Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 1

Proposal

To inaugurate our new board I have a proposal to make RfA/RfB and other votings more visible on Commons. On German Wikipedia we have a little announcements-template on the authors portal (see "Aktuelles"). As is visible from "Links to this page" it is included on many important pages and also user-pages so that people notice all the currently active stuff which they should/could vote for. Maybe we should introduce something like that (very general so that it does not need translation) to pages like the Help desk, Forum, Village pump. Maybe this would help getting more active Commons users, which would help lessen the influence(?) of us and also the influence of 'invited' people from other projects. Maxims last comment at Kanonkas RfB caused me feeling that he wants us to be banned from voting (suddenly I really feel special, not being allowed to voice my opinon anymore). -- Cecil (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the RfX pages are getting enough attention as it is. I don't think we should be giving the process more attention than it has now. This is my personal opinion. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/H-stt

Well, anybody willing to close this one? I guess we have clear consensus here. →Na·gy 09:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-write of Commons:Changing username

Dear fellow 'crats,
I have boldly replaced the text of this page with something more structured and easier for users to follow. As far as I can, I have stuck to existing procedures, some of which have not previously been written down. The only innovation is to set a 7 day period after which the request will be archived as not done if the user fails to respond to a query. Please feel free to edit/correct any mistakes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin rights

Hi, I resigned in December last year and wish for my rights to be restored, as I intend to be more active here. Thanks, Majorly ^talk 20:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done, welcome back! Patrícia ^msg 20:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I need help here: Commons:Changing username/Current requests. FlaviaC (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Patrícia ^msg 09:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin rights, too

Hi, I resigned a year ago due to me going on a wikibreak, as I'm back now, restoring my admin right would be great :) thanks! — Timichal 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, welcome back! Patrícia ^msg 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-write of Bureaucrats page

I have made a proposal at Commons talk:Bureaucrats/Proposed. Please comment on the talk page there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I really like this... maybe we could move this from proposed to mainstream? ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

COM:HD#Need Help With Problem With Getting Replacement Password.

User is requesting new password, email probably not enabled in preferences but email written on userpage User:Cristellaria. --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a bureaucrat can do anything here. They can't edit another user's preferences to add/active the user's e-mail, nor can they reactive an account. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, as AFBorchert has already commented on that section, the only people who could help him would be developers, it requires access to the database. And developers only do these things in very special cases. Patrícia ^msg 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot assistance for Wikimedia Hungary's picture competition

Dear Bureaucrats!

Wikimédia Magyarország, the WMF chapter in Hungary, is planning to open its Picture Competition into its assessment phase. During the community voting User:Asgardbot would be tasked to tally the votes on the 5 category pages every 15 minutes (about 20 edits per hour to our assessment pages in the Commons namespace). We were wondering whether the operation of the bot (operated by a trusted bot operator on hu.wiki) would need a bot flag to perform this activity for our chapter or he can proceed for this task without a flag. In the first case, I hereby ask permission for the bot to run and receive the flag so that our chapter's competition can be conducted in an orderly fashion without unnecessary surprises. If you deem a bot flag necessary, we will make the appropriate request at the bot requests page, but we would ask for expedited handling, as the voting should begin on Wednesday.

Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Thank you,

--Bence Damokos (Board member for International relations, Wikimedia Hungary) Dami (talk)

Please add request on Commons:Bots/Requests and make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Name of the bot is AsgardBot (talk · contribs), not Asgardbot. Samat (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The bot was tested and run earlier in the Hungarian Wikipedia in a similar competition; we will make the necessary adjustments for bi/multilinguality, test it, and report it on the requests' page. Thank you, --Dami (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The request has now been made on the bot requests' page. --Dami (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow bureaucrats to revoke user rights

Hi everyone, current events (desysop of Dcoetzee by Lar) made me rethink something I had wanted to propose for a long time: Bureaucrats should be allowed to remove user rights, like they are able to grant them. I understand (and fully support) that user rights changes should normally only be done by community consensus following a vote or similar, but there are cases where immediate rights changes are neccessary. However, the only people with the ability to remove user rights are stewards and those should normally not be active on the wiki where they change the rights, making it very hard for a non-involved steward to correctly and fully understand the situation and its implications (which is why they usually require a link to community consensus before changing user rights). The call should be made by people who have been trusted with such power by the community of the wiki they are working on and I think the bureaucrats user group would be the ideal group of people to do this job. Please don't misunderstand: This is not to be a heavily used feature to allow bureaucrats to desysop randomly, but is only to be used in emergencies where immediate action is required. All other user rights changes should be backed up by community consensus, just like they are now. I'm inclined to start a discussion about this on the VP, just wanted to hear your opinion first and whether you would agree to take this task. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posted to COM:AN, please reply there. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA closure

Well, anyone willing to close this one? There's pretty clear consensus to promote :) →Nagy 09:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cecil has closed the request. — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 13:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) is a sock

Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) is a sock of Wapondaponda (talk · contribs) evidence 1. They are convicted sock puppets on English Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AWapondaponda 2. They uploaded the exact same map with the same name http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Haplogroup_E.png on commons 3. He has confessed to being a sock http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wapondaponda.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

This is the bureaucrat noticeboard, I think your message on the COM:AN and the message I forwarded to a checkuser will do enough ;-)

Best regards,

Huib talk 11:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Kanonkas

Hi dear crats,

I think its time to close this one, its been waiting for closure for almost 48 hours now :)

Best regards,

Huib talk 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list

A bugzilla request has been sent (bugzilla:20486). Please comment here to give your views about this matter. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

List created. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a malfunction in the configuration? I just tested and I can subscribe myself to the list and I'm not a bureaucrat (Last time I checked)

I would suggest to disable subscibing and let only the listadmin add people to the list, and give a note of that on the mainpage.

I guess you will handle a lot of people trying to add them to this list this way.

Best regards,

Huib talk 12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My views are as follows: why was the community not informed (if they were, I never saw it), and why is a mailing list needed? Bureaucrat issues should take place on the wiki, not elsewhere. Majorly talk 14:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Some things require off-wiki discussion. That's really not a debatable point. There have been and will continue to be off-wiki discussions, making a list means we don't inadvertantly omit folks. I'm not sure who the admins are, but make me one and I'll get the visibility and permissions sorted out if desired, I've done it enough times before. I have no interest in long term list adminship though. Gave all of mine up a while back. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Granting people adminship without Community consensus.

Hello,

Our new crat granted here a user adminship with only 3 votes in favour, our policy always told that there is a need to get 4 votes in favour and so this request would be unsuccessful, or be extended.

I contacted Kanonkas about this on IRC and he is saying he will nog desysop it and will give some explanetion on the way, but a bureacrat isn't above a policies so this should get fixed asap.

Kanonkas is hiding behind this edit while moving our policies and info on some other pages the line of the 4 votes got lost, but since it is a policy and there has been no consensus to remove it the 4 votes still count.

I'm sure people make mistakes, no problem with that but this user shouldn't have been granted adminship and Kanonkas isn't trying to resolve this or making a request on meta to fix this, he is just saying that he is starting a discussion with the crats on this, but this adminship should be removed untill it is fixed not the other way around.

Best regards, Huib talk 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you come up with the conclusion "a bureacrat isn't above a policies"? That's right, but nonetheless, did I really go above any policies? I do think you should reconsider your approach on this matter. I consider hasty actions on such matters to not be a good idea. Plus, I have replied to you on my talk page about this matter. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes you placed yourself above the policies on this matter by saying that a exdental removal of something.. (it was moved to Commons:Administrators/Howto) makes our policy old. So you decide that our policy isn't working anymore and our policy has been changed without consensus. Huib talk 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Going forward a bit more cross checking in marginal situations probably is helpful. Let's treat this as an honest mistake because policy is pretty clear that we need 4 supports at a minimum. Let's ask at Meta to have the bit turned off, or if we are comfortable, ask Alperton just not to do anything for now, and lets reopen and extend the RfA to seek a clearer consensus on whether Alperton should be an admin. Any objections? (if there's a discussion of this elsewhere please point to it) ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I will place our requirement right back on the administrator policie page, and I would agree that this rfa could be extended for a week, its pretty clear that he will make it since Herby will support on a extended rfa and I would support also, but I would suggest to turn of the adminbit and re-oping it, so it is clear in the log when his adminship started.

There has been a discussion on IRC also, but that doesn't seem to solve this enough. Huib talk 18:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why bother? He's already said he won't use them until the issue is resolved. Removing the rights simply so they can be granted again seems pointless to me. Incidentally, this whole incident has been blown too far out of proportion. Despite my personal opinion that this number requirement is unnecessary, the issue could've stayed at one venue (the bureaucrat's talk page or BN). It was hardly abuse, or deliberately against community consensus, so let's not go starting too many threads about this rather small issue. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree no need for a trip to Meta if Alperton will just state intent not to use them, best said on the RfA itself I think. Someone needs to undo the close and retransclude it. I'd prefer K do it but I will, if it's not done before I have to leave for the airport in 3 hours... Also, let's not squabble about where to squabble. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Peter but I think it is a very very very big thing when one crat decides that we don't longer have a 4 votes or 75% support policy because the page doesn't say it anymore because it is moved to a other page, a page that isn't marked as policy.

I have tryed to talk in a pm first, got ignored on IRC i get the message that it isn't a policy anymore so one crat decides that our policy is changed, and that makes it a big deal for me, I would have preferd a easy way without a talkpage and cratpage message, but that didn't seemed possible. Huib talk 18:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's policy, and if it's not marked as such, we need to make sure it clearly is, or whatever it takes. (although I think it's sorted now) But more importantly, let's not harp on this too much, it was a mistake, and bringing it up was the right thing to do, Kanonkas hopefully has learned a lesson and will in future consult more closely with other crats if there is any chance that what he is contemplating is likely to be controversial. But what's done is done, and it's fixed now and it all looks like it will work out. Everyone please mellow out. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd think a minimum 4 votes (we vote? I thought we discussed and came to a consensus!) is a bit archaic - while the community considers the subject, please consider whether Commons is still a small wiki or not, and whether that tidbit is still needed - perhaps something in the double-digits makes more sense these days?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. It should be like 10, but the way we've been voting lately, it wouldn't make much sense to raise it that much. I'm not sure what deal is with others, but I know I haven't been voting as much as normal because many of the recent requests I have not felt strongly about either way. I don't vote when I don't see anything that makes me want to support (some say that no reason to oppose = support, but that's not how most people vote, something usually motivates them). And yes, we vote, but as a clear way of showing where the consensus lies rather than comments by themselves. It's a vote, but not a simple majority vote (although every RfA that pass better have more than just the majority, 51% should never pass). Rocket000 (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Community consensus is not determined by numbers alone. Unanimous support with valid arguments should be enough to promote, regardless of the number of votes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Three people does not a consensus make. Not at a wiki as large as this one, with close on to 300 admins, 5M images, thousands of edits a day, etc. If a proposal is put forward to raise the threshold from 4, I will support it, because 4 is also too low, but at least it is not 3. ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If no-one has raised any objections, then what's the issue? We have plenty of people stalking RfA; surely the lack of opposes indicates that the user is sufficiently trustworthy to be promoted. Adminship should not be a bigger deal than it needs to be. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because for some people (like me), not supporting is a less discouraging alternative to adding a vague "need more experience"/"give me a reason to support" type of oppose. Passive opposition is a less personal and less bureaucratic way of doing it. I feel that if you don't have anything useful to say (like, to the candidate, how to improve, or, to fellow voters, why to support/oppose), then don't say anything. Yes, sometimes, "per someone" type of votes are necessary to let others know you agree (i.e. help build consensus and show that it exists), but sometimes a lack of people commenting/voting is exactly the message that's appropriate. It's the same as when people propose major changes to the site. If there's little interest in it, it shouldn't be done. Only when it looks like some people want it is when the opposers start speaking out. Otherwise, it's unnecessary. surely the lack of opposes indicates that the user is sufficiently trustworthy to be promoted I kinda see it the other way. A lack of supports indicates that the user is not sufficiently trustworthy to be promoted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Julian, please think long and hard about this. Rocket, if you want to propose raising from 4, please do. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Huib that it was a mistake to make Alpertron an admin with only 3 supports. That is simply not enough it should be more (10?) and I'm happy the request was reopend. That way we will avoid endless discussions about this matter.

I do not care if the rights has been removed or not. Personally I trust Alpertron will not do any actions until the matter is solved. So no matter what I'm happy.

Kanonkas got a hard debut but what does not kill you makes you stronger. So I hope and trust that Kanonkas will continue to do a good work. --MGA73 (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Huib that this was clear mistake from Kanonkas side. I think will be good idea if Kanonkas will beg a pardon for this action.

As for Alpertron, I agree with suggestion to extend voting time while Alpertron will not use administrative tools.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Eugene (not for the first time!). Equally some higher level of support at RfA seems very sensible indeed (10 sounds perfectly good to me). I also think a significant number of the supports should come from people who actually use Commons but that is another matter (: --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think 10 is only a good idea if bureaucrats are allowed to extend RfAs to allow more people to vote. Closing an RfA with 3 supports as "fail" doesn't sit well with me at all. And I use Commons a lot, though I don't edit it an awful lot. Usage != edits. Majorly talk 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Majorly - there really is no rush to close any RfA. & I certainly would not wish to exclude people such as Majorly - however there are those who vote on add RfAs who really have been here (=edited :)) very little indeed! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think 10 votes (as 10 in total including support, oppose and neutral) would be a great idea, but we should work also on making more people active on the Rfa's since it isn't the most busy part of Commons.

I have seen wikis with on the watchlistpage a little note like:

Currently:1 rfa 2 rfb 0 rfo 0rfc

I would say it is a little change, and easy to translate but it makes more people see the votes so maybe more people would come and vote. Huib talk 17:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with those above who have suggested a level of at least 10. That really is very little for a wiki of this size. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have created a proposal to change the 4 votes in to 10, I placed it Here, I would be more than happy to recieve comments about this or make changes in it before proposing it in the Village pump. Huib talk 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Flickr upload bot

Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why this bot isn't flagged as such? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My general feeling, that it's good idea to keep images appearing in recent changes for further human processing in case of none-uniform uploads. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It might have changed, but flag or not, I think the uploads still appear in RC. Most upload bots don't have one: Special:ListUsers/File Upload Bot -- User:Docu at 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Usurping a username

Hi,
Possibly I am putting this request on the right page!
I use the username "Varlaam" over in English WP primarily, but in 20+ other projects as well. I'm blocked here by a user of that name with apparently 0 edits. Possibly this was even me accidentally creating an account with a mistyped password.
Could you check into the matter and merge the accounts if appropriate to do so?
Thanks. Sincerely, :en:Varlaam 99.237.208.131 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done User:Varlaam was renamed to User:Varlaam (usurped). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot flag temporarily granted to two users

Hi...

Tiptoety (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) and Juliancolton (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) are cleaning up some massive spamming (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Return_of_the_Mass_image_and_linkspam_account above) and asked to have the bot flag granted temporarily to avoid flooding recent changes. I've done so and notified my fellow 'crats via our mailing list... any 'crat can turn it back off again as appropriate. Long term we may want to get the flood flag enabled here. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record K copied this here... thanks!) ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pages deleted. Thanks to Kanonkas for removing the flags. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests

Please take a look at Commons:Bots/Requests. A lot of these requests should be closed. Multichill (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I hope the community and bureaucrats will get more involved in this process. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I did this request so maybe I can help out in the future. Multichill (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiptoety

Tiptoety's RFCU should be closed. -- Drini 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

link –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Eusebius as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Usurpation request

There is a usurpation request from August—over six months ago—that requires a decision from a bureaucrat. See here. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My OCD is kicking in... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This request has been taken care of by Bastique (talk · contribs). — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Substitution of RfA archive templates

Dear crats,
Now that the templates {{Rfap}} and {{Rfaf}} are auto-translated, can you please stop substituting these (unless there's some reason for doing so I don't know of)? I also noticed not everyone uses these (e.g. Eugene). It would be nice if there was more consistency. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Amire80

I've closed the linked RfA as temp sysop rights granted. After three months, please request removal of the rights at meta if I forget. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Current inactive sysop check

Is the Inactivist sysop inactivity current check a regular one?

Previous run were Feb-Mar and next run were not planned before Augustus, as by policy all deadmin request must be done before a new run.

