Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Martin H.

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Martin H.

 Support = 37;  Oppose = 2;  Neutral = 0 - 94.9% Result - There are at least 25 supports and the percentage is over 80. Martin H passes the requirement for a successful CU request at Commons. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This request will remain open a minimum of two weeks from 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) (the acceptance time) or at minimum 12:36, 02 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: In accordance with the above, and given that there are now sufficient votes to pass, my plan is that this will remain open till 12:36, 05 September 2009 (UTC) (about 24 hours from this writing) at which point further votes will be discounted and the request closed and evaluated. If there is an issue with that approach please bring it to the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note closed effectively as of 12:36 09 September 2009 (UTC) ... I will make the request at Meta. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now that Mike.lifegaurd has dropped CU rights here Commons does need at least one more Checkuser. Commons is a "hub" project and so gets used for disruption that takes place on other wikis. So, in addition to Commons checks, there are checks to be made because of postings to the CU list for example. Our current Checkusers are not really active on a daily basis mostly & so I was looking for active Commons admins who deal with disruption for this role. Martin H. fits this very well & has asked me to check puppet accounts (ones he has spotted) in the past. He is a hard working Commons admin with more than enough experience for this. He has my trust & I hope the community will support this nomination. --Herby talk thyme 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1. As nominator & with thanks for being prepared to help --Herby talk thyme 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose I regret for this opposition. I even nominated Martin for adminship, but I don't think Martin has what it takes to be a CU, IMO. Kanonkas (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support. As what I've seen from Martin, I've no reason for doubt. Thanks for the willingness to shoulder this task. --Túrelio (talk)
  4.  Support - I don't know this users really well I think we both work on different sides of Commons, but he seems to be very active (top 3 for the last three months second place) so that is good, and I trust Herby and I am sure he will only nom a good candidate and if you're good enough for Herby your will be good enough for me to. Huib talk 15:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Herbysupport - If Herby's trusting enough of Martin's skills, attitude, and willingness to work to nominate him, that's good enough for me. Herby has my complete and unconditional trust, which is something I give to very few WMF users. ++Lar: t/c 17:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support - What Huib and Lar said... --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support per nom. Rocket000 (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support per nom. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support --Foroa (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support As person who saw deleted many suspicious images tagged by Martin from Category:Unknown. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support --Eusebius (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support - not perfect, and perhaps not even my first choice, however still a Very Excellent Choice. He's active, involved in CU-related areas and seems to have the technical knowledge to do the job. Thank you for offering to deal with this area.  — Mike.lifeguard | @meta 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support Per others, and the apparent need for another. Since no objections have been raised, I support. Majorly talk 22:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support - No red flags here. We can always use more hands. Tiptoety talk 06:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support - per nom. — df|  07:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 21:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Neutral Kwj2772 (msg) 15:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)  Support Hardworking administrator, so I can trust him. Kwj2772 (msg) 11:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support Martin H. is perfectly qualified. Bastique demandez 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Oppose Too much obssessed with copyright violations, I wouldn't trust him the checkuser bit as well. Sv1xv (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support Too much obssessed with copyright violations :). And per other comments, like Bastique's. Rama (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support (though I generally don't vote on this type of question, but it shouldn't fail based on the number) -- User:Docu at 03:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support How could I overlook this RFCU so long. --Slaunger (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support per nomination --Nillerdk (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support absolutely--High Contrast (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support per Herby, and Rama too. --SB_Johnny talk 19:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support. I can see no red flags. A bonus point is that trusted users such as Lar, Bastique, Herby and Mike.lifeguard see no problems either. Smalljim (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  Support per nom. Only positive association with this username. --Dschwen (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31.  Support Chaddy (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32.  Support --D-Kuru (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33.  Support per nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34.  Support - I think that Abigor (talk · contribs) said it pretty well, above. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35.  Support, very good candidate. –Tryphon☂ 10:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  Support per nom. Thanks for volunteering! Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37.  Support good work so far. feydey (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38.  Support Per all above --Mardetanha talk 23:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39.  Support Agreed with Huib above. odder (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'd be interested to hear why Kanonkas holds the opinion he stated.  — Mike.lifeguard | @meta 14:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have 7 checkusers right now. (see the list at the top of Commons:Checkusers)... three (<- Herby's strike!) four (<- my strike!) three of us are Stewards as well. Looking over the last 500 requests, Herby has done more than anyone else, by a wide margin. We don't necessarily NEED more CUs, but if we pick more CUs it would be good if they were able to be active, so Herby doesn't shoulder so much of the load. (and I include myself in that "critique" since I had less than 30 of those) Our frequency is not huge (5000 requests takes us back to April 2007) but it IS significant (5000 requests takes us back to April 2007 ;) ) ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully we do need more CUs. You Larry are somewhat active here as is Yann however the others really are not. I have more than enough to do & I have served in this role for longer than I intended. The community should have other people available for this task. They must be active & concerned with dealing with disruption though & there are not many admins that are like that - Martin is one of them. --Herby talk thyme 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure which Special:Checkuser/Log Lar is looking at, but it should be abundantly clear to anyone who can see it that most of our checkusers just have it noted beside there name here but aren't actual checkusers. Commons does need more manpower on that front.  — Mike.lifeguard | @meta 19:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last week I wouldn't have agreed with you. This week... Herby has just resigned. That leaves rather a big hole, the rest of us need to step up our activity quite a bit I think. Even if Martin gets confirmed. Right now he doesn't have the necessary votes to meet the minimum threshold. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Would you also check established users or even admins? If so, under which circumstances would you do this? --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - Martin is welcome to comment from a personal perspective however I'd like to comment from a policy/practice perspective.
