level for an admin thinking of running for CU in the same period), the most significant number that created the ranking of 17 was their deletions. Experience at deleting images on Commons is not the same thing as experience with making decisions on sockpuppet accounts or other disruptive actions by users. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) And about Yann; he resigned several years ago as a CU (December 2009), and also lost access to OTRS due to inactivity back then (July 2008). The latter was recently activated again per my suggestion and if he wishes to become a CU again as well, be my guest. I wouldn't stop him. Trijnsteltalk 13:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems your "trusted" list contains only a few users. It is up to the community (and not you) to decide which user should become a cu. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's your interpretation, not mine, and it feels like an insult. I don't think I've ever said that I decide who becomes a CU. Trijnsteltalk 13:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pleas be a bit moor careful with calling other users comment insult. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steinsplitter, your edit summary "I don't like Trijnstels game" is insulting if you are a native English speaker. But I don't care it as I already know you are not. Jee 13:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) IMHO, you are going out of line. Nobody stopped you from making another nomination. Trijnstel long time history speaks itself how trusted her to guide the community here. Jee 13:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some contributors do not like identifying to WMF. This is the only reason Túrelio hasn't been nominated for CU, bureaucracy and OS, again, I think. There's more in the archives. Undoubtedly, such a long term contributor of good standing would also make a perfect candidate for all of these important roles. Túrelio, in case your ethos changed, don't forget let us know. -- Rillke(q?) 16:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Question I would like to ask an additional question, related to a CU case that surprised me. Krd, under precisely what circumstances would you not inform a contributor that their account had been subject to CU, or would you always inform the contributor? If there is a policy that relates to this, please link to it. --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

meta:CheckUser policy#Use of the tool: "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory." I doubt that it will be a lot helpful to inform a user about "Your IP/account popped up in a CU check, but it was unrelated to the disruptor we were actually looking for." Data found but not relevant for sanctions will be kept secret and unused, and I don't get how talking about it could help to keep it secret. --Krd 18:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Krd: If an editor were to come to you and ask you for information on whether they have been checkusered, would you to cede to the request, and what information would you give them? russavia (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Within already mentioned limits I can imagine that a reasonable question could usually at least result in a Yes or No, possibly also the reason and result, but there may of course be exceptions, e.g. if the answer could affect privacy of other users. --Krd 07:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Krd&oldid=125048355"