Furthermore, the bot don't have a user page and isn't clearly identified. --Dereckson (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It now has a userpage but clearly not a regular one as it doesn't state it's a bot (or an human-controlled account created for this purpose) nor who is performing the action. --Dereckson (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted all messages. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK .....

I guess maybe it is time I had some tools again! If anyone feels like letter me have +sysop that would be fine. However given that it is 9 months or so I'll understand if it is better to put in an RfA again. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Click. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll tidy the garbage I just tagged at least :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Review maybe

I do realise that one or two other issue are taking up time at present but could a passing 'crat (or two) decide whether this request is ok/requires more time/whatever? It will have been there about 4 days in an hour or two. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done See m:Steward requests/Permissions#Herbythyme@commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eugene, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Adminship revoked without a notice: request for the restoration of rights

Hi, I'd like to notify you about what I perceive as a procedural error regarding my desysopping by an unknown steward in February 2010. I have been actively editing Wikipedia and uploading images here and also did quite a lot of work to localise the Commons for the Slovene-speaking users. However, I was on a pause recently. Three weeks ago, when I wanted to resume my work I found that I didn't possess the rights needed to edit the user interface anymore. The reason for the desysopping was my inactivity per Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2010. The linked page says: "These administrators have received a message on their user talk page on February 17 and have to respond within 30 days or will lose adminship." The COM:DESYSOP says the following: "A notice should be placed on the inactive admin's talk page linking to this policy and explaining that admin rights may be lost. An email should also be sent." I have never received either a notice or an email.[8] "The ex-admin should be notified by a talk page message." As evident from my user talk page history, I have not been notified. Therefore, I consider the correct procedure was not followed here and ask for the reversal of the action, especially as I did good work during my adminship and never abused the tools and am needing the status for my further contribution regarding the Slovene localisation of the project. The discussion at first took place at the Village pump[9], but I've been referred here. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:32 17 May 2010 (UTC)

According to my research, you were warned here, and I'm assuming you signed your name to retain your rights. Policy says "If the admin responds to the notice as required but then fails to make five admin actions within the following six months, the rights will be removed without further notice." Accordingly, "Administrators who have lost admin rights through inactivity but who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process." I personally don't understand the rationale for that part of the policy, but it's what's in place. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 20:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The underlying problem is defintion of an admin action.Eleassar carried out 3 logged actions [10] (a move in file: space, a deletion and a restoration), but he also performed several edits in MediaWiki: space, which also requires the admin bit (and is counted as an admin action by the activity tool. These would mean he reached the required activity level, and so shouldn't have been desysopped.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, it makes sense to me. I'll restore his admin bit. Someone else can re-add his name to the list. I think the "5 actions or automatic removal with no notice" is a stupid policy anyway. Why not let people keep the tools if they're around? It's not like we are suffering from an abundance of administrators. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with restoration, FWIW. I also think users whose sysop bits were removed due to inactivity should be restored on request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that restoration without regular RfA is good idea because of level of activity in this case. Will be good idea if administrators will remember about project in project without notices once in half of year. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Eugene. Any admin working here can delete 10 items in a day (way more actually and if they can't work that out they shouldn't be here) - to ask for half that in 6 months doesn't seem onerous. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a case where reasonable folks can disagree and nobody be wrong or right. I understand your concerns that the sysop bit shouldn't be a lifelong appointment, and inactive admins are liable to have their bits removed. On the other hand, I feel that with the perpetual backlogs here at Commons (some of which I'm afraid to touch) any help is appreciated, even if only on the order of a few actions a month. Obviously existing policy should be followed whenever possible, but this case seems to be a bit different in that the sysop flag may have been removed in error (hence my endorsement of Bastique's restoration). In keeping with my belief that the sysop flag is no big deal, I would, as I mentioned above, prefer to see automatic reinstatement of previously removed rights if requested. This might not make any sense... just my thoughts... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Herby, only admins can edit the MediaWiki interface. Nilfanion pointed out that this user made several (looks to be around 15) edits the the MediaWiki page after they were given the de-adminship due to inactivity warning. If we're going to wikilawyer about the topic, we can most likely call those edits "admin actions" (to quote Commons' policy on this) and say that they fulfilled that requirement. Killiondude (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

More than happy with that (Mediawiki edits) - similar applies on Meta with the SBL.

However - and re Julian's comment - while we always have backlogs the folk who are not actually here are not any help....! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that administrator rights is not big deal. But it's tool, not status. If tool is not used for a long time, so logical question: why this user need it? Similar concerns are raised in regular RfA and should be asked and answered in this case too. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No-one really "needs" the tools. If a user wants to help more, and has shown that they are still interested in Commons, they shouldn't have to deal with us tugging away their rights. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody prevent this and any other user from helping Commons. I don't understand why administrator status is viewed as prerequisite for helping. And rights are not irrevocable award or something eternal. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note

I have resigned my sysop tools. Please update the relevant lists or anything I've missed. I hope I've served well in the project. Best regards, — Dferg (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/SpBot

Is there a chance to assign the bot flag sometime? There is only one minor issue left: Docu does not like the edit summary, because it is not “standard”. --Leyo 10:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you (or its operator) going to do anything about the edit summary? -- User:Docu at 10:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No use to re-start the discussion here. --Leyo 12:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it could just be closed as withdrawn as the operator didn't respond to bureaucrat feedback. -- User:Docu at 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No comment. --Leyo 13:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to make summary of perceived problems in nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The only problem was, that a German month name was used once instead of the English one. This problem has been solved quite some time ago now.

BTW: The bot has more than 400,000 edits globally. --Leyo 15:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly was the problem at de_wiki the edit summary is trying to solve? Maybe we can find a better solution. -- User:Docu at 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why de_wiki? I do not understand what you mean, sorry. --Leyo 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

With "de_wiki", I meant "German Wikipedia" the operator mentioned. -- User:Docu at 10:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As a note, it looks like some additional time has went by but we haven't yet resolved whatever the issue is. I have to confess I'm lost. Eugene asked for a summary. Leyo gave one... is that an accurate summary? Is it correct that matters are resolved? Is this bot ready to be approved? Disapproved? Please comment, if you know more, at the approval page. Because this feels like it's dragged on way too long now. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Docu is the only person on Commons who is unhappy with the edit summary. Other users (like bot operator and I) either think it is good or does at least not think that it is a problem. I doubt we will ever find a description who makes everyone happy. I think it is time for the crats to decide if the concern Docu has should qualify to stop this request. --MGA73 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read the thread and I'm not seeing the concern as a major one. I will so opine and give Docu one last chance to clearly, and politely, and thoroughly, explain the concern. If others are convinced we can stall but otherwise I agree. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A clear reason not being given in declarative form, the bot flag has been granted. Sorry for the delay. ++Lar: t/c 11:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sysop

Hello,

[[Herby pointed me in this direction I guess it was so I could make this request.

I'm starting to use Commons more now, and I did some patrolling and reverting here and there and I would like my mop back. I don't think I will be as active as I was in the old days but I'm doing some work and it would be nice to help out on some parts of Commons. Every little bit helps right?

I don't know if I can just get my tools back, so if a crat grants them to me it would be cool, if a crat says do a new RFA its cool also...

Best regards, Huib talk 15:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No issues as far as I'm concerned, so  Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I did some stuff already :) Huib talk 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I was wondering why Huib was making me delete all his copyvio tags. Delete them yourself!  ;) Wknight94 ^talk 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will do so now ;) Huib talk 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Buttons

On the AN, I was advised to go here to ask if I could have my admin rights back. So, would it be okay? --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reinstated. You stepped down in good standing (not in controversial circumstances/under a cloud), so no issues there. Welcome back! — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 09:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Rocket000 (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Let me know if there's anything else necessary to do. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:List of administrators

Greetings. I've been keeping an eye on the subject and its related lists in an effort to keep them up to date. I'd appreciate it when any of you change someone's status to or from Administrator that you would either insure that the three lists are up to date, or at least drop me a note. That would be a lot easier than having to compare the lists to find the missing or extra people. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for adding me there. I know that at least Eugene regurarly reads MediaWiki:Userrights-summary, so that might be worth a trial. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Months ago I resigned my sysop tools here and before that I think I was an active sysop. In the past weeks I have found that they would have been useful to delete some copyvios and blocking some (cross-wiki)vandals. For this reason I am asking here if I could have the tools again. If you consider that I need to go under a new RfA let me know. Cordially, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Highly trusted, highly effective cross wiki user (IMO). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support - without any doubts. Welcome back dferg. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 17:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason for a new RfA, or even an extended discussion here.  Done without hesitation. Welcome back! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. Best regards, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Asav

Please add him to the OTRS-member user group (and +autopatroll). I stumbled on my watchlist about his work and wasn't sure if he is an OTRS user or not. --Martin H. (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag

Please add to Fæ an OTRS-member flag. He's repeat. triggering the abuse filter for adding permissions tickets. He's listed here. Thank you, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 12:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hi, I'm now a member of the OTRS-team, can you give me the OTRS flag? Thanks in advance. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Kanonkas. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 05:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS membership

Please add Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry to the OTRS-member group. Listed on m:OTRS/personnel. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member flag for WooteleF

See meta table. –Krinkle^talk 16:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS Flag

I'm an volunteer, I'd like to have this flag. Regards!!!--Esteban (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Bastique. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 07:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Inactivity section

It seems that Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2010 is over and should be closed (30 days where on September 10). Could you please have a look and act as needed? Thank you, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 06:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. See m:Steward requests/Permissions#Inactive admins@commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see that question too. Regards, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 15:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, removal has been done by steward Mercy. I'm updating that page accordingly to reflect the removal and will be messaging the users to inform them they've lost their rights and why.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dferg (talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm updating the three lists of Administrators. I note that User:Jcornelius is shown at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity_section/Aug-Sep_2010 as  removed, but he or she still appears on the system generated list of administrators. Which is correct? The remaining seven have all had their status changed. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators/Requests. –Tryphon^☂ 19:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

+sysop request

If someone could add +sysop back to my account, that would be great. I took a break starting in May. There was nothing controversial that I did prior to asking for -sysop on meta (diff), so I don't think I should have any issues getting the flag back here. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Welcome back. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Meh –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tyvm. Killiondude (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Jcb

Please flag this user as an OTRS-member. Keeps triggering the abusefilter for non-agents (I'm an agent myself, and can verify he is one). Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member flag for Wikitanvir

See here. That was added by me, but feel free to verify. Thanks! — Tanvir • 05:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.  Done by Kanonkas. Thanks! :) — Tanvir • 01:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rlevse

Rlevse recently resigned. Additionally, he had his OTRS account closed. Could someone please remove his OTRS-member flag here? Thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 23:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/SarekOfVulcan

SarekOfVulcan has withdrawn. Can someone take care of closing? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 17:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

+sysop request

I would like my Commons admin bit back. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, welcome back! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

JC, thanks much. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Vanish request

Please vanish me, ie, rename me to a random vanished user name, blank my pages, protect the talk page, and even indef block me if you want. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is going on? Wknight94 ^talk 21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For details about Rlevse's departure, see en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-01/Arbitration_report#Arbitrator_resigns. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I can blank and protect your pages, but make sure you're set on the rename. That'll be really hard to undo. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, rename me please. I'm certain. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Then  Done. Best wishes in your future real-life endeavors. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Given you just granted admin rights back what is happening to them? A quick look at the Meta log shows me nothing to suggest they have been removed and they certainly should be in this case. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression Rlevse had requested removal of the rights himself, but it's been done now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Stepro

Please add this user to the OTRS-member group. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member forUser:מתניה

His actions are clogging up the AbuseFilter log, please add him to the group a.s.a.p. –Krinkle^talk 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Does this user have OTRS access? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he has access to the permission queues. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member for User:Ra'ike

(for the record) See also User_talk:Lar#User_rights just now. I've turned this on for Ra'ike. I admit I may not be totally clear on what this permission does or what the criteria are. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sysop return

I had requested that my sysop flag be turned off in August, mostly due to time constraints. With more time available now, if folks wouldn't mind, I'd like it turned back on so I can help with some of the backlogs. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 02:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any objections. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Then  Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for File Mover rights

If it is possible, I would like to have File Mover rights in Commons (not admin though). Thank you. Hoverfish (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please use Commons:Requests for rights#Filemover (add request). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member for User:Sreejithk2000

I have newly joined the OTRS team and is planning to actively take part in looking after OTRS permisions. My user access can be verified List of accounts on the OTRS-wiki. Can I have OTRS-member rights in commons? Thanks. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's true. Jcb (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal

Hi there. I have resigned from OTRS, could someone remove my flag? Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member for User:Kiran Gopi

Recently I joined in OTRS-Team, can I get OTRS membership access in commons. Thanks in advance --Kiran Gopi (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Add User:Rodrigo.Argenton to OTRS-member

On List of volunteers as m:User:R.T.Argenton. –Krinkle^talk 01:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Add User:Taketa to OTRS-member

I noticed I require OTRS membership access in commons. List of volunteers, OTRS id 866 [11] - Thank you -- Taketa (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member for Fetchcomms

Verify, thanks. ←fetchcomms 22:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's true - Jcb (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-member for user:Heb

Per Commons:Requests for rights#Heb no. 2 I request adding him to the OTRS-member group. It has been verified that the user is listed at the OTRS wiki. Thanks, odder (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the heads-up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 08:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-member for User:Meno25

Please remove me from this usergroup. I no longer have access to OTRS (due to inactivity). Thanks. --Meno25 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-member for VasilievVV

Please add me to this group (confirmation). VasilievVV (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's true. Jcb (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done by myself a while ago. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Add user:Wvk to OTRS-member group

Please add Wvk (talk · contribs) as soon as possible. His edits are messing up the cvn-commons channel with false-positives. –Krinkle^talk 11:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's true. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin inactivity

Hi!
Could somebody of you please take care of Aude's special case? That'd be really kind. abf «Cabale!» 16:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA closure

Please see [12] - candidate declines the nomination. The request may be closed I think. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 16:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Is archived. Cecil (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Abuse filter tripping

It seems like I'm tripping an abuse filer every other edit here. I'm fairly sure I need the OTRS flag locally to stop annoying your vandal fighters here. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done, and keep up the good work! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-member for Adrignola

I have access to the permissions/photosubmissions queues now. See diff and diff. – Adrignola talk 02:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's true. VasilievVV (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS Member for NativeForeigner

http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_accounts . I'm on the permissions list, and was told that I should come here to recieve the tag, so I don't trip any filters. NativeForeigner 토론 (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's true. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done... power hungry n00b! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Two users requesting vanishment

Dempobizpro wishes to hide his name due to privacy (c.f.) and his one upload speedily deleted. Bob Bruno likewise wishes to stop contributing to Wikimedia as indicated on his talkpage as well as here. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bob Bruno hasn't edited since July... you sure it's an issue? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 10:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

De-admin bot?

