Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Raymond

 Support = 33;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral= 3 = 100% Will make the request on meta. abf /talk to me/ 13:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Raymond

Vote

Links for Raymond (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)

Raymond

Dear Community. Today we would like to suppose you Raymond (formerly Raymond_de; real name: Raimond Spekking) as a new oversighter. Raymond is one of the first commons-sysops (and a very good one) and he has got a ton of edits and Image uploads. He is sysop at german Wikisource, mediawiki.org and german Wikipedia and there he is also a 'crate. As a member of the OTRS team he has got the access of an OTRS-Admin. Raymond is a very accurately and friendly user. His native language is german, and because we have got lots of german users it would in our oppinion not be wrong to have a german oversighter. He is also able to speak nederlandsk and english. Raymond is also a MediaWiki-developer and so he is very firm in software issues and fixing bugs.

All in all Raymond is an exzellent candidate and abusage is not possible.

Ra'ike and ABF 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. Thanks :) --Raymond ^Disc. 13:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Little correction to the laudatio: to have a german oversighter means to have a german-language oversighter. Marcus Cyron 16:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Links

• RfA at Wikisource
• RfA at dewiki
• RfB at dewiki
• Commons RfA

Votes

Support

•  Support abf /talk to me/ 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ra'ike T C 13:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I don't know him, but his credentials look good, he's active on IRC, and I've seen two oversighters aren't enough at the moment. Majorly (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - One of only maybe ten Wikimedians, I trust completely. - Marcus Cyron 13:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support — Manecke 13:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support EugeneZelenko 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Still not entirely about whether there is actual need for Oversight on Commons, but it's good to have some margin above the minimum. And Raymond is an excellent user. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support per my comment on Herby and Lar's Rfo. I think that giving access to these tools to a broader group of users is a a good idea. Oversight is essentially a special type of deletion so I do not think that CU tools are required to do the job, but rather it is convenience to have both. This experienced and trusted user looks like a great choice for the job. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support gimme a second ... who else? Code·is·poetry 06:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Mønobi 22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• support DerHexer 13:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support of course, yes. --Petar Marjanovic 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --my name 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Meno25 09:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support. No problem with a few extra ones if they're trustworthy. Cowardly Lion 21:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support : Oxam Hartog 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Alpertron 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Always available. Cary Bass ^demandez 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support RedCoat 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Polarlys 15:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Jodo 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• --S^[1] 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - of course! - Alison ^❤ 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support —Dark ^(talk) 06:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Szczepan talk  21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Gnangarra 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Chaddy 19:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Achates 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ireas ^{talk•de•en} 15:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support —YourEyesOnly 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Herrick 07:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

•  Neutral Again, I still don't think we need oversights and if we do, two should be plenty. I don't know the guy, but he does indeed have the credentials. It seems the community has decided we need (more) oversights, so no reason to oppose. →Rocket°°° 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral - I probably sound paranoid and stupid (hence not opposing), but I'm concerned because I've never heard of this user before now. For mine, an Oversight would be highly active around Commons, particularly in administrative noticeboard areas. That's my opinion, and I don't see it here. Regretfully, giggy _(:O) 09:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral I personally haven't interacted with him on the project, and I generally cast a ballot to whom I am convinced to know to some extent, so now neutral. I only know his name as a regular voter to the Board elections. It might suggest he has paid attention to the Foundation matters for years and have a standpoint about relevant Wikimedia policies including Wikimedia:Privacy policy, but again, I am not voting to any user whom I don't know enough. Btw his past user name might be "Raymond_de" not "Raymod_de" iirc. --Aphaia 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  Btw: yes. "Raymond_de" is correct. Fixed it. Thanks. Raymond ^Disc. 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions

I looked at your de:wp Bürokrat kandidature page to see what people think of you recently. (your adminship here was in 2004, that was a long time ago and most of those users aren't active any more) I'm only de-1 so I didn't quite get the difference between "Contra Raymond" and "Ablehnung der Bürokratenwahl" One is "against you" and the other is "against the idea of having 'crats" is that it ??? Or is it something different? Also could you elaborate on why, specifically, a German and NL speaking oversighter is needed? Do we need one from each of the other major languages (fr, it, es, ja, zh, among others) represented here as well? I think that would be rather a lot of oversighters. But maybe we do indeed. Also, please comment on the notion that it is good/bad for an oversighter to also hold checkuser on the same wiki, I'm interested in your thinking there. Also what do you think on the logging question: Should we have an independent publicly viewable log of oversight actions (without any detail) so the community knows what is going on? ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Contra Raymond" means "against the person itself, the user:Raymond". "Ablehnung der Bürokratenwahl" means, they are against a third 'crat. It was a longish discussion in the German speaking community about the needs. Do the community needs more 'crats? 0, 1, 2, 3 or more 'crats? Which election modus etc etc etc...
• Commons is a multi language project. Our lingua franca is English but a lot of our contributors do not speak English (or very bad). I think it would be helpful for non English speaking contributors if they could contact an oversighter in their own language, at least for some more big languages.
• Another point is that I am not able to read non-latin script languages. Who could decide if a sentence in e.g. Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic contains any non-public personal information which should by oversighted in compliance with the oversight policy?
• Checkuser rights are not necessary for oversight. Maybe there are cases where useful but I cannot think on any at the moment ...
• A public log for oversight actions (without any detail) should be written by any oversighter. I think it is important for the transparency to show the Commons community what is going on. Btw hopefully we will get the new oversight software in the next months. It is ready and in an own MediaWiki branch, waiting to be merged with MediaWiki trunk. The new version will give a lot more transparency incl. automatically written logs. Raymond ^Disc. 06:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, very helpful. One takeaway... you seem to favour having quite a few more oversighters, to cover other languages, and especially to cover languages such as Arabic, Hindi, Tamil. Chinese, Korean, Slavic languages, and so forth that don't use latin script (maybe the community should make Kylu an Oversighter, she can read anything, or so it seems!). I think some considerable discussion is needed on that, since as long as someone trusted could read it, it could then be oversighted by someone that can't read it, but I think your point has merit, it should not be dismissed out of hand. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)