  • Any check must be able to be justified to the Ombudsman on reasonable grounds
  • I see no issues with checking anyone blocked as "abusing multiple accounts" in the block log & will often do so.
  • I see no issues with checking anyone blocked for vandalism where it is cross wiki pattern vandalism (grawp/goatse being obvious example).
  • I see no issues with checking when I find the same image has been uploaded by two "different" users & deleted as copyvio etc (a strange number of people seem to think that is a way around the system).
  • IPs/Users posted to the CU list as disruptive elsewhere.
Those represent virtually all the checks here. Puppetry by users per se is rare. There has been the odd one on FP etc voting but they are usually dealt with easily.
On the topic of checking admins please bear in mind that admins are nothing special - they are just users with some more buttons. However I would expect to consult fellow CUs if any check might look controversial and only carry out the check with consensus.
I would add that in more than two years of the rights at one stage on three projects I do not recall checking any admins. I hope that helps but the community are right to ask such questions & any more are welcome. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admire that I needed some time to think about the question because, as now Herby already pointed out, it depends on the kind of disruption. The area for disruption on Commons is smaller then in other wikis, I consider copyright violation, disruptive edits against an already found consensus and sockpuppetry in voting like COM:FP. The third case is rare and difficult as I read in various talk archives.
With a valid reason a check is justified, in most areas of feasible disruption a reason or proof depends on previous contributions of the related user. Of course it is easier to understand an established users reason for possible sock puppetry and to have this reason discussed and solved rather than running a check or taking any further action and finally lose the contributor. In cases where discussion not leads to stop the disruption and evidence of socking is still given, where discussion is not possible or in cases of obvious evasion I would not make a difference between Users. --Martin H. (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sound good. Thanks for the answers, Herby and Martin. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To provide another/more perspective:
  1. I have checked an admin once due to specific concerns; no wrongdoing discovered.
  2. I've had admins and bureaucrats appear in results when looking for something unrelated; no wrongdoing discovered. This normally happens on wikis where the community largely edits from a small geographical range or from a single ISP (as happens more often on small wikis - this is generally during checks run as a steward, though I have seen admins pop up on Commons once or twice)
  3. I've checked an admin account in relation to a compromised account; no wrongdoing on the part of the admin was discovered.
This is simply to show that it can and does happen that a CU needs to check an admin account (or other established community members) and that such accounts can appear while looking for something unrelated. For any check (as Herby says), a valid reason is needed per CU policy, and the results are confidential per CU and privacy policies. In general, I would presume checking an admin explicitly (rather than seeing an admin in the results in the course of looking for something else) would be reason to consult with fellow CUs ahead of time (& I'm confident Martin would do so), barring exceptional circumstances.  — Mike.lifeguard | @meta 23:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, we are in desperate need of more CheckUsers. Most of you are probably aware two of our most-active CUs recently drop their rights (Herby and Mike.lifeguard). This is likely to be closed at anytime since it's already past the two weeks mark. It's going to be closed as unsuccessful because we didn't get the minimum amount of votes. Normally, I would pass that off as a simple lack of support (and opposition), i.e. implied neutral votes. However, during the last couple weeks, all requests have see very little action. So I don't think it has that much to do with the candidate. It's possible, since it's hard to imagine that we could have such a sharp decline after Kanonkas' RfB, but even before that I noticed a slight decrease in the number of votes requests were getting. It really sucks that we can't even manage 25 votes, one way or another. Leaving it open a couple more days might help, but I doubt it. We need to think about what we're going to do. 25 is the minimum per Meta's policy, it's not going to change. 2 weeks pretty much gives everyone a chance to vote who wants to, so extending that probably won't help. What should we do? Rocket000 (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Especially given a voting policy on Commons without any requirements regarding editnumber or activity the participation is insufficient. I understand votings on Commons rather as inputs for the judging Bureaucrats than votings, as said above maybe some people are against this candidature for diffuse reasons or feelings but they were unable to express this in a well-founded vote and therefore they abstained from voting. A soon closure is the fairest way. I'm ready to take this job and I have the time to do this, but it's nothing I would miss. --Martin H. (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defacto there is a requirement for some participation at Commons for your views to be given full credence (see Commons:Checkusers/Requests/SB Johnny and Commons:Checkusers/Requests/SB Johnny/Bureaucrats discussion in which votes by contributors with less than 10 contributions before the vote started were discounted). But I agree, it's a bit disconcerting that we haven't had sufficient participation despite publicity and requests. Even if people said "I abstain because I don't know Martin H." that would be a sign of participation (although it wouldn't count toward passage) ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth when I started on Wikibooks some three years ago there was an RfCU that had been open for 6 months.... Obviously that is daft but - personally - I see no harm in leaving it a bit.