User:MediaWiki Update Bot seems to have died since June 2008. Maybe time to remove the admin flag? Rehman 12:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Support - btw bureaucrats cannot remove admin flag, so after discussion this needs a request on meta. - Taketa (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If account is not used for a long, it should not have administrator status. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:EuseBotHelper is dead since February 2010, maybe desysop that bot too? Rehman 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should open a de-adminship request, to follow the process; but I do not object removing the flags if the operators do not plan to use those accounts in the near future. --Dferg (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for bot flag

I'd like my bot to receive the bot flag now. EugeneZelenko has approved of it running. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

He didn't officially approve it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 10:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is only one in your request. Please ask other bot owners and administrators to express their. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Approved by Eugene. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for Morgankevinj

I am an OTRS member with access to the permissions queue (verify) MorganKevinJ^(talk) 04:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true, Taketa (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Review

Please do review Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2011 (now finished) and if possible please request removal of access of those that didn't singed at m:Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access. Thank you, --Dferg (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to avoid mistakes. It's necessary to remove status form administrators, who didn't request to keep it and still have it (basically empty status column). Am I correct? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as stated in point #2 at the policy page: Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. --Dferg (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done See m:Steward requests/Permissions#Inactive administrators@commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And done by the stewards as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for Theo10011

Hi, I am an OTRS volunteer with access to permissions and photo-submissions queue. Can you please provide the appropriate flag. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is true MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Julian. Theo10011 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Appeal of adminship removal for inactivity

Hi! I'd like to appeal my recent removal of adminship based on inactivity. Although it wasn't counted by the inactivity tool, I've done a fair number of page moves with suppressed redirects in the last six months, which are technically an admin action (and which I have a lot more of to do, and have been gradually chipping away at). So I'd like to get the admin bit back, because I wasn't really inactive as an admin for the last 6 months. Thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of those moves were not really in line with policy though. Take File:Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Lewis Hine, Lilly O'Sullivan, 13 years old, Drayton Mills, Spartanburg, South Carolina, 1912.jpg for example. Why rename it? And given that it was uploaded some 4 months before you renamed it, I think suppressing the redirect was really not a good idea. –Tryphon^☂ 16:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with Tryphon. I can see no reason for any those renames where you just removed the source and the source owner. Otherwise in the last half year there was just one rename and that was clean-up behind you own activity. So as a bureaucrat I recommend an RfA in a few month after showing that you actually are in line with policy and able to work in a way to not fall into the next inactivity-count again. -- Cecil (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the renames was that trialsanderrors was (and is) upset to have his name on all these public domain images that he either cleaned up or just collected, which we pulled from Flickr with a bot. I've been making sure they aren't in use before suppressing the redirects.--ragesoss (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They could have been linked to from outside wikimedia though, which is why we usually do not delete redirects for older uploads. In any case, you should always give a clear and valid reason in the move summary; clean up after bot doesn't explain at all why you performed the move, and isn't a valid reason on its own. –Tryphon^☂ 17:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been chipping away at these since they were first uploaded. But the main point is, I shouldn't have qualified for inactivity removal in the first place; I got de-adminned on a technicality because the tool didn't count the kinds of admin actions I had been doing. I'm happy to change the way I do things if other people think I should do them differently. I thought those summaries were appropriate, but I can go into more detail in the future. --ragesoss (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, ragessoss was only removed because of a technical error, and not an error made by him. While any advice on his continued adminship activities would be helpful, reinstatement in this case should be a clear given.--Pharos (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ragesoss, I was about to regrant you the sysop bit, but I noticed you haven't edited in nearly a month. Are you still interested? I don't see it as a huge problem, but I'm afraid others might use it against one or both of us. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am still interested. I haven't been that active, since I'm working for WMF right now and don't have as much time to spend on Commons except in spurts. But if I get the bit back, I'll pitch in with admin duties.--ragesoss (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment in passing, but per precedent could desysopped users go through another election? (Or else we'll end up being inconsistent...) -- Mentifisto 14:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I don't see a need... if nobody objects within a reasonable amount of time, I plan to carry out this request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If we resysop every single user who asks then what is the point of the policy? Surely it would be better if they'd check to see whether the community thinks they're sufficiently active again? (It does say "admins [...] who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process".) As it is it's inconvenient for everyone, so if people don't really mind admins being inactive we could just remove the policy about inactivity. -- Mentifisto 19:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sage was desysopped on a technicality, as noted above. He was active with his admin tools at the time, and this clearly distinguishes him from other people desysopped for inactivity, who were not. A recent short period of inactivity isn't especially relevant. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more generically; users desysopped for purely being inactive should ideally have another RfA, rather than simply asking here, in my opinion. -- Mentifisto 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Since your concerns are self-admittedly generic, I've gone ahead and resysopped Ragesoss. Since I'm short on time, could somebody please add him back on the relevant admin lists (or I'll do it myself later this afternoon – either way)? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 10:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! --ragesoss (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, in order to not let this happen again (desysopping based on technicalities) can we perhaps add redirect suppressions to the list of admin actions the tool searches for? -- Mentifisto 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than that ability comes with the global rollbacker flag, I don't know why not- almost all the folks that can do it are admins. Courcelles (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member jeblad

OTRS member on the Norwegian queue, adds permissions at commons. Jeblad (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is true MorganKevinJ^(talk) 05:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Erroneously removed as inactive

I was away from Commons for a few months, but recently returned and started using the administrative tools again (at least six deletions in the past couple weeks). I didn't notice the warning on my talk page that there was a list I had to add myself to, and it looks like I was erroneously removed as "inactive." Could a bureaucrat please correct this? Fran Rogers (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You have hardly ever been active on this project. Why would need this in the first place? --  Docu  at 10:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your recent 6 deletions on 16 March and 2 April, 2011, but you did not sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2011. I am asking other bureaucrats in our bureaucrats-commons list. Either we will restore your flag quickly or you may have to reapply.--Jusjih (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for Jimmy xu wrk

I'm an OTRS volunteer on the Chinese and permissions queue. Thanks.--Jimmy Xu (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true - Taketa (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Skeezix1000‎

You guys are usually very quick with these. Am I missing something? Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, Commons had technical troubles when I tried to close first time. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No apology needed -- I, too, had a frustrating day of technical troubles messages. I should have thought of that.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

De-admined without warning

I refer to my post at AN. A while ago I lost my admin rights due to inactivity. However, I did not receive any warning which would allow me to "confirm my adminiship" in order to retain my adminship. Because I was essentially powerless to prevent myself from losing my adminship, I would like to be re-admined. --Aqwis (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think right way to avoid such unpleasant situation - to use tools regularly. You was warned in 10 August 2010, but didn't use tools after that according to you logs.

Please start some maintenance works and re-apply for administrator if you are really interested.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The post on my talkpage in August 2010 was not a warning, it was simply a link to the discussion about whether inactive admins should in fact lose their adminship. The outcome of the discussion was that they should, but only after receiving a warning one month before their loss of adminship. I did not receive this warning, which means that process was not followed. I do not see why process should be circumvented in my case specifically!

For the record, the reason why I stopped being active on Commons was that I entered university. I was planning on being far more active this summer, however, having to reapply for adminship is not exactly encouraging. --Aqwis (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I support re-sysopping of Aqwis, on the grounds that the talkpage warning given was so unclear that I would not call it a "warning" at all: "Hello Aqwis, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)". The cited discussion contains nothing to suggest that Aqwis was, himself, at risk of losing adminship (and indeed, doesn't clearly appear to have reached any consensus). Dcoetzee (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was not a warning at all. User A9 simply asked (well, canvassed) several (quite a bit: [13]) admins to participate in discussion about admin inactivity policy. It wasn't a de-adminship warning in any way or form. De-adminship was a clear mistake. Trycatch (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get an opinion from a bureaucrat other than EugeneZelenko, please? --Aqwis (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you were never really active as an admin. It seems fair that you'd go through the usual process. What would you need the tools for anyways? --  Docu  at 15:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I was planning to be much more active this summer when I will have time off from my studies. As for what particular tasks I would do, I refer to my RfA (see the Comments section). --Aqwis (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No serious issues at their RFA, nor was there any serious issues during the admin period. If this user performs at least a handful of admin tasks per month (which I am sure they would), I would definitely support a speedy re-admin without going through the usual process. Rehman 15:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support. --Túrelio (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support. --Trycatch (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose. The reason that there were no serious issues during the admin period is that Aqwis did not even look into any activity which could cause serious issues. In a period of 16 month there were 12 actions which required admin-rights, all of them simple enough that an active admin would be able to do all 12 in less than a minute. Looking at his contributions this lack is quite easily explained by his area of activity. 'Featured picture candidates' does not need admins nor is it likely to encounter problematic images. Sorry that I don't believe that Aqwis would suddenly change behaviour (400 contribs ago from now he wasn't even admin yet) and not only get active but also get active in areas that need admins. Procedure maybe wasn't followed properly but the whole rule was made to get rid of admins who are not doing admin-actions. I could see the necessity of the warning for somebody who was active and then for RL-reason had to stop for a few month and suddenly half a year was gone, but for somebody who was not active as an admin to begin with it would have only lead to the famous 5 pseudo-actions. -- Cecil (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove OTRS thingy

Can someone remove my OTRS flag thanks. --ZooFari 04:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

suggestions for the admin SOPs

Yesterday I did a full comparison of the names on Commons:Administrators to those in Category:Commons administrators, after I had stumbled over a discrepancy. I was astonished to find up to 10 percent of discordance, i.e. admins, who were not in the cat, because that had no admin-template, no admin-babelbox or admin-whatever on their userpage, and, on the other hand, users in the admin-cat who were no longer admins (some without any edit-activity for up to 3 years), who had been inactivity-de-admined but where not aware of it (see Aqwis two paragraphs above) or who had only claimed to be admin without ever being one, such as Pstoianov (talk · contribs) (see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Pstoianov (Diskussion · Beiträge) an admin?). To the former colleagues I have kindly recommended to add something to their userpage to be recognizable as admin for others. From the userpages of former admins, who had no edits since long, I've removed the admin-box/cat/whatever from their userpage. Those still edit-active I've asked to remove it by themselves.

To avoid such a situation from developping again, I want to suggest for the admin-"SOPs":

• to new admins it should be recommened to put either the {{User admin}} template to their userpage or add the admin-entry to their babelbox, in order to be recognizabe as admin by other users.
• when an admin is finally de-admined, he/she should be asked to remove the admin-box/babel/cat from his userpage.
• Category:Commons administrators might be checked every no and then to detect users intentionally claiming to be admin without being it.

--Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Last August, I cleaned up the substantial discrepancies between the system list of actual admins and our three public lists and added the count at the bottom of the alpha list and date list that allows us to instantly see whether there are the right number of names in the lists. I've kept an eye on that subsequently and occasionally made necessary additions or deletions.

At the same time, I noticed that there were quite a few people claiming to be Admins that were not, but I just let it be, not wanting to roil potentially ugly waters.

As you say, there is a substantial discrepancy between the Category and the facts. Although I think your moves are entirely correct, I would, with consensus, go a little farther and say that any incorrect claim of Admin status -- Babel box, Category, or text -- is fair game for correction on sight. A polite request would certainly be good, but it should not have a very long deadline. I'd be happy to add this to keeping an eye on the three lists.

I've added your suggestion to my new collection of information for new Admins. Should we go further and say that all Admins are expected to have:

• a babelbox
• the admin tag in their babelbox
• e-mail enabled and tagged in their babelbox

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree to your 3 points. However, the wording should avoid any compulsory impression. Any new admin should be helped to understand why this is helpful (being recognizable for other others). Though it is desirable for all admins, exceptions could be made, if they are few. --Túrelio (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit my sandbox. For the record, there are 24 people in the Category that are not on the system list of Admins and 43 Admins who are not in the category. I can easily post the two lists if you think it's helpful.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is also Special:ListAdmins. Killiondude (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a discussion with one of the admins with no user boxes (or user page, for that matter).[14] S/he said "if you absolutely must insist, I'd consider setting up a page for the infoboxes." I didn't insist, but I think it is a good idea and a helpful example for others. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That's the same way, I did it. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, imo Rama issue is unrelated with babel boxes. It's just he deleted his user page for a few reasons. The problem is that the babel boxes are located in the deleted user page. That's why he talked of a separate babel page. Esby 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member flag for Brackenheim

Please add User:Brackenheim to the OTRS member group. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true. Courcelles (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Brackenheim (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do have OTRS access. ;) Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Edoderoo

As an OTRS member I confirm that this user is an OTRS member and needs the flag to not trip edit filters. – Adrignola talk 03:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Bennó

As an OTRS member I confirm that this user is an OTRS member and needs the flag to not trip edit filters. – Adrignola talk 12:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Tĥ. Bennó (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:MacMed

Can I please get the OTRS flag so my edits aren't tagged? Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 19:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Atluxity

I have been requested to ask to be added to the OTRS-member group. Regards Atluxity (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's true. Courcelles (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Nanoxyde

I have been requested to ask to be added to the OTRS-member group and need the flag to not trip edit filters. Regards, merci, Nanoxyde (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I confirm that Nanoxyde is an OTRS member. Cheers, guillom 13:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

De-admin request speedy closure, please

Could you please speedy-close Commons:Administrators/Requests/Florent Pécassou (de-adminship), as Florent has voluntarily resigned and his rights already removed. --Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Administrator status was removed 06:44, 1 June 2011 by m:User:Avraham. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew. Thanks for closing the rfa. --Túrelio (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:HJ Mitchell

It's confirmed, and he's tripping the abuse filter. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That'll teach me to pay more attention! Thanks guys! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member User:King of Hearts

Hi, User:King of Hearts posted this request to get the ORTS flag at the administrators' noticeboard instead of here. I can hereby confirm that he is indeed an OTRS member. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Resignation

Hello. With regret I have to inform that Manuelt15 has voluntary relinquished his administrator tools here as well all his other permissions across the projects, included his OTRS access. As per this request, please remove his OTRS-member flag. I'd like to thank Manuel for all his work here and elsewhere. Thank you, --Dferg (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

RFA closing

Hi. This RFA needs closing. Regards, Rehman 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Aleposta

I have been requested to ask to be added to the OTRS-member group and need the flag to not trip edit filters. Regards, Aleposta (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Bencmq

Hi, I became a OTRS member recently. I noticed that I triggered the filter as well. Thank you. --Ben.MQ (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. odder (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

removing OTRS member for User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Please remove OTRS flag of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, this account has been globally locked. axp_de^Hello! 14:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, he has now been globally unlocked. The en.wp drama has passed. Wknight94 ^talk 00:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Wknight94, if someone wants to re-add the user right it seems to be okay to do so. Killiondude (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Closure of De-sysop

Dear Crats,

I would like to request the crats here to speedy close a De-sysop. When we look at the De-sysop police we find the next text:

In the rare case that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing his or her status, it may seek de-adminship in the same way as adminship is sought. Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal; for individual grievances, please use Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible.

To start:

1. There has been no discussion about de-sysop before the de-sysop is started
2. There is no policy breach here on Commons, all stuff happend on Nl.Wiki and Meta
3. The started was involved in the dispute
4. The started is placing half quotes instead of the truth.

According to the policy a bureaucrat can close this De-sysop because it doesn't meet the policy.

Best, Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

1. A link has been provided to the discussion at COM:ANU.
2. At least two policy breaks at Commons have been proven and subject of the desysop request announced he would break policies. Also user abused his position as admin several times.
3. User invited me to start the desysop request.
4. The other part of the quote has been proven to be a lie, also it's irrelevant why you want to ignore policies. Admin rights are granted to serve the community, not to protect your family.

Jcb (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to support Abigor's request on the grounds of simple fairness. Jcb started the de-sysop by deliberately taking only half of a very strongly worded sentence, omitting the context that made it understandable. Several others have repeated the misquote, building their argument on it.

At the very least, this needs a week or so to cool down. I would not object to a new action then.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jcb, could you please explain to me what policies he broke? I really cannot see anything in AN/U that specifies it through the 10,000 lines of argument. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, this somewhat surprises me, because the ANU discussion started because of a clear policy break (speedy keeping a file, while there clearly wasn't a reason for speedy keep, repeating that inappropriate closing several times) - Jcb (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• No bureaucrat action is required anymore; Abigor has resigned his adminship rights on Meta; his request had been fulfilled and the deadminship request was subsequently closed. Marking this as  Case closed. Thanks, odder (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please note that I have unblocked Abigor per his request. Tiptoety ^talk 17:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you might then also change the current content of User talk:Abigor. --Túrelio (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Surya Prakash.S.A.

