Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Avraham

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for oversighter.
 Support = 26;  Oppose = 2;  Neutral = 1 - 93%
Closed as successful by — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // at 12:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham

Vote

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

Note: Ends no sooner than 04:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There was yet another emergency OS request tonight, and there were no native commons oversighters around. I was the first respondent, but the commons is unquestionably a home wiki for me, and so I have been loathe to act as a steward if I could find someone less commons-involved than I am to act. We did get a steward to eventually oversight the information, but it leads me to believe that the commons would be better served with more available people for OS (and CU for that matter). I am relatively active in the commons, and I am rather active in the oversight and cross-wiki vandalism (that often need hiding) arenas, and I think that while I may not always be the most available person on the commons team, my availability would allow me to add to the smooth working of the commons by volunteering my time to perform native oversight. Thank you for your consideration. Avi (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.  Support This user is already a steward, but he's active here. We need less emergency actions because of inactive Oversighters. Techman224Talk 04:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support - Evidently we need more. Seems like a fine choice. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support - While I have no issues with Avi, and know he is well versed in the use of these tools (hence the support), I do not agree that the need for more oversighters is really that great. I can attest to the fact that there have been whole months when there was never a single request for OS action, and we easily go weeks without performing one. Additionally, in this specific case the OS-mailing list was never used. I know that had an email been sent I would have been able to respond within minutes. Tiptoety talk 04:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One could deduct from the last part of your comment that Avraham doesn't know about the usual channel for such requests at Commons. --  Docu  at 05:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That would have to be a question for Avi. Tiptoety talk 05:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I do; I've used the list before. Sometimes the reply is measured in minutes, other times in days (although that may have been before Tip came aboard -- he is a machine). This information was sitting out there on the Commons and needed OS relatively quickly. Tip's ID in IRC was set to "|away", which implied he was unavailable for e-mail as well. I did not know he can OS through his phone, which he told me later he was carrying and can use when offline. The most I've done was flip an admin bit over a blackberry, I've never CUd or OSed when not in front of a PC. I guess I'm getting old 8-) -- Avi (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you use primarily IRC?  Docu  at 05:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said I do? On EnWiki, the primary OS notification system is the OTRS list (which took over for the wikimedia-hosted list). I presume that the mailing list would be primary here too. However, the only way I know about requests for commons oversights is through people asking in IRC, as I am not a member of the commons OS mailing list. This was not the first or second time that I have happened to be in IRC when a commons req comes through and there were no available OSers in IRC. As OS, as opposed to CU, is usually more time-sensitive, I tried to help the pinging user as best I could. However, out of respect for both the commons and the steward handbook, I felt it incumbent on me to find a less-active steward than I, which takes time. If I was a native OS here that would not have happened. -- Avi (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an emergency, it's an emergency. spend 2 minutes looking for another steward maybe, but then act. Please. Maybe we should invite stewards to the oversight-commons mailing list? ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is an actual emergency, then yes, of course. I do not want to be that guy, but I do not feel this specific case was anything near an emergency. As for inviting Stewards, I am indifferent. Tiptoety talk 16:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support - More help in this area definitelly would not hurt and I think Avraham is trusted enough to take this responsability. --Dferg (talk · meta) 12:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support --Foroa (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support --Martin H. (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support I missed this request earlier. Avi's a fine candidate. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support-Andrew c (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support - Avi! Avi! Avi! Oi! Oi! Oi! —Dark talk 12:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support Good user. --Diego Grez return fire 18:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support although a job collector. :-P —DerHexer (Talk) 01:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support Absolutely. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support We need the help and Avi is trustworthy and responsible. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 02:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Strong support He's an admin on two other projects and a steward on meta, as well as a bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversighter on EnWiki. Do we really even need an RfA for this? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, per the oversight policy and requirements. ++Lar: t/c 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support – Avi is one of the most solid and respected users across all wikis. I see no reason for anyone to oppose this. I never buy the "we don't need any more admin/crat/os/cu" argument. Quite the contrary, we always need more. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support An active capable oversighter on en.wiki. Fred Bauder (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Oppose Seems to misunderstand current Commons' OS process and emergency of requests. While not an inactive administrator compared to many others, he doesn't strike me as particularly active on Commons.  