This is probably the one case when numbering votes might make people realise that it is not just a foregone conclusion.
I note there is no header on this or the main CU page pointing out to people that 25 votes is the minimum per policy (there is no timescale defined in that policy IIRC). --Herby talk thyme 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though Martin is a German-speaker, this request was never announced on Commons:Forum, the German-language village pump - being a German-speaker myself, I didn't want to do it to avoid any suspicion/impression of canvassing. Would a neutrally worded announcement at this time be o.k. for the others? --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely sensible to me. We really ought to consider the other languages when such a notification is made - mea culpa --Herby talk thyme 14:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE do so, as soon as possible. There is a discussion ongoing among crats about when/if to close this. As it stands right now it would be a fail for lack of votes. 2 weeks is a minimum to allow opposition to come out, but it doesn't HAVE to be a max (we're already over) on the other hand if we extend we should do so to some definite deadline not just close the second there are 25 votes that's not fair either. Maybe take this to the talk page as it's procedural. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this be closed 12:00 UTC on September 5. Assuming there are no objections, just do that. --SB_Johnny talk 20:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged for 12:13 UTC on September 5 since that's a round number (of days since the acceptance). ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a notice was placed on another VP yesterday, I wouldn't close it just two days later. Unless there is some urgency, a week seems more reasonable. -- User:Docu at 23:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(<- outdent) (throws up hands) Clearly some extension was needed. How much is not clear. I leave it to my fellow 'crats to decide, I guess. I guess my next suggestion would be exactly 3 weeks from the start instead of 2, nice round number. We have sufficient votes now to make th election legit but as you say Docu, we did not do a good job of notifying communities in a timely fashion. I think we need to fix that. I think some work on a generic template that could be put on all the various language VPs would be goodness... any takers? ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An intermediate solution might be to group adm/cu/br requests together. As in this case it was just to reach a quorum for a debate in an infrequently used channel and couldn't be perceived as window dressing around a request for a not very active user around votes by non-user accounts, the time of the extension doesn't matter that much. However, it's not ideal to ask for input and then tell people that the request is already closed. -- User:Docu at 19:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are already grouped at Commons:Requests and votes, but this page is only little known. --Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I've reimbedded the various other request pages at COM:A. But I am talking about a notification template to be posted to the various VPs, in multiple languages, to be used whenever anyone stands for anything other than admin. ++Lar: t/c 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin: maybe it should be visible on that view only, compare e.g.
RFAs are visible on all three. I know the measure is approximate, but I think that it confirms your impression.
@Lar: for some questions, I think it's a good thing to add it to VP. However if you add this type of request to every VP, you may still have VPs in some languages where you will have just a list of 10 such notices .. -- User:Docu at 21:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC), 21:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. But I'm thinking that the alternative of not notifying (the top 20? langs) is worse than the alternative of a page with nothing but notifications. I bet a bot could be written to do this by someone clever. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


 Question I would like to ask you a real life question please. Could you please read this post and tell me, if INYO CU was appropriated in that particular situation. If "yes" why yes, what will be the reason according to CU policy, if "no" why not? If you require any additional information to respond my question, I will gladly provide you with everything you need. May I please ask you while responding my question try to pretend that you do not know the end result (I mean my admission) yet? May I please also ask you to ignore my question, if you believe it is off the course of your nomination for CU? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read COM:AN shortly after Maedins posting. From his wording the right to vanish/leave I already knew all backgrounds without checking anyones contribs - your appeal WP:RETIRE was my first contact with this guideline and I remember it. I started to prepare an answer and found that Maedin gives his own answer already. In the meantime Huib answered the question satisfyingly. Everyone has the right to retire, everyone can come back, no one is forced to disclose his/her identity no matter the identity is real or virtual. As long as a second account is not used disruptive there is no reason for a CU, Maedin already said this in his initial post and so it is written in COM:RFCU. --Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, thank you so very much for answering my question! --Mbz1 (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Martin_H.&oldid=28478879"