Hi, I became a OTRS member recently. Please add me in the OTRS members' group. Thank you. --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed - Taketa (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

RfA closure

Hello this should have been closed yesterday. Regards, --Dferg (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This was closed out-of-process and out-of-sequence from the currently open RfAs. --  Docu  at 03:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not involved in voting I reviewed the case, it's pretty obvious. a×p_de^Hello! 09:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Tommyang

User:Tommyang is an OTRS member now but triggering abuse filter. Please flag him as OTRS member because he's edits are being reverted. Thank you--Ben.MQ (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm the OTRS membership of Tommyang. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:XenonX3

Hi, I became OTRS member about 2 months ago (info-de and permissions-de). Sometimes there are permissions for files at de-wiki and commons in the same ticket (like [15]). I always trigger the filter when adding the OTRS template which is kind of annoying. So I would like to get into the OTRS member group to avoid the filter. Confirmation from another OTRS member is on the way. Thanks, XenonX3 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

confirmed by --Nolispanmo 15:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

i confirm this confirmation. —Pill (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Me 2. PDD (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Signed. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Goodness... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone! XenonX3 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Don-kun

Same as XenonX3, except that I am an OTRS member since nearly a year ;) --Don-kun (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by —DerHexer (Talk) 21:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

acknowledged. --DaB. (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

and most importantly, he needs to be in the group so that he can join us in mass-confirming other otrs members. —Pill (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:80686

Member since at least 2006 (several chapter queues, info-als, info-de). --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 07:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This can be confirmed. However, User:80686 is not in any of the permission queues. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Raymond

Member since at least 2006 (OTRS admin, info-de, permissions). Raymond 09:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if anyone can clarify; from what I understand this group provides no advantages to users who are already sysops, as they already have autopatrol and the filter explicitly excludes sysops (I think)? -- Mentifisto 22:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's more for identification purposes. Users who aren't in the OTRS-member group show up on the abuse filter, which attempts to highlight falsification of permissions. Therefore it's easier for everyone for all OTRS users active on permissions queues to be added to this group. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, sysops adding OTRS permissions don't show up on the abuse filter. The filter only looks for people who are not a sysop and not an OTRS member. But still, it makes sense to add sysops to the OTRS member group, so that they don't show up, should they have their sysop status revoked for whatever reason. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of user talk page

User:TCO has requested the deletion of their talk page, I've deleted the talk page but I restored it as I noticed that according to WP:RTV user talk pages should not be speedy deleted by admins. as it's suggested at WP:RTV, a bureaucrat should take care of this request.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  15:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Mikemoral

This user has access to OTRS and is getting flagged. See the owner of ticket 2011080610000382, for instance. Account in OTRS created on July 31; see the admin log. – Adrignola talk 13:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/OgreBot

I would be great if a decision could been taken in the near future. Thank you. --Leyo 19:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Leyo 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS bit, please

Could you please add the OTRS bit to my Commons record? I became an OTRS member on March 5, 2011. As I understand it, it does nothing except make possible the correct result when a user clicks on "verify" in the OTRS box in my babel box. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/personnel or maybe just take my word for it? Lying on something like this would certainly be an immediate de-admin and there are easier ways to accomplish that. It would also be plain stupid to take such a risk for something that has no real effect and whatever you think of me, I hope it's not that I'm stupid.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This also prevents flagging under the edit filter as a non-OTRS member adding an OTRS verification, so it's not pointless. The Meta page can be modified by anyone. You could have added yourself to fool us. (I'm giving you a hard time.) :) I, as an OTRS agent already having been verified by an independent OTRS agent previously to gain my bit, verify that Jameslwoodward is listed on http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_accounts (the official and complete record). Soon we will welcome you into the circle of trust. – Adrignola talk 15:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Adrignola. There's got to be a better way to do this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is. Know how license reviewers can add the license reviewer bit to other license reviewers? Well, OTRS agents should be able to add the OTRS agent bit to people they know are OTRS agents, since we're already having existing OTRS agents on Commons vouch for new OTRS agents. Or remove the ability from license reviewers for consistency, since both groups are validating the licensing on files. – Adrignola talk 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Better still, my WP:EN Commons Administrator Babelbox points to Commons for verification. Why doesn't the Commons OTRS Babelbox point to Meta? Answer (I guess) is that the fact that I am an OTRS member is not public information unless I choose to make it so, so that no public process can verify it. Right?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Though if you're handling the permissions queues it'll be hard to do anything without plopping an OTRS tag on pages and giving it away. – Adrignola talk 16:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cecil (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Could I get the OTRS flag so I'm not tagged with 'adding OTRS when not a member'? (Yes I am part of OTRS) -- DQ (t) (e) 02:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Confirmed, before someone asks. ;) Courcelles (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

otrs member for Lvova

She is back to OTRS now, so I am asking 'crats to assign her the necessary flag not to be marked by abusefilter in the future rubin16 (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Rubin16 has this access too; is this not a veryfication? Анастасия Львова^ru (ru-n, en-2) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed, just for the record. Courcelles (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Administratorrights for User:Raindrift

Please take a look at the discussion here and perform the required action. Regards, Trijnstel (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

rfa Saibo closure

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Saibo is due for closure since yesterday evening. Don't let him wait too long for his welcome cake. --Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Privileges for Jeroen De Dauw

I need additional privileges to asses point 2 of this bug, which I cannot reproduce locally. This is urgent, as WLM is right about to start. Ideally I'd get admin privileges to avoid such hassle in the future. If not possible, the upload campaign right will have to do. -- Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comment - Requesting user is a Wikimedia Contractor according to his userpage at MediaWiki.org and wants for fix problems for commons. If he needs the rights I'm OK. However regarding the "Upload Wizard campaign editors" can only be set by stewards or by other users that have the "userrights" priv. in their global group which are Staff and system administrators as I don't see that any local group can assign them. On the other hand if you're working for the Foundation I'm sure you can get the rights you need for your work without asking here (see User:Raindrift above). Best, --Marco Aurelio (previously Dferg) (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given Jeroen temporary sysop rights on Commons through the interface on meta, to keep the log there. We prefer not to give "Staff" rights to too many people, esp. when they don't need it. guillom 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ORTS flag

Dear Bureaucrats. Please add OTRS flag to my account. Thank you. --Krd (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Trusted (let the de-OTRS-storm beginn ;-)). --DaB. (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

confirmed. please also add the flag to User:Suhadi Sadono, User:Marcus Cyron, User:Plani, User:Pfieffer Latsch, and User:Alupus, who have all five been granted access to permission queues this month. —Pill (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have been OTRS agent for quite a while but somehow never got the flag. Since it seems to be the day, would you mind? Thanks! Jean-Fred (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Verified, Jean-Fred is OTRS member. --Krd (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Jean-Fred (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm in OTRS too; could you add the flag to my account? Thanks. - Laurentius (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Verified, Laurentius is OTRS member. --Krd (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

accelerating the procedure in a request for bot flag

Is it possible to accelerate my bot request for the flag?
I can wait a bit but it's been months since I asked for the flag and I still have no answer...
For reference Commons:Bots/Requests/esby-mw-bot. Esby (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn RFA

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Hoangquan hientrang has been withdrawn. Would someone mind formally closing? Courcelles (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove inactive OTRS members

The following are no longer active within the OTRS system and have been blocked from accessing the OTRS wiki and system interface. Remember that verification of OTRS tickets requires checking the actual ticket, not simply whether the individual who added the ticket was/is an OTRS member (unlike license reviewers). So this shouldn't be a historical list and inactive members need to be removed, especially if this proposal passes. – Adrignola talk 19:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1. 555 (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
2. ABCD (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
3. Achates (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
4. Alexanderps (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
5. Antur (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
6. Badseed (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
7. Barcex (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
8. Blacklake (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
9. Bookofjude (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
10. Centrx (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
11. Dmitry Rozhkov (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
12. ESkog (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
13. Hmwith (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
14. Holger I. (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
15. KnightLago (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
16. Lecartia (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
17. Matanya (usurped) (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
18. Mwpnl (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
19. Nakor (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
20. Nick (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
21. Senpaiottolo (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
22. Sicherlich (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
23. Solid State (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
24. Witty lama (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights

 Done. Please let me know if I missed somebody. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Request adminship back

Hi, I resigned my adminship on good standing about 2 years ago. Back then real world issues (particularly University) were getting me too busy hence why I resigned. I'd like to continue serving commons. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you will find instructions here: Commons:Administrators - Jcb (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What instruction am I looking for? The word resign isn't even mentioned on the entire page. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a deficiency in current policies. So it's not clear whether your request should or should not be honored without a new RfA. – Adrignola talk 04:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The policies should be amended if needed as it has been in the past. :) I do not mind a second rfa if b'crats feel that it is required in my case. I'd like to point out that had I not resigned on my own, my admin mop would still be there. I would not want adminship if the community feels I cannot be trusted with such tools. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 04:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

According to your user rights log, it seems you were never promoted to adminship. —stay (sic)! 05:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

At least on enwp, user rights logs from more than a few years ago are empty due to the software changes since then. The requestor, does, however, have a deletion log going back to 2006, indicating either adminship or stewardship was once held. Courcelles (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can just point out your original (successful) request for adminship? Multichill (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I should have properly re-introduce myself. I am user Cool Cat aka White Cat aka とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko - A Certain White Cat). My RfA was Commons:Requests and votes/Cool Cat (03). -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 11:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 Comment "Cool Cat" became an admin on 29 October 2006 and resigned as "White Cat" on 10 May 2008. Trijnstel (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"I'd like to point out that had I not resigned on my own, my admin mop would still be there." Actually, no. See the inactivity provisions at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, which we do have fleshed out. This is my primary concern regarding those who have been gone for some time—a knowledge of current policies. – Adrignola talk 13:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite being on vacation I check my wiki email and some user talk pages regularly. You can see my activity despite being inactive for two years. 5 admin actions per 6 months isn't exactly something challenging given I made hundreds of admin actions (generally elimination of copyright violations) a week. I could do that effortlessly just to game the system. Instead I feel I have done the responsible thing of resigning rather than letting inactivity take its due course as I knew I was going to be inactive. Also, it is not like current admins are required to be up to date on all policy changes. That said if there are any policies you'd like me to review, I'd be happy to do so regardless of the outcome here as policies are to be followed by admins and non-admins alike. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to be admin again, please start a RfA and stop bothering the bureaucrats with a request they cannot execute. Jcb (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe they are that easily "bothered". Hello to you too Jcb. It has been a while. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it is evident that at least some of the people are uncomfortable with my request I withdraw it. I will not nominate myself for RfA, but would not oppose someone else nominating me. I just do not want to be a "bother" to the community. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

New OTRS members

New OTRS members added, with access to the permissions/photosubmissions queues:

• SarahStierch (talk · contribs)
• SilkTork (talk · contribs)
• SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs)
• Superzerocool (talk · contribs)

– Adrignola talk 17:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

de-sysop request

Hello

I have not enough time to make a good job as sysop. Thanks to de-sysop me

Friendly Oxam Hartog 13:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I added request on Meta and it was processed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS access changes

The following users have been removed from the OTRS system and should have the OTRS-member flag removed:

1. Alupus‏‎ (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
2. Forrestjunky (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights

The following users have been added to the OTRS system (and have access to permissions queues) and should have the OTRS-member flag added:

1. Juandev (talk · contribs) · user creation log · change rights
2. Gnumarcoo (talk · contribs) · user creation log · change rights

– Adrignola talk 15:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

New OTRS volunteer

I've just been added as an OTRS volunteer, so it would be quite useful if I could get the OTRS user right. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom Morris (talk · contribs) · user creation log · change rights

Confirmation. – Adrignola talk 16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New OTRS volunteer

I've just been added as an OTRS volunteer, so it would be quite useful if I could get the OTRS user right. Thanks. Ludo (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

confirmed. —Pill (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so much new as now having access to the permissions queues. – Adrignola talk 13:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2)

I think Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2) needs to be closed. It was originally scheduled to close on 3 November but extended for more discussion, including possible alternatives to a straight yes/no on deadminship. That discussion seems to be petering out, in both quantity and productiveness, and it looks like it's now just going to become a rehash of the reasons for deadminship, which isn't fair to the subject. I think it's time for a bureaucrat to draw a line under this, if not by an immediate closure, then by setting a new deadline. Rd232 (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Of six 'crats, only three are active. EugeneZelenko has become involved, so that leaves Cecil or Jusjih. I think en-3 should be high enough to make sense of the discussion. – Adrignola talk 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And three days have gone by... maybe we need more bureaucrats. Is there some other way of handling this (someone from Meta?)? Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Juliancolton has edited this month. I left him a note on his talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly Commons has a history of inactive (almost totally in some cases) 'crats and one highly active and consistently productive one. It really shouldn't be a Meta matter - hopefully Julian will be happy to take a look at it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to read now. Any last comments or changes of opinion should be done now ;-) -- Cecil (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, its over and I'm now going to get rid of 5 cups of coffee. -- Cecil (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS access removal

The following user has been removed from the OTRS system on 1 February 2011 and should have the OTRS-member flag removed:

• Dolledre (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights

Dolledre told me in person about it and he also said it onwiki. Perhaps an OTRS-member could confirm it? Thanks in advance. Trijnstel (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

log says "Account Dolledre closed by Cbrown1023: inactivity (#239)", so that should be correct. —Pill (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-bit back for User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Hi. Please add Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry to the OTRS member group again. His rights were removed in June 2011 after some problems, but everything is solved and restored now. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

confirmed. —Pill (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello. I'm an OTRS member. Could someone add the local flag to my account? Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

confirmed. —Pill (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Micki

Hello. Please add OTRS flag for this user. He has been an OTRS for months but hasn't been added to the group yet. Thank you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access confirm? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. --Kiran Gopi (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please also add AleXXw and Wnme. Thank you. --Krd (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this. Thanks anyway :) mickit 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag for MarcoAurelio

And also for this user. Thanks--Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access confirm? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. mickit 16:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Request closure

Hello. I think this is not going to succeed. Can we have an speedy closure of the candidature, saving the candidate from more opposes and the time of the project? Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no wish to usurp 'crat powers but there is plenty of work for those who are active to do so I have closed/archived this request. If 'crat disagrees they are welcome to revert my actions. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. There is no need to subject the contributor to further humiliation. When I came across this incomplete application (while researching a vanity article at a sister project) I might have let it die in quiet obscurity, but I felt really irked by the plagiarism and wanted to expose it. At least this exercise served to draw attention to cleaning up the copyvio/copyfraud files. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hello, these are two others OTRS volunteers, please add them to group: Ponyo, Mentifisto. Thank you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access confirm? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I confirm that both Ponyo and Mentifisto appear on the definitive list of OTRS accounts. Although that information is normally private, both users have disclosed it, see User:Ponyo and User:Mentifisto.

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That raises a question -- the OTRS team is careful to point out that some OTRS members do not want that status public. The first line on the page where I got the information reads:

"The contents of this page are confidential. They should not be given, in part or in full, to anyone who is not an OTRS volunteer. Please remember that some people keep the fact that they participate in OTRS private."

Should we be responding to third party requests to add the OTRS bit or should we respond only to requests from the OTRS member? If one or the other of the two above had not already disclosed their OTRS status, any response I made would either be a lie or an unauthorized disclosure.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

don't see a big problem here, that's more a relict of the past, isn't it? i mean, when do you get access to permissions queues? right, if you're willing to contribute there. and how do you contribute there? by inserting otrs tags to commons pages ... so if you do your job right, you'll necessarily have to disclose your otrs membership at some point. it's part of the system. it might not be a problem if you're working on some project-specific queue (such as the one for wiki loves monuments or sth. similar), but then there's also no need for adding these users to the otrs group here. cheers, —Pill (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Will someone add the flag to Russavia‏‎ (talk · contribs)'s account please? I confirm they are an OTRS agent, and seeing as they added the template to their userpage the problem being discussed in the thread above is void. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 06:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Trijnstel

Hi all. Please add the OTRS flag to my account. Today I was granted access to the OTRS system. Perhaps someone else could confirm it? Trijnstel (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely could! And in my usual kindness, I confirm that Trijnstel, after going through all the usual fraternity pledge rituals, is now indeed an official OTRS member. —Pill (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"IKnowEverythingAboutAnything" blacklisted

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#"IKnowEverythingAboutAnything" blacklisted.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Wvk

 Support = 24;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 1 - 100% Result.

Please flag him admin, thanks! a×p_de^Hello! 22:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh... technically you're right, but please leave the closure and archiving of admin requests in the future to actual crats, thanks. Trijnstel (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Something seems to be fishy about this request. Several voters rarely participate at Commons. --  Docu  at 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Mabdul

User:Mabdul now has the OTRS, and notes it on his userpage. Can you please add the flag to his bit. Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm Mabdul is an OTRS member. Trijnstel (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving RfA

Hey Eugene (yes, I know there are other crats, but you're the only active one), can you please do what needs to be done with Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rd232 (de-adminship). I have closed it off and archived it due to the nomination being withdrawn (I hope that is fine), but I guess it needs crat action to properly archive it, etc? Cheers, russavia (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is withdrawn anyone can do it (an admin) - I certainly have in the past and will do it now. Eugene does enough I think. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS members flag for Magog the Ogre

Hello, could you please give the OTRS members flag to Magog the Ogre? I am an OTRS administrator, so I can confirm that he has access to the permissions queue and is actually on OTRS. Cbrown1023 talk 14:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Another OTRS members flag required

Please add me as well, thanks  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

confirmed. —Pill (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please check Commons:Requests for comment, thanks. a×p_de^Hello! 15:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS bit through community process?