Docu  at 07:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Oppose - Oversight is between Checkuser the most crittical position a user can have in a Wikimedia-project. Actually we have 4 here - in my opinion one too much. We don't need one more with these critical rights. Only if one of the others lose his rights I could vote for a new Oversighter. Only one critical situation is also not a good cause for these electeion. Third problem: Commons is a multi-language project. With Avraham there would be 3 of 5 native english-language speaker. But not one of an other scription-system like kyrillic, japanese, chinese etc. I don't think, that our project work this way. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support – Definitely good choice. Geagea (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support – No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Neutral Making my own neutral vote ununspoken. ;) I have nothing against Avi, I'm just not sure we need more OS. I think we should only give people these rights when absolutely necessary and I don't think we're in that situation right now. Rocket000 (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support Very good admin who's able to handle what it needs for oversight. But I can indeed only second the question of need for oversighters. Especially now with RevisionDelete available to all admins and the generally high number of oversighters, one might indeed wonder what's the sense of adding more oversighters. But I feel that it's always better to have some inactive oversighters too much rather than too few. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support per Techman224. Avraham knows what he's doing and for a time-critical job such as oversight it's always good to have more active people available. Jafeluv (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support per everyone else. NW (Talk) 16:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support - Avraham has my full confidence and support. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support, well-known and trusted; no issues. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support Trusted and experienced user on Commons and crosswiki who will be a benefit to Commons in this role. Thanks for volunteering to do more work. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support no issues fr33kman -s- 02:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  Comment We are close to the end and significantly short of the minumum number of votes. Has this request been sufficiently publicised? Is it in the message of the day? ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest getting it added to the banner that there is an oversighter election under way. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have never used the banner before to announce a XfA. There may just be a lot of unspoken neutral votes. Rocket000 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's just that it would be disappointing to not have a quorum respond. -- Avi (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've posted to the AN to hopefully achieve a wider range of participation. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know. I have no problem with advertising it on noticeboards and village pumps, I just think using the site banner would be overkill and could set a bad precedent (or if it didn't, would be kinda unfair). We can ever leave this open a bit longer if the 'crats think it would help. Rocket000 (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It looks like that won't be necessary, we've hit the 25 votes with 80% support threshold. But in general I would not be averse to something being in the site notice for any OV, CU or 'crat election as they are relatively rare and deserving of wide participation. We can set that precedent if we wish as long as we always do it from now on. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Lar, the requirements on the Commons are 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote, so while we now have a quorum responding, unless two more supports come in, the quorum result is that the commons does not want me as another oversighter at this time, which I respect. -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment To those that are questioning whether we need more oversighters... I think we probably do. I can see a time in the not too distant future when I am going to step away from it, and I would not be surprised if Rama or Raymond didn't feel the same way... That's not a definite prediction nor is it any attempt to put words in their mouths but if we ever dropped below two we are in a bad spot as we must always have at least 2, or none. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I we need in future new OS we can elect them then. There's nor cause for doing it before there's a need for them. When you think, you won't do it longer, please give the position away. Anyway, I can't understand, how an Ombudsman can be an OS or CU in one of the WMF projects. This is unbeleavable. It's unbeleavable, that some people sem to live here for collecting jobs. It's hard for me to trust the system, if I see this. Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping below the threshold needed to give good coverage 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks is not good. We need to plan ahead so that no one has to wait too long to have their oversight request answered. Also volunteers need to have time off regularly to avoid burnout from this type of work. So we need to over staff in these roles to have adequate coverage. For this reason, I support this request for the OS tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I supported this request since Avi is a well qualified candidate and there is a need. But as I've stated in previous requests that I supported (Lar, and Herby's to name two) I hope that in the future we can recruit a more diverse group of people for these volunteer jobs on Commons. We are regularly getting more admins from a large number of wikis so this should not be an issue. Being a multi-lingual project, I think we need to encourage more participation from users with broad language skills from a broader group of Projects than our current active OS have. And more females, too. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Avraham&oldid=43852773"