In this discussion I've made a proposal for establishing a community process (similar to admin candidacies) for giving the OTRS bit to non-admins at Commons. Your comments there would be appreciated. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hello! I've recently been given access to photosubmission and permissions, and I've been told I need to get an OTRS flag. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Confirmed. Courcelles (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

   Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Username rename request

...is awaiting the bureaucrat's action. --Gleb Borisov (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do confirmation on your home project as you was requested. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've already done that as required by the community regulations: "If you want to adopt the same name on Commons that you are already using on another wiki, you will be asked for evidence that you control the account on the other wiki". Obviously the name I want to adopt is Glossologist, not Gleb Borisov, which I want to replace. So please stop demanding me to do something that is not required by the regulations. --Gleb Borisov (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to remind you, but Russian Wikipedia is your home project. See there. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What username do I want to adopt? "Glossologist", right? So why does an account named otherwise need a "confirmation"? Please, re-read carefully the regulation quoted above. P.S. It is not mentioned anywhere that it's my home project. --Gleb Borisov (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please close the RfB of 99of9

The RfB of Russavia was closed after exactly 7 days. Please close the RfB of 99of9 (Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/99of9) also. It's now 10 days ago... Trijnstel (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggested to extend voting for a week. See comment there. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't see your suggestion overthere. Never mind then. Regards, Trijnstel (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Morning Sunshine

Hello. I have been given OTRS access. Pleas add me to the group. Thanks. Kind regards--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing OTRS flag

Hello. Please remove OTRS flag of Chaser as he revealed and no longer active in OTRS--Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrators/Requests/ANGELUS

Looks like the nominator himself has withdrawn his nomination at Commons:Administrators/Requests/ANGELUS. Do we need to keep this request open and let users to vote even when the voting is no longer valid? --Sreejith K (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Closed as withdrawn russavia (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS Flag for Steven Zhang

Hi, an OTRS user account has been created for User:Steven Zhang and has been given OTRS access. Please add him to the group (verify) Thanks and regards --Katarighe (Talk) 14:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Thehelpfulone

Hi, I have been given OTRS access, please can you add the appropriate flag to my account. Thanks, The Helpful One 18:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to confirm the above user is an OTRS user (although with a name like that, what doubt could there be!?) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done – job collector. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually believed the evil red cross for a minute there. I guess I'll have to find somewhere else to collect jobs. ;) The Helpful One 05:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I know a few places..... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Алый Король

Please give the OTRS member flag to Алый Король (rights). I'm an OTRS administrator, so I can verify his access to the system. Cbrown1023 talk 19:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blackcat RfA

I think that Commons:RfA#Blackcat is ready for closure and promotion, isn't it?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Where are the new 'crats? ;-) Trijnstel (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Did it myself... us old guys gotta do all the work :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone else to close because I had been unusually involved in the discussion. But if you lot had been very slow, I would have taken matters into my own conflicted hands and closed against my own vote :). --99of9 (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't log in

Hi, I normally edit on English Wikipedia as wikipedia:en:User:Bazonka. I also have a dormant Commons User:Bazonka account. However I can't use this because I can't remember my password - instead I have been using this Bazonka2 account here. But this is a pain to use because every time I log in it automatically logs me in to Wikipedia under Bazonka2 which I don't want. I'm also trying to set up a unified login account for Bazonka, but I am unable to do so because (I think) my Bazonka account here is inaccessible.
I was advised on COM:HD to raise this here and ask for my Commons Bazonka account to be renamed so that a new one can be created, or for some other clever bureaucrat stuff to be done. Can you help? Thanks, Bazonka2 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that there is no email address associated with my Commons Bazonka account, so I can't use the Forgot Password option. (Yes, this is Bazonka, just not logged in...) 87.112.40.214 23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I renamed the Bazonka account. Please try to recreate it as soon as you can to avoid impersonation issues (although I doubt it'll come to that). This seems like the simplest solution in lieu of fancy tricks that could be done, so hope this helps a little. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Techman224

Hello, I just received access to OTRS, please give me the flag. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnstel (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Madman

Could I please be put in the OTRS member usergroup? I'm a new volunteer. :) — madman 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Sven Manguard

Hi, I just received access with the above two users, so I'm requesting the flag be added to my account. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. The Helpful One 01:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unusual real name usurp needed

I raised a general policy real name usurpation discussion at Commons:VP#How to handle a complaint from someone with a rare name that happens to be the same as an uploader of sexually graphic images and would like to follow through on the specific request. The general discussion concluded that the principles of en:Wikipedia:U#Real names could apply to Wikimedia Commons.

This request is supported by email correspondence on Template:OTRS ticket and to meet our values of transparency, I have confirmed they are comfortable for this matter to be raised on an open noticeboard. The issue is that the complainant has the real name "Tim Tight" and he is concerned that nude or sexual images uploaded under account User:Timtight might be assumed to be associated with him in real life, particularly as he appears to be the only person in the USA with this real name. He is not connected with the account in any way, this is a coincidence of naming. I have emailed the current owner of account User:Timtight who does not mind having his account renamed (his email reply available on the OTRS ticket) to avoid any distress to anyone with this as their real name. As well as the account rename, a number of images that include "Timtight" in the title would have to be changed (the file histories might have to be revdel-ed so as not to be associated with the old account name).

To simplify matters, the complainant has created the account User:Ttight which can usurp the Timtight account. The current owner of Timtight does not particularly care about the rename and I suggest they are moved to the available User:Tim111 as suitably anonymous (and without apparent SUL issues [16]). In summary User:Timtight → User:Tim111 and then User:Ttight → User:Timtight.

This is not a standard usurp, so I have not gone through Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests, particularly as the "from" account has only just been created (yet to make any edits) and this does not fit the normal criteria. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Moved from COM:AN --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Highlighted at Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests#Ttight → Timtight --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal OTRS rights

Please remove Mercy (talk · contribs) in the "OTRS member" user group as his rights are removed, see also here. Trijnstel (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done --99of9 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Any idea

Any idea how to empty special user categories such as Category:Galleries by Massimilianogalardi quickly ? --Foroa (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like useful extension of User:CommonsDelinker functionality or request for Commons:Bots/Work requests. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Hungarikusz Firkász

Hello!

I'm a member of the Hungarian OTRS-team, please give me the OTRS flag.

Thanks. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Bennó (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Léna

Hello. Please give the flag for Léna. She has OTRS userbox on her userpage to show that she is an OTRS volunteer. I am also one so l can confirm that. Thank you in advance Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnstel (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2012

Admin rights removals have been requested at meta. Would a bureaucrat please sanction one of these two pages to indicate that this is the will of the community. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any requirement that the process by closed by bureaucrats in the policy. So unless I'm mistaken, no bureaucrat confirmation is necessary but will check again later. Snowolf (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, it is past practice that a sysop write the result, see Commons:Administrators/Inactivity_section/Aug-Sep_2011#Result, would be nice if we could have that :) Snowolf (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've added bureaucrat comments on the Steward reqeusts. --99of9 (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little annoyed with the billinghurst request (who is meta. admin) and the 99of9 action, as if such confirmations are generalized, it could become a precedent and create new traditions on meta. and increase the bureaucracy, increasing on all wikis the bureaucrats work. It always seemed clear to me, as hinted by Snowolf (who were by the way recently elected as steward), the meta. policy is the requested action should be documented with whether the relevant homewiki policy, whether the homewiki consensual decision process. So it would only require bureaucrat confirmation if the commons. policy would state it's to a bureaucrat to close the process. Could you confirm I'm right on the meta policy? --Dereckson (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC) P.S. I understand very well 99of9 you wanted to help and that we don't require our bureaucrats to weight each decision they make to see how it could THEORICALLY affect stuff like meta. requests following local projects decisions. The point of my intervention is to check if (i) I well understood the meta. policy (ii) think about how to close the next sysop inactivity confirmations in the future. --Dereckson (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Okey, a few things. First, no, we do not require bureaucrat to confirm the results, we go by local policy. Last time, a commons sysop (Axpde) tallied the results and posted in on meta, and a steward (Matanya) removed the userrights. I assume when you write of "meta policy", you're referring to how we handle the desysop, rather than meta's own procedure for desysop :) This time the tallying was missing and kinda threw us off a bit, but not to worry. While from a steward-point of view, it's much more immediate and simple if a 'crat closes the discussion says bam, desysop user X, Y and Z, I do not personally believe it is within our powers to ask for that. I have read the commons policy for inactivity and bureaucrats are mentioned only in one very specific instance, however I was just waiting for the tallying or the confirmation. Both work fine for me :) Once we received the confirmation from the 'crat, we proceeded to the removal, I would have done so even with the simple tallying but that came later. I'm unsure why you're referring to billinghurst as a meta admin, as that hat of his seems irrelevant to me here. He was likely asking for further clarification as a steward and commons sysop. Hope it clears stuff up a bit :) Snowolf (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's more clear, thank you. And you're right, I don't have to assume a meta. sysop has to know steward policies by hearth, so it's irrelevant. --Dereckson (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised about this requested clarification of a commons 'crat. As I'm a steward myself I knew what I did - I was planning to close it, but Morning Sunshine did it for me (thanks btw!). Wouldn't have made it any difference if I requested the removal instead of another local admin? If so, that would be very wrong... Trijnstel_talk 21:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not implying that meta require this. Please don't read anything big into my reply to this request. I was simply helping out after a request to check things over. It turns out (see below) it should have been checked earlier, because one of the de-sysops may have been mistaken, and I would have noticed that if he hadn't already been de-sysopped. --99of9 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

---

•  Info Per Commons talk:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2012 (thank you, Nemo bis), at least one user — namely str4nd (talk · contribs) — has made more than the 5 required admin actions, all on February 3 (see log). Could a bureaucrat please resysop the admin in question, as this seems to be a human mistake that he had his bits removed? Thank you. odder (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  If you wish to know what happened, Str4nd received a message summarizing the inactivity policy telling him "If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.".

  Str4nd did immediately the 5 actions, but didn't signed to the table, and nobody saw that previously. This is currently under discussion under Commons talk:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2012. --Dereckson (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  Str4nd didn't make more than five admin actions on February 2. That was why he was on the list and that was why I send him the notice. The notice clearly asked him to sign on the inactivity page if he would like to retain his admin rights, not to make x admin actions before the beginning of March. Trijnstel_talk 21:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps the sensibility of what is clear or not depends of the language reading comprehension skill: he's en-2, while you're en-4. The message hasn't been translated into Finnish (his mother tongue) yet. --Dereckson (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, yeah, good point. Didn't think of that. Trijnstel_talk 21:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reinstate admin flag of Str4nd

Please see this statement of Str4nd. I guess it would be good to give him the admin flag back. Trijnstel_talk 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear case when rights should be temporary giving away by owner. This life event is not something completely unexpected. I think will be good idea to give rights to user after his circumstances will be changed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I reinstated his flag yesterday, per the spirit of the procedure, and the discussion on the talk page. He made a clear indication that he wished to retain his adminship, even though he failed to do one of the technical steps. --99of9 (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to re-add his name to Commons:List of administrators --Sreejith K (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it now. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Sreejithk2000

I think you can safely close this now ;-)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

Sorry, I must have missed the notice that my admin rights were being eliminated. Been quite busy with school and such, but really, I enjoy the work I've done on the commons and hope you can find it in your collective hearts to reinstate me!

Peace! Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 23:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

@'crats, see also his reply on his user talk. Please restore his admin rights here. Thanks! Trijnstel_talk 16:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please restore the admin rights of Andrew c (talk · contribs) too, see this and this edit. Trijnstel_talk 22:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored the adminship of both Bastique and Andrew c. Welcome back.--Jusjih (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jusjih! Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be out of process. A new RfA is needed. --  Docu  at 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, deadminship seems to date from March not August last year [17]. --  Docu  at 17:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Léna

I think it can be closed as successful RfA now.--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Russavia. Trijnstel_talk 11:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for TBloemink

I'm a member of the OTRS team. Could a bureaucrat grant me the OTRS flag? Thanks in advance, TBloemink _talk 20:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed (permissions and info-nl). --AFBorchert (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Freaky Fries

I'm a member of the OTRS team. Could a bureaucrat grant me the OTRS flag? Thanks! Freaky Fries (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Whilst this is true Freaky Fries, you don't appear to have access to the permissions queue, please request that at otrswiki:Admin requests first, then you'll be granted the flag here. The Helpful One 15:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Judged by this edit, which contains an OTRS ticket of the queue permissions-nl, I assume he already has access to that queue... Trijnstel_talk 16:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed with an OTRS admin. The user's present level of access, although they're not explicitly in the permissions queue gives them access to permissions-nl. Please give Freaky the flag. The Helpful One 20:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed have access to permissions-nl :-) Freaky Fries (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Freaky Fries (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Temporary bot flag for Addihockey10

Hello! There are a few users who have great Creative Commons material on flickr. I was wondering if I could get the bot flag for a few hours to upload their files. Thanks! Addihockey10 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that I will be uploading above 1000 files. Addihockey10 (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please can you link to the Flickr accounts you intend to upload? Are you sure every picture from their streams is in COM:SCOPE and satisfies our policies? Are the pictures already well described? How will they be categorized? --99of9 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Select sets of www.flickr.com/photos/krossbow/ , http://www.flickr.com/photos/57768042@N00/ and other sets here and there. I will be categorizing them myself. I find that they're pretty well described and if they aren't sufficiently described I'll expand on their descriptions. Addihockey10 (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please can you be more specific. Can you post a list of all the sets you will upload in bulk? The full streams include plenty of out of scope files, old (still in copyright) family pics that were probably not taken by the author, derivative works, etc, etc... Basically I want to be able to verify that you are not going to instantly cause 100 deletion reviews. --99of9 (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes. I'd like to upload some of these sets (omitting useless photos ex. Uncle Steve waving) travel photos and photos of plants and places here again, omitting the odd useless photo. Addihockey10 (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So the upload is not scripted? Or if it is, how will you be excluding out of scope pics? Sorry for all the questions, I'm not usually a bot reviewer, so if other 'crats want to step in and make the decision, feel free. --99of9 (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

closure requested

Could one of you please close Commons:Administrators/Requests/AleXXw, as AleXXw has withdrawn[18] his request for now. --Túrelio (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done as a non-'crat. Trijnstel_talk 19:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

user:BrooklynMuseumBot

We need to close Commons:Bots/Requests#BrooklynMuseumBot_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 at some point. It has been 2 years since the request and in my opinion user:BrooklynMuseumBot was one of the most robust mass upload bot. It does not matter if we approve or deny the bot flag, since the bot uploded images and stopped contributing over a year ago. :( --Jarekt (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Archived as stale. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Sphilbrick

Hello. Please give him OTRS flag as he has been given access. I am also an OTRS volunteer so I confirm this is true. (also see this). Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Kthoelen

Hi all. Please give Kthoelen (talk · contribs) the OTRS member flag. He is a confirmed OTRS volunteer and has access to the permissions-nl queue. Thanks. Trijnstel_talk 18:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Any 'crat available to grant this right to Kthoelen? :) Trijnstel_talk 09:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --99of9 (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - Kthoelen (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Wdwd

Hi, i would to ask for the OTRS member flag on commons. Thanks,--Wdwd (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Ralgis and Savh

They are new OTRS agents who have access to info-es and permission queue. I confirm this as I am also an OTRS members. Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And an OTRS flag for Igna (talk · contribs) as well please. He has also access to the queues info-es and permissions. Trijnstel_talk 15:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Antonorsi

He is a new OTRS agent who have access to info-es and permission queue. I confirm this as I am also an OTRS member. Thank you. Ralgis 15:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for User:Faebot

Hi, Faebot is used for various activities, mostly GLAM project related. I have added OTRS tickets en-mass by Faebot for certain uploads as part of my work as an OTRS volunteer, or by special request and would rather keep these automated actions under Faebot rather than Fæ. Future automated actions with OTRS tickets or corrections may be for large batch uploads for GLAM institutions. Can my bot have this flag to avoid being picked up by the abuse filter in the future? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

End of RfA

Hello, I would just want to point out that my RfA is supposed to be finished, yet it keeps getting votes. Could someone please close it. Thank you very much for your time. Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response, I think everything is under control, except the fact that my status was not changed. Do not be shy to tell me if I do something wrong! Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, it was my mistake. Fixed now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot approvals

I hope nobody minds that I've started working on Commons:Bots/Requests. In my application for Bureaucratship I said I didn't have enough knowledge about bots, but having worked with one myself, I think I'm now roughly competent, and the backlog is very long. --99of9 (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Miss Manzana

Please give the OTRS flag to Miss Manzana (talk · contribs) as this is the newest OTRS member. See also here. I can confirm it as I'm one as well. Trijnstel_talk 22:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Nard the Bard

Please give the OTRS flag to Nard the Bard (talk · contribs). I can confirm he's one of our newest members and he already added a few licenses. Trijnstel_talk 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but can you really trust him? I hear he doesn't like kittens. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Only when Domokuns chase me. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done russavia (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Wpedzich

Please give the OTRS flag to Wpedzich (talk · contribs). He has access to the permissions queue for years now and added a few licenses recently. Trijnstel_talk 13:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Actullary this user had a OTRS status but it was removed after adding administrator one. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

closure of Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jameslwoodward (de-adminship)‎

Could one of you please speedy-close this desysop request, as it was retracted by the requester[19] resp. [20]. --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done I have performed a non-crat closure as it's withdrawn by nominator and clearly under Snowball clause. Feel free to revert it if I am wrong. Best regards--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding me to "OTRS member" usergroup?

I've recently become a member of the OTRS volunteer team, with access to queues including Permissions-Commons. At the Permissions-en-guide I saw a recommendation that I should make a request here to be added to the "OTRS member" usergroup, in order to be able to add OTRS confirmations like PermissionOTRS. So may I join the "OTRS member" usergroup too? Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I confirm Mikael Häggström has access to the permissions queues. Welcome! :) Trijnstel_talk 21:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More new OTRS members: Guerillero, Damzow, Jivee Blau and Hephaion

Please give Guerillero (talk · contribs) OTRS member rights too as I can confirm it and he added the OTRS template on his user page. Trijnstel_talk 21:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And last but not least, please give them to Damzow (talk · contribs) too. See he:User:Damzow for the on-wiki confirmation. Trijnstel_talk 21:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done and  Done russavia (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Trijnstel_talk 21:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked the creation log and found Jivee Blau (talk · contribs) too within the last two weeks. See de:User:Jivee Blau for the confirmation. Trijnstel_talk 22:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please add also Hephaion (talk · contribs), he is for three weeks OTRS-member. See de:User:Hephaion for confirmation. Wnme 18:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnstel_talk 19:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of OTRS member rights of ABF

Please remove the "OTRS member" rights of ABF (talk · contribs) as his OTRS account is closed. Thanks in advance. Trijnstel_talk 11:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OTRS-member flag removal perhaps

Hello. I continue to have access to the OTRS system however none of the queue(s) I have access too right now are about tickets or permissions (just office/steward tasks) as such I wonder wether it is still appropiate for me to have this flag set on my account as I'm no longer going to tag images with tickets nor can review tickets in the permissions queues any longer as I resigned those accesses two/three months ago. Shall I keep the permission or can it be removed? Regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 02:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't plant to work with OTRS permission for considerable time, it's good idea to give away related status. Anyway, it's not so hard to get it back, if you'll need it. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Eugene - exactly my thought. I don't plan to return to the permissions queue in the near future. Please remove my OTRS-member flag. I can continue doing OTRS stuff not related to permissions without the need of this permission. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Harold and Malatinszky

Please give Harold (talk · contribs) the OTRS member flag. I can confirm he has access to OTRS, which is also mentioned on his user page. Thanks. Trijnstel_talk 18:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 Comment He triggered the filter (#69) a few times from March til June 2012, see here. Trijnstel_talk 18:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

One more user which is eligible for the OTRS member flag: Malatinszky (talk · contribs). He has access to OTRS as well and triggered the filter too (see here). Trijnstel_talk 18:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Same for User:MatthiasGor. --Krd 08:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done all three. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for PierreSelim

Hi, I've recently became a member of OTRS (with access to the permission queue), can you add me to the OTRS group ? Kind regards, --PierreSelim (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnstel_talk 12:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for APPER

Hi. Could you please add me to the OTRS group? I'm a member of the OTRS team for over seven years, but never got the flag here. --APPER (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnstel_talk 18:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Keilana

New OTRS member with access to the permissions queues: Keilana (talk · contribs). I can confirm that, but please see also the list of OTRS personnel. Trijnstel_talk 20:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User:PumpkinSky

Hi all,

Through private correspondence, User:PumpkinSky, formerly User:Rlevse (an elected local sysop) requested to be regranted his bit. Rlevse resigned of his own will quite a while ago, but given the fact that he had not been under any local controversy and he was a relatively long-standing and active admin, I took the initiative to fulfill his request. I plan to work with him to ensure that he becomes re-accustomed to the community's newer standards and expectations before diving into heavier administrative work.

With regards and the best intentions, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship_3) warrants a better close, with a rationale, from a neutral party.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship_3) warrants a better close, •with a non-trivial rationale, •from a neutral party. Seeking a qualified Bureaucrat to re-do the close. Please see User_talk:Odder#Improper_close.3F / https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=193381354#Improper_close.3F. --Elvey (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The request was properly closed by a bureaucrat, with a perfectly proper rationale. As has already been explained to you on Odder's's talk page, our policy specifically says:

"It is allowed for a bureaucrat to close a discussion or vote on which they have previously expressed an opinion, but in such a case the closing bureaucrat should take care to close based on policy and overall consensus, and not on his/her own views. The bureaucrat's opinion/vote should be taken into account in the same way as that of the other voters, but with no special weight given to it. If the issue is particularly contentious, or the bureaucrat has become closely identified with one side of the argument, he or she may wish to ask another bureaucrat do the closing."

That is exactly what happened here. The rationale is short but non-trivial: that the decision was based on the community !vote. The closing crat didn't feel the need add any further comment - which is fine, as none is needed.

You give the appearance of trying very hard to keep this matter under active discussion, by constantly starting new threads. You've started and contributed to more than enough now, and you are trying people's patience. I would strongly recommend that you concentrate on other things. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to do that or be seen as doing that. Fine.--Elvey (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Free pass to be uncivil

I also am disturbed that when a pattern of abuse lead to a AN/U with four !votes supporting a topic ban on Colin and 0 votes opposed, it is nonetheless closed like this was. Given the evidence and votes, bureaucrat MichaelMaggs's close explicitly presents an argument that is contrary to policy: It's utterly counterproductive to start threads on the AN/U admin board when a pattern of incivility by one editor against multiple other editors is raised. I believe it should not be counterproductive to start threads on the AN/U admin board when a pattern of incivility by one editor against multiple other editors is raised. And admin closes should not imply that users have a free pass to routinely be uncivil. I've noticed that a high proportion of Colin's comments to other users recently have been uncivil. I noted that here, Colin actually admits that he intended to upset User:Cirt and make Cirt uncomfortable by using the word lynching. That's clearly unacceptable. There's a total lack of recognition of or remorse for any of the misbehavior brought up in this thread. What do we do about that? Blame the victim? Really?--Elvey (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you please move your trolling off this project? Thanks in advance. Natuur12 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Natuur12: While I have your attention, what's with the False narrative you put here? The file was deleted (diff) by User:Jameslwoodward, not kept. You later undeleted it.--Elvey (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Go troll someone else please, or better, stop trolling at all. (For the persons not trolling, that action was part of the 2016 PD day undeletionsy.) Natuur12 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

+1 @Natuur12. Put down the stick, stop beating the horse, do something productive (on or off Commons). Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll go edit PD-CAGov. Please stop piling on, Ellin Beltz: You seem to have forgotten that you indeed misunderstood PD-CAGov -you asserted that if the work of a California City Councilman is the work of a volunteer, not an "employee," {{PD-CAGov}} (which I created in '09) doesn't apply, and nominated the work for deletion. But, The work has been kept, and is tagged w/{{PD-CAGov}} as the Councilman's work, because it does apply. So perhaps worth noting there. You got pissed off at me for pointing it out, denied it had any foundation, and I didn't dig up the evidence 'till recently to show it was well-founded. You said, and I quote, "The PD-CAGov template would not be correct; these materials were made by private people not an employee of the state of California. A county supervisor is not actually an "employee" of the state, but an elected official." (hard-to-find diff) --Elvey (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Elvey, take a break, slow down, and don't cite examples of wrongdoing that aren't wrong. My deletion of File:Pennsylvania Memorial 1.jpg in 2014 was because the monument was still under copyright. Natuur12's restoration of the file on 1/1/2016 was entirely correct, because the copyright had expired at midnight of the day before. The date of the restoration, the Category:Undeleted in 2016, and my closing comment should have been clear indicators to you of the reason for the restoration. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Taking a break for a few days, at least. Note well: I didn't. I never claimed the restoration was incorrect. I asked a question: "[W]hat's with the False narrative you put here?" The narrative there is: "This file was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2013 but was kept." Now I understand why it's there. The language of {{Kept}} is ambiguous. I assumed that kept meant not deleted. That was a mistake, an understandable one, I think. Nonetheless, I apologize. --Elvey (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Krd, I'm confused by your early close - which of these points do you think are of no concern whatsoever?

1. The language of {{Kept}} is ambiguous.
2. The 9 other concerns I raised when opening this suptopic.

As Fæ said the other day, "Reports of attacks against project contributors made on an Administrators' noticeboard should not be swept under the carpet, or collapsed so it gets ignored.

I've fixed the ambiguity.

--(revised) Elvey (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: Then if you already fixed the file's talk page, then what is the point of reopening this discussion again? To blame Natuur12 until he is desysopped? And for the 9 other concerns, they should be resolved at AN/U. Not here. Restoring Krd's close. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey, I understood that with your apology the issue was resolved. If it is not, please summarize which part is still open. Thank you. --Krd 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Krd, since you ask, I'll be more explicit. I'm confused by your early close - I don't think my apology implies that these points are of no concern whatsoever.

1. (The language of {{Kept}} issue is resolved. I changed the page Natuur12 created to not use it.)
2. I am disturbed that when a pattern of abuse lead to a AN/U with four !votes supporting a topic ban on Colin and 0 votes opposed, it is nonetheless closed like this was. ISTM that such an AN/U close contrary to the expressed unanimous vote consensus, as Fæ expressed, "should not be swept under the carpet," and therefore it's not trolling to object; and I note that the accusations that I was trolling were accompanied by no argument or diffs whatsoever. Much like, in an election, if Candidate B gets 100% of the votes, but Candidate C is declared the winner, it's not trolling to complain about the declaration. Rather, it's a legitimate concern. ISTM that AN/U itself is probably not the place to discuss an AN/U close that appears to have been swept under the carpet, especially when it is contrary to policy. But, if no one here comments for 7 days, or changes the close, so be it.
3. Given the evidence and votes, bureaucrat MichaelMaggs's close explicitly presents an argument that is contrary to policy:
4. Michael argues that it's utterly counterproductive to start threads on the AN/U admin board when a pattern of incivility by one editor against multiple other editors is raised.
5. I therefore would like to hear others affirm that that it IS appropriate to start threads on the AN/U admin board when a pattern of incivility by one editor against multiple other editors is raised.
6. And I would like to hear others affirm that admin closes should not imply that users have a free pass to routinely be uncivil.
7. I've noticed that a high proportion of Colin's comments to other users recently have been uncivil. If no one here comments for 7 days, so be it.
8. I noted that here, Colin actually admits that he intended to upset User:Cirt and make Cirt uncomfortable by using the word lynching. That's one of the key items in the pattern of abuse I identified. But If no one here comments for 7 days, so be it.
9. Intentionally upsetting admins is clearly unacceptable. Ditto.
10. There's a total lack of recognition of or remorse for any of the misbehavior brought up in this thread. Ditto.

As Fæ said the other day, "Reports of attacks against project contributors made on an Administrators' noticeboard should not be swept under the carpet, ... so it gets ignored." But, if ignored for for 7 days anyway, so be it. --Elvey (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now why Elvey feels this discussion should still be open. Thanks Elvey for explaining. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Discussion came to it's natural end a long time ago. This has to end, the people involved deserve closing, not more endless bickering. Natuur12 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

'crat action requested

Once again the difficult challenge of how to deal with Colin or Fae. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Colin. Time to demonstrate what you 'crats are made of. This is too challenging and too lengthy a problem for an individual admin, it seems, to be brave enough to tackle. The community needs the leadership and wisdom you guys were elected to demonstrate. -- Colin (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• O.K. Colin, you're absolutely correct. Please see your talk page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • So is this how we're supposed to be reacting now? Is a knee-jerk reaction to a user challenging us into action really the proper thing to do? odder (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I doubt a block is really going to resolve this situation (regardless if the block is justified or not). The crats seem to be rather busy and a part of them hasn't been active lately. How about creating a task force of admins (including crats) who analyse the situation and come up with a binding solution. Like some kind of ad hoc Arbcom. And whatever this task force decides would be final and the background work would happen off wiki. Though the final verdict should be clearly motivated. Sounds like a plan? Natuur12 (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • One thing I dislike about this (and the ArbCom) is the lack of transparency --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
        • That's why the final conclusion has to be clearly motivated but when working on complex cases like this is almost impossible at a live and public wiki since you have to much variables influencing the decision making process. One thing I learned during my two terms of being a Arb, never give away what you are doing during the process unless you have to. Otherwise it will affect your impartiality. If what you have done and why you have done it are part of the final ruling transparency shouldn't be a problem for any reasonable person. Natuur12 (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
          • Natuur12, if someone like you for example willing to help with solving the unsolved repeated problems with giving a thought to creative solutions or suggestions to detailed solutions, I  Support. -- Geagea (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• I would be happy to participate in working together to solve repeated problems. I feel we may perhaps have too few guidelines for situations which can cause major upset. In this particular situation, I saw no other alternative than a short three-day block and thus applied it. Please note that in December 2015, following additional lengthy accusations by one against the other, I promised if it started up again I would deal with it. I presumed six months notice of intent to take action when the behavior repeated was sufficient. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• +1 agree with everything Natuur12 said Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• +1 from me, too. It seems that Commons has resisted the idea of having something like an arbcom for a ling time, but there clearly are some tensions between users that go beyond the simple means (like 3 day blocks). My past interactions with Fae and Colin probbably do not make me a good person to weigh on this particular conflict though. --Dschwen (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• I thought before that Commons having an ArbCom might reduce the power of the community (like electing checkusers, oversighters, and de-adminning admins), but if this is the only way to solve this ridiculous drama, then I  Weak support. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 23:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Another +1 here. ~riley (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• +1 per this. It seems the crat team failed to interfere or jumped into trouble due to that block action with out in-house discussion between them. Please keep this section as "unresolved" until the crats propose a solution, including appointing an arbcom or sub-committee. Jee 03:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• +1 support for an Arbcom-style body - we have managed without one for a long time but over the last year I have noticed an increase in rumbling disputes that flare up every few weeks or months. Green Giant (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to derail this section too much, but I think we need a discussion on conflict resolution on commons. I'd rather not jump to installing an arbcom right away before we talked about alternatives. I'm on travel right now, but I will open a discussion with some ideas in the next few days. --Dschwen (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I already pointed out in an earlier discussion that I'm strong opposed to installing an arbcom on Commons as long as we mostly have problem _with_ users and not _between_ users. Starting a solution oriented discussion at a prominent place is of course a reasonable idea. --Krd 19:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Krd. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

First babystep towards a solution

This situation escalated to a level at which one of the parties wanted to be blocked indef. This is not how it should end and therefor I would like to propose a course of action we can follow. I hope you all understand how serious this situation is at it's current stage. I am presenting the fist step to a possible solution. To keep the discussions manageable I would like to take it one step at a time.

The block

Ellin Beltz blocked Colin for the duration of three days. However, after the block it turns out that there was no consensus for the applied block. At least two crats, two admins and several experienced users expressed that they are against the block. We all know Ellin acted in good faith and tried to do the right thing in the heat of the situation but there has been some damage. Colin has been blocked indef by myself at his own request because he was afraid of damaging his reputation since harassment is a criminal offence in the UK and harassment is a word that triggers a WMF-ban. Ellin cannot undo the block but I would like to ask her to do the following:

Publicly withdraw the block reason, the follow up reason and admit that the block was incorrect.

This only seems fair given the various opinions provided by community members, including admins so far. I like Ellin a lot but she has to rectify het block. This is a first but really important step to find a sustainable solutions. Ellin made a mistake. This does happen and that's not a problem since we are all human and all make mistakes but after the amount of criticism given so far there has to be some acknowledging regarding what went wrong and the reputation damage of Colin has to be undone as much a possible. After we have worked this out it is time for the next step of finding a solution. Natuur12 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Natuur12

Directly referring to the sentence which started the upper level of this section, Colin is absolutely right. This is too much for one person to have tried to do, I chose wrongly and the three day block I applied to his account was a mistake.

I have not done any other blocks for controversial reasons that I remember. I have blocked very few users compared to working with files. I am aware that perhaps I should not have jumped in despite what I saw as an unpleasantly escalating situation in a discussion section which I started about something completely different.

The problem starts at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 59#Please review the situation and continues with a edit which chopped off the end of the section and creating a new section Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 59#Colin. I think these two sections should have remained combined. I started the section, if there was any un-combining to do, I think I should have done it. Following the thread from one to the other, I read the discussion where others expressed opinions. Some of them have different opinions on the ANU and talk pages! I considered all those points from the discussion.

After all that reading, I rose to a challenge I should have left unaccepted. Later, when asked to define reasons for the block I referred to the Commons:Blocking_policy#Instructions_for_administrators as requested. Number four on the list "Harassment" seems to me to cover in one word what had been discussed in the above two sections. The laws of the United Kingdom and/or the WMF banning policies never entered my mind while using the word "harrassment," it was merely the section heading from the applicable page of instructions which I did not write which covered the words I had read as above.

The words said and the damage to reputation those words may have caused is directly the responsibility of the author of those words, but the block itself was wrong because not only did I not achieve consensus, I didn't even try. I rose to the challenge, mistaken then and mistaken now of "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?," (Knowles Oxford Dictionary of Quotations p. 370) tried to be amusing about it, and failed at that too.

The follow-up discussion was based on reviewing it in light of Commons:Blocking_policy#Instructions_for_administrators as requested and used the Wikimedia section heading "harassment" to describe the situation as above.

There is no reason for any of the block, the template or the additional discussion to be retained as it is all moot; the block action was wrong, despite the provocation there was no consensus. However, I am not going to modify Colin's talk page to prevent any additional problems, without specific direction. If there is an action which can be performed by another to "fix" the issue, I would be happy if they'd do it.

I hope Colin, and everyone else in the discussion and its sources, accepts my apology given for my mistaken action in the same good faith in which it is offered. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ellin Beltz for reaching this new conclusion. It takes courage to admit a mistake in public. I have great respect for that. And people who get their hands out of their pockets to work, make mistakes, and I believe you, when you state your block was done with good intentions. Natuur12: This was very well presented in a fair and mellow manner I think. Thank you.-- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz. I have read your statement about the block above now several times. I did that because I wanted to try and "fix" the issue on Colin's talk page, since you explicitly stated you were "not going to modify Colin's talk page to prevent any additional problem". I tried two days ago to "fix" it, as I really feel it needs to be clarified on Colin's talk page that the block was mistake for the sake of his reputation and the allegations given there. However, it just did not feel right that I do it, as I am becoming more and more in doubt exactly what you do mean. Therefore I undid my "fix" shortly thereafter. Having thought more about it, I think it is you who ought to "fix" his talk page, as you issued the block. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Colin versus Fae or Fae versus Colin - analysis (pick one, no point intended)

This conflict has been doing on for a long time and the tide has to turn but I like to stick to some of the more recent incidents first. Let's take a look at some of the discussions both Colin and Fae participated in.

Case study of discussions that didn't escalate

First some examples of discussions that din't escalate.

• During this discussion Colin seems to be disagreeing with Fae. I am not wanting to go the point at which we decide who was right or wrong but it seems like fair criticism of his viewpoint. Nothing wrong here.
• The next debate I want to take a closer look at is this one. Again, it is not about who was right or wrong but the behaviour of Colin and Fae during this debate. I see Colin given criticism but criticising our crats, admins and community is allowed and without feedback we cannot improve ourselves. Fae however, suggests Colin either starts a own topic regarding the points about one of the crats he brought up which seems rather strange given the context.
• The following discussions shows Colin criticising Fae but given the context this criticising seems nothing to be uncalled for and they did not clash. See also this discussion.

We have now seen three discussions in which there was strong criticism, people had different viewpoints but nothing went out of line. Even though the topics itself seemed to be smoking hot. It seems to me that Fae and Colin aren't a killer combo and they participate in the same debates every now and than and some of the input is quite useful.

Fae

However we still have a dispute. So let's take a look at situations that went wrong.

• First example is this. I notice that it is LGBT-related. I fail to see any evidence of anti-LGTB behaviour, houding, wikistalking etc though in Fae's reply to Colin. Still, this probably explains why Colin wants to remain blocked for his own benefit. Apparently LGBT seems to be a topic that triggers Fae.
• See also this discussion. After reading the diffs, comments and impressions from fellow editors and past discussions like This one

I do come to the conclusion that Fae seems to be oversensitive when it comes to LGBT-issue's and he brings in his sexual orientation in as an argument while it is not relevant. It is rude and bad practice to slap people with personal stuff. This also seems to be the kind of situation in which Fae clashes with not only Colin but other editors as well. Colin also seems to be accused of anti-LGBT-behaviour but evidence has never been provided. This is concerning since no person should be the target of repeated unfounded accusations.

Colin

Regarding Colin, based on the links provided in this post he tends to give hard criticism but in most of the cases it is pretty clear why he comes to a certain conclusion. Still, not everyone seems to be capable to deal with his discussion style. However, the fact that not everyone is capable to deal with criticism isn’t a reason to sanction the person who criticises others. Plus most of the time the criticism seems to be justified. Not stating we have to agree with it but it the level of criticism is fair.

Current situation

This brings us at the present situation and resulted in Colin being blocked for three days, converted to an indef block at his request. In short, Fae seems to be referring to LGBT and his sexual orientation at times it is not appropriate to do so accusing others or bringing others in discredit by playing the LGBT-card.

Next step

I have a possible solution in mind but before I present it to the wider community I would like to ask the crats (and experienced admins and users) if they could evaluate if my analysis of the situation is fair in their eyes. I didn't take behaviour that isn't related to the Fae-Colin/Colin-Fae conflict into account. Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Thanks for the analysis. May I propose that you structure your analysis such that it becomes easier to comment on? For instance by dedicating a sub-section to each "interaction" or by enumering them such that it becomes easier to refer to them? Else, I am concerned the response may become an unstructured mess with fluffy claims and allegations, which are not directly easy to refer to actual earlier interactions. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

How about this? Natuur12 (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have now spend a long time re-reading the discussions you have brought forth here Natuur12. I agree with your analysis. Colin is indeed critical in several places, but it always refers to actions Fæ has done on this wiki, not to his person, and most often Colin can specifically refer to evidence in the form of diffs or quotes. The only times where the discussion begins to involve LBGT issues is when Fæ out of the blue begins to refer to his own sexuality. It appears to me that this is done deliberately to censor criticism. And when Fæ repeats over and over again that he feels harassed or that he expresses that Colin is obsessed with him, without providing evidence, some users begin to believe this is the case without assessing the facts. When an argument has been going on for a while, things do tend to escalate, and Colin begins to communicate in a rather non-mellow tone and Fæ keeps on twisting facts. Although I do not appreciate the hard tone that evolves, I also do understand the frustration being build up on Colin's side. You can push that button until it snaps. And Fæ is a master in pushing that button. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Question If I well understand this is the oldest disagreement and at least the first discussion which is the source of the LGBT topic between the both users, isn't it? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I haven't found any older examples of this kind of disagreement between Fae and Colin. Natuur12 (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    • On a personal level, I was active on the FPC project at the same time and I witnessed of this discussion, I was a little shocked by Colin trying to remove the image, and even removing it. I remember clearly to have agreed, even if I said nothing, with A.Savin and with Russavia in their both comments. And I can understand the frustration of Fae because someone removing his nominated image. That was just my personal point of view at the time of the facts, nor that means I condone anything that is followed. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @Christian Ferrer: : Colin did not try to remove the image, but replaced it with a link, such that you would had to click once to see it using a NSFW argument. I think that is an important point as it was later characterised again, and again, and again by Fæ (and others) as censoring, which is the completely wrong term for that. It is to show editorial judgement and to follow a principle of least astonishment. You may disagree with the judgement done, but there was a rational reason for replacing the image with a link. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
        • @Slaunger: Of course that a link and an image are not the same thing, that is a fact. And to replace an image with a link is indeed to remove an image, that's all. And this is not fair with respect to the rules to which are subject the other images. And in defense of Fae if somebody had removed or replaced, if you want... one of my nominated images with a link, then likely I would have been frustrated and likely I would not been able to keep cool. That is a fact, and specially at this past precise time. And I still think this action, done in good faith or not, was not appropriate as well as not fair. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
          • 1. I don't want to comment on whether that edit is right or not as the community had discussed it later and found a solution. But I don't see any connection to LGBT for that incident. It was removed from the display only because it fall under "showcasing of genitals" irrespective of the sexual orientation. Note that homophobia is a crime in many countries and against WMF policies; so accusing a person for that should be avoided unless having solid evidences. 2. Another attempt I see here is "any argument against a LGBT member or his edits is against LGBT". This is seldom true and such attempt should be discouraged from the initial stage itself. Jee 11:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
            • I don't say Fae was right or not to interpret this action as homophobia, but if you remember well, in the past, not far from this event, I had harsh, and even some very harsh, discussions with Colin and on it's way of reviewing and wording. And if Colin had done this thing with me, most likely there would be conflict, maybe even worse than the one we have currently. I learned to know Colin, and to appreciate him. However, I can not throw a stone to the face of the one who is not able to do the same, our conflict ended because I took a good share of responsibility, I do not regret nor undermines all this. However fool is the one who think the things are only black or white. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
              • I remember. And I too had many conflict of opinions with him. My only disagreement here is labeling that incident as LGBT where it was only a NSFW issue including all orientations. It was well discussed; even by Tom Morris. But Fæ didn't accept it and stated "Yes homophobia exists. I am concerned here about systemic bias rather than individual homophobia." And Colin still trying to defend that he/Commons has no such issues. Jee 16:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
                • If NSFW is in our policies and a valid reason to edit/remove some contents, then I'm not aware of this policie. And I'm sorry for that gap, where is the link to the policie? for my learning. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
                  • There is no such policy as far as I am aware. There are lots of aspects of Commons for which we have no policies. I am not aware either that it is stated anywhere that it is not allowed to apply editorial judgement. Tom Morris, stated it cleaer than I can express "The argument made regarding this image is clear as day: full-frontal nudity, male or female, is something that other contributors could potentially find issue with when it comes to editing Commons at work. I work in an open plan office and opening up the 'Kelvin and Aren' picture in the office would be highly problematic. It's nothing to do with the fact that the image is male rather than female nudity, nor around how it depicts LGBT subject matter." This is a perfectly legitimate point of view to have, which is not in violation of any policy either. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
                    • The strictly the opposite view is also a perfectly legitimate point of view, Commons is not censored, and the neutral point of view on the content of our files is clearly in our policies. And as I pointed above, to make a difference between several candidates is not fair and for someone who campaigns for the LGBT rights, all this can clearly be seen as discrimination, and/or at least as a legitimate fight. Sorry but anyone has the right to try promote content that he considers relevant, and so completely and strictly egalitarian with other content. And also, actions made within the NSFW argument, as it is not a policie, should be made only after agreement of the community, not before. And certainly not by putting someone to the wall, putting him on the defensive. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
                      • I think we can all agree that Colin can be argumentative and combative. It's in his nature. I too have had heated arguments with him, but this really isn't just about heated arguments, is it? This is about accusations made that, if true, could constitute a legitimate reason for a block. If untrue and found to be slanderous and unfair, they could constitute a reason for a block on the accuser. Determining the truth and validity of the accusations should be central to this discussion. Without this, it's extremely difficult to find any justice. Diliff (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
                        • Yes and where are these accusations? to make one, or even to make a hundred discussion in the village pump about how a user feel frustrated or discriminate in the FPC project because he think the project is not equal is not at all accusations, a cat is a cat, to remove a gay image is to remove a gay image. It's what I call trying to search consensus to evolve a way to make the things to another way, more just. I don't agree nor disagree, but I see no explicit accusations. At the opposite, it's exactly the same thing : to accuse someone of making false accusation without evidence is a false accusation too. I leave you the responsibility of what you think is relevant or not. Me I think to try to understand how and why Fae reacted is not at all irrelevant. It's even the earth of the topic. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
                          • I don't even know where the accusations are anymore. They were made over quite a wide period of time by Colin, that he had been misrepresented as a bigot and a homophobe by Fae among other things. I don't have the patience to go looking for them. They were made. Discussions exist in so many different places that I wouldn't even know where to start looking anymore. I agree that an an accusation without proof is a form of false accusation, but just because the accusation is not presented here, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Colin has stopped contributing, so his side of the story is not being represented here. I'm sure if he had any patience left, he could go into great detail. I don't have his evidence, and I don't have the patience to find it. But I'm sure it's there for those who have the patience to find it. Colin is not the type to make unfounded accusations. Diliff (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
                          • This was another one related discussion. Jee 13:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
                            • Yes and even in this old discussion Fae denies clearly to have accused somebody to be "homophobe" and denies clearly to have tried to play "the homophobe card". He just tried to fight against what he think to be an unfair censure and, in his way, said that the argument NSFW was used subjectively and arbitrarily, and used only for a gay content. The only thing he wanted was no to touch to his image! I do not share his fight but it is totally unfair to pretend he was a monster falsely accusing others about homophobia. And although some can think he has a special way of debate, it's a real injustice to use his fight against him. Maybe awkward and "in your faceness" (french:rentre-dedans), but clearly not seeking to play false accusations. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Info: It should be noted that both users have in the past suggested solutions for this issue. For the record, in their own words:
  • Fæ about Colin: «Go away. You are dis-invited from writing on this talk page.»^(source)
  • Colin about Fæ: «I certainly have no admins in my pocket, otherwise I'd have used my pocket money to get Fae indef banned»^(source)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• That (voluntary interaction ban) is hardly a solution outside their talk pages. It is very difficult for a person to participate in discussions while keeping a list of people from whom he don't want questions/comments and to whom he is not willing to answer. In the first look, it may looks like a legitimate point; but in effect, it can be considered as a tactful play to avoid difficult questions. The current incident happened here where Colin asked questions whereas Fæ don't want to answer. Its OK as far as it ended there. But instead of leaving it there, he opened a new sub-head which later separated. I think the comment "Should anyone other than Colin feel there are real questions worth me answering, please ping me or email me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)" provoked Colin. I think if someone commented "Should anyone other than Jkadavoor..", I too get irritated.
• So my suggestions: 1. If one don't want to answer to answer to other, it's OK; but everybody has the right to ask questions and question our comments as far as they are on public places. 2. If you don't answer, leave it there. Don't crate sub-heads every now and then inviting people to prove "I'm right". 3. In most cases, it is courteous to answer as much as possible as it proves we are open to discussions. It is also an act of humbleness. 4. If I refuse to answer to you, you can consider I agree with you in most cases. The only way to defend my side is to answer, answer and answer. Jee 04:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Natuur12, for compiling the summary, but to be honest I consider it a bit unreasonable to have the audience read all that old stuff about who when said what under which intention. A some point of a conflict, it doesn't matter who started the problem, but everybody shall start to think solution oriented, draw a line, make a cut, whatever you like to call it, shake hands and offer the opposite party to save face. We have to assume that users are ladies and gentlemen contributing to Commons in good faith and looking forward to working together, or at least accept coexistence of different ideas and discussing in a civil manner. Anybody who does not qualify for these condition should probably reflect if Commons is the best place for them to be. --Krd 08:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

In order to resolve a conflict it is important to understand the conflict itself. (though the question who started is indeed less relevant but I didn’t focus my analysis regarding who started it). The current conflict is to complex, to old and to severe to merely resolve it with a handshake and a promise to forget the past. One of the reasons is because the stakes are raised pretty high (reputation damage for both parties, an indef block etc) but also because we (the community) failed to intervene in time. The older an conflict gets the harder it will become to resolve it or at least create a manageable situation.

Crats have a leadership role:

Bureaucrats are expected to be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues. They also have to be able to deal sensitively with confidential information (occasionally disclosed to the bureaucrats as a group), and to be able to judge what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly on wiki.

Therefore I don’t believe it is unreasonable to ask the crats to evaluate an analysis so we can establish where the problem lies. If we understand the conflict and know why there is a conflict we can come up with a possible solution. I often work with three simple steps when I am trying to resolve a difficult situation:

• What is the current situation?
• What is it what I want to archive?
• How am I going to archive that?

In my experience this approach works pretty well. You simply cannot ignore the history of a conflict, otherwise the odds are that you will come up with a solution that doesn’t match the actual problem. Currently I am working on step 1. Natuur12 (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and as said, I appreciate that you're doing some arbcom like work here. On the other hand, I refuse to accept that a conflict between two users is a major community issue. If it is, maybe both of the users do not have the skills required to cooperate here. --Krd 11:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Krd: I do not agree with your fast dismissal of history just because it is inconveniently voluminous lacking an easy to read unbiased "executive summary". The history is needed to understand the current status as Natuur12 correctly points out. It is too easy to simply ignore the problem. Colin has shown a great capability to do constructive work in the community. He originally orchestrated the Photo challenge project in a most constructive manner and to this day it is a fun way to participate in Commons, get new photos of new topics and it helps attract new users. He has also been curating that project excellently, in a mellow manner. He has contributed with 49 featured pictures. Likewise Fæ has uploaded more than 5% of all images on Commons! The conflict has been there for years, and on several occasions, the community has been asked for help. Being a valued or productive contributor is not a free pass to do whatever you like on Commons, but it is a failure of the community that it has not managed to help resolve the conflict. We are beyond AGF. That is partly because the 'crat team (or should I say loosely affiliated group of users, who have been community elected as 'crats) have been far too invisible in developing community consensus and show leadership. I believe this is partially because some 'crats have fundamental disagreements in their understanding of policy and how it should be applied. I am very glad to see that Natuur12 is now doing an effort to analyse the situation, and guide the community. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Three points:

1. in the above discussion there appears to be an assumption that I have made an accusation that Colin is a homophobe. Could someone provide a diff and a date to where I have made that accusation? As far as I am aware I have only ever asked questions about systemic bias and whether the system, not individuals, has a natural heteronormative bias. As most people live their lives in cultures that have patriarchal and heteronormative bias, this is not an unreasonable area for our community to encourage questions about.
2. with regard to "it is not appropriate to do so accusing others or bringing others in discredit by playing the LGBT-card", this seems targeted at me, however it ignores the evidence of the times that Colin made an issue of LGBT, apparently solely because I was taking part in a discussion, when up until that point the discussion had nothing to do with LGBT issues. It is reasonable to make that criticism of Colin on the occasions when Colin has introduced LGBT as negative issue out of any reasonable context apart from my name being there, the best example of this being the "raging gay" . Similarly it is not reasonable to claim that I am "playing the LGBT-card" when I am not the one originally making an issue of it.
3. I agree that "Fae seems to be referring to LGBT and his sexual orientation at times it is not appropriate to do so accusing others or bringing others in discredit by playing the LGBT-card" would be a problem, however there is a huge distinction between being openly gay on this project, to the extent of founding and regularly promoting Wikimedia LGBT, and the allegation that I "slap people with personal stuff". I do not recall the facts of my gay experience or regularly using my long gay life and interests as context for my volunteering activities on this project, being an recurring problem with anyone else apart from Colin. The truth is that since about 2 or 3 years ago when odder picked me up on something, I have been avoiding dropping "gayness" into discussion on-wiki in a way that in real life I would never censor being myself. If this negative personal characterization of me is to be accepted as evidence, then it requires unambiguous diffs that make "playing the LGBT-card" a relevant and current problem that needs some sort of action against me or Colin.

I'll put together some relevant diffs for the above shortly, due to my level of activity, things I recall happening can take a while to track down in my edit history even when using tools. In the meantime, I'd like to remind everyone that I have not requested any action against Colin, nor do I expect any. I have asked that he avoid me or asking me questions without going via an administrator, which I believe would solve any perceived problems that people have raised here instantly, and fits nicely with the widely accepted principles of avoiding escalating feedback per Wikipedia:Deny recognition. As a solution this needs nothing but Colin to informally agree to stick to it and we can get on with our enjoyable volunteer projects.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding some diffs, hopefully some which may be new to some people contributing here. I have attempted to data-mine my own contributions, but it's incredibly slow compared to mining Colin's edit history, however as it is our interaction that is of interest, hopefully that analysis is sufficient and reasonable.

Instances of Colin's use of the word "homophobia":

1 2016-06-23 20:33 [21]

2 2016-06-21 17:03 [22]

3 2016-06-21 14:36 [23]

4 2016-02-02 08:51 Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#NSFW_Main_page_images Though heteronormativity is mentioned in the context of asking for statistics, neither LGBT or homophobia are used until Colin introduces them as an issue with "But that doesn't stop you waving homophobia accusations around and challenging people to defend themselves against them. Shame on you Fae, you are a disgrace to Commons and to the LGBT community you claim to stand up for."

5 2015-11-22 09:52 [24]

6 2015-11-21 19:57 [25]

Instances 1,2 and 3 rely on the discussion at 4 where Colin "plays the LGBT-card" by introducing LGBT and homophobia which until then are not part of the discussion. "Heteronormative" is not a synonym of "homophobia", nor was it used as an accusation, it was used by me in a discussion looking for statistics to see if there could be a bias in the way images featuring nudity were treated by our systems. It is bizarre that this discussion around the treatment of images of nude women is being used as evidence that I played "the LGBT-card".

Colin's use of "raging gay" as an example of homophobic language can be found in a discussion where LGBT issues are not mentioned until that point, neither is my sexuality:

7 2015-11-17 12:46 [26] "Simply dismissing this as "dramah" is as unhelpful and insulting as if someone responded to one of your concerns about sexuality-bias with "more dramah from an editor who, based on his contribs, is obviously a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder". See, it doesn't sound so nice to be dismissed like that."

Instances 5 and 6 relate to discussion of Colin's use of "raging gay" on the administrator's noticeboard (7). This was clearly intended to be an example of homophobic language and I referred to it as such when I said on my user talk page "I will not gloss over the use of homophobic language by others, as well you know" on 21 November 2015 and in that discussion first asked Colin to "Go away". Objecting to deliberate offensive and unnecessary use of homophobic language is not an accusation that someone is a homophobe. I have never accused Colin of being a homophobe. It is most unfortunate that Colin has repeated his claim so often that it is now being accepted as a fact, though nobody can supply a diff where that actually happened.

As far as I can work out by searching my contributions, the only place I have used the word 'homophobe' or variations of it, is when refuting Colin's first use of that word. I did use the words "homophobic language" as explained above, in a context which to my eyes seems factually accurate to describe the language of "raging gay". I regret using the word "homophobic" in any way that might end up being interpreted as a claim of homophobia rather than a statement of fact, similarly there seems a repeated misunderstanding of the word "heteronormative". Should the community feel that these words are impossible to use on Commons without someone finding them personally inflammatory, I will be happy to censor them on-wiki from here on.

As a community, it would be fundamentally wrong if we cannot openly discuss possible systemic bias of our processes, especially in the context of our significant cross-wikimedia project to take positive action to address the gender gap, precisely an issue of natural systemic bias not an accusation that specific editors are misogynists. It is inconceivable that if we accept gender gap is a community problem, then other types of bias may need measurement, discussion and positive action. If we need to take better care in our choice of words to avoid drama, that's do-able so long as we can explain our behavioural norms of language to newcomers, but it would be foolish to make our volunteers and newbies fear that by simply attempting to discuss these issues they might be indelibly tarnished or marginalized as trolls. Thanks Fæ (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Addendum, below is a report of my edits containing words matching "homo", like homosexual or homophobia, in the Commons namespace but excluding my own RFAs. This does not probe the long term AN archives as the search stops after looking through the most recent 2,000 edits in a page's history. Due to the number of my edits, wildcard searching like this needs to run overnight:

1 2016-06-12 17:00 [27]

2 2016-05-07 15:43 [28]

3 2016-04-20 18:53 [29]

4 2016-04-05 08:47 [30]

5 2016-04-01 18:04 [31]

6 2016-02-21 10:32 [32]

7 2014-12-06 20:52 [33]

This at least shows that for deletion discussions, for many editors a place to expect drama in disputes, there is no pattern in my edits of "playing the LGBT-card". --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Fae, it's been discussed over and over already, but I think it's pretty firmly established that Colin's use of "raging gay" an example of an ad-hominem attack does not mean it is an actual homophobic attack on you. It's simply an example of an attack that could be used to attack you if someone was so inclined - an example that was intended to point out some hypocricy in your actions - not because he felt anything in particular about your sexuality or otherwise. For better or worse, we know certain things about the characters and backgrounds of other people here. Some of it we discover inadvertently, some of it we discover because people make it quick clear - they 'wave the flag' so to speak. It's been known for some time, through a combination of the two, that you identify as LGBT. Colin obviously knew this too. That's why he used it as an example of an ad-hominem attack that could be used to attack you. It doesn't mean he's using homophobic language against you. Simply conceiving of a homophobic slur that could be considered offensive, and then talking about it doesn't cross the line IMO. If talking about something unpleasant was enough to be accused of being that unpleasantness, how could we have honest conversations about anything controversial or sensitive? There may well be genuine homophobia on Commons, and that's something that should be addressed in an appropriate manner, but choosing to interpret Colin's comment in that way in spite of numerous protests that it wasn't intended in that way shows a lack of good faith. I know this conflict goes far beyond any one point of contention now, but it seems to be indicative of things - a bellweather of your motivations. Failing to discuss any given issue in good faith seems to be a major stumbling block, and the continued efforts to argue that there was an issue with Colin's comments there seems to suggest that you still refuse to accept his true intentions at the time. It could well have been expressed in a way that would have been more difficult to misinterpret, and I'm sure Colin regrets that, but at what point do you accept that he meant no homophobic intent in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diliff (talk • contribs)

As said above, I regret my description 8 months ago of the language Colin was using as "homophobic language". I have never claimed that Colin had homophobic intent. I have never called Colin a homophobe. I was aiming to write an accurate description and unambiguously object to the offensive language Colin used in a way that he would take notice of and choose to back off. This in no way was speculation as to Colin's motivations. I have today redacted the h-word in my archive, diff, so that cross-links to it will no longer show that word, hopefully that addresses part of your concerns. However Colin's use of "raging gay" cannot be described as a good faith comment when directed, in whatever format, at an openly gay contributor; but I don't think anyone is expecting me to go that far.

My understanding of the words "raging gay" directed against another editor, even as a hypothetical example, is that the words are precisely an example of language chosen to cause offense to a minority group that I am a part of. The term "raging gay" introduced into a discussion that up until that point neither mentioned my sexuality, nor was anything to do with LGBT issues, is clearly "playing the LGBT-card" which seems to be the point of the discussion on this noticeboard.

Diliff, I am unsure what else you expect here that could be positive, or now I have provided a timeline of diffs, but still have no intention of asking for any administrative action against Colin, why it is a good thing to keep on feeding this discussion. I see nothing to stop Colin returning to this project and getting on with what he enjoys. He need not take part in this discussion. He need not interact with me. A lack of our interaction does not stop either of us getting on with our contributions, as in our years of contributing to this project we hardly ever had reason to edit the same areas. I have twice asked him to leave me alone in the last 8 months. Colin leaving me alone seems an easy way to pragmatically "solve" this on an informal footing, without the need for any more lengthy discussion, formal proposals for action or using this as a reason to set up an Arbcom-like body. As for Colin asking me questions or holding me to account, he is completely free to do that, as many times as he likes, should he want to spend his volunteer time doing so, and I will publish answers as required. I see nothing but positive benefits asking that Colin's questions directed at me should first informally go via an administrator to avoid any possibility of escalation, or perceptions either way about what may be seen as bad words or misunderstood language. If Colin wants me to do the same, I'm happy to comply, though at the current time I cannot imagine having any reason to do so.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

But you continue to frame the conflict as being related to your LGBT identity, even if just in part. I disagree that it is. Also, I disagree that it's impossible for Colin's "raging gay" comments to be used in good faith. It mostly certainly can. In fact, I suspect that on some level it was. Sure, he was disagreeing with you but it seems to me that he was deliberately describing something that he knew would be hurtful to you because he knows that it's not nice to be called a slur that relates to your sexuality. Given that he wasn't calling you a raging gay, he was describing something that would be hurtful if someone said it to you, doesn't that demonstrate empathy? Why would you think of it as bad faith? At best, it's neither good faith or bad faith, but IMO the fact that he used it as an example of something that he believed you would legitimately and understandably be offended by shows that it wasn't bad faith. As for how to move on from this, I agree, it's tricky. He feels it's impossible to avoid entering scenarios where he might have to cross paths with you. And furthermore, he feels that it would be unethical to not disagree with you when he feels that something needs to be said. Therein lies the problem I suppose. I accept that it would be great for us all to move and to forgive past digressions and act in good faith in future and find a way to coexist. But it seems to me that he won't let this issue remain unresolved as a matter of principle. Either his good name is cleared of the accusations that you've made towards him, or he refuses to remain in the community that doesn't support him on this. If indeed he is right to feel that his reputation has been unfairly trampled on by your implications of homophobia and bias against LGBT and other such things, then I don't blame him. Diliff (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's take your points in order:

1. It's not a conflict, I asked Colin to leave me alone in November 2015, I have avoided him since and plan to continue to avoid him or even mentioning his name on-wiki.
2. Your words to describe Colin's actions are that he used deliberately hurtful language targeted at me, in a discussion that had nothing to do with my sexual orientation until he made it so by "playing the LGBT-card". Sorry, I don't see why in those circumstances I should be repeatedly accused of "playing the LGBT-card" because I objected to that language and asked to be left alone, nor do I see why you are requiring that I retrospectively, many months later, reframe the facts so that Colin's choice of language must be described as being a good faith comment. There is no need to resurrect and rewrite the past, let's leave it behind and accept a pragmatic solution, the one I was quietly asking for in November last year.
3. I have difficulty accepting the premise that "it's impossible to avoid entering scenarios where he might have to cross paths with you". If you can provide an example, I can explain how I would avoid interacting with Colin as I have already been doing. I have made nearly 4 million edits to Commons, barely any have come anywhere near Colin. Most editors I see and work with via my uploads, Colin just has not been one of those many names that I notice and have good reason to work with in the last 3 years, so I don't actually believe that asking that Colin informally put questions to me via an administrator, should he ever have cause to do this in the future, is a real obstacle or in any way "unethical".
4. With regard to "accusations that you've made towards him", there has been plenty of opportunity for these to be laid out here. Perhaps rather than making rhetorical statements, if there are key statements I have made that I have not already covered above, you should provide unambiguous diffs to my edits and I can speak to them and provide context, retract them or apologise if they were stupid of me to make. I am not prepared to accept that "implications of homophobia and bias against LGBT" is true without strong evidence, beyond the above diffs that I have provided showing that Colin has repeatedly made this allegation over a very long period of time, in particular repeatedly introduced the h-word apparently in order to inflame debate, rather than sticking to words that I actually used like "heteronormative" when asking about statistics for a process, not making allegations about individuals.

--Fæ (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'll respond to your points in order too.

1. It is a conflict though. You might wish for the conflict to end, and I appreciate that, but that doesn't make it happen instantly. It's a conflict of opinions, of personalities, of arguments and ideas. You can't pretend it hasn't happened. Due process needs to occur because simply avoiding you isn't a fair or reasonable option when you both inhabit the same space and work on the same projects.
2. I did not describe his actions as using deliberately hurtful language targeted at you. That's your interpretation. I said that he used the words as a hypothetical situation to make you reflect on how it might feel to have your sexuality brought up unnecessarily in the form of a derogatory term. I made it very clear that I felt the term 'raging gay' was absolutely not targeted at you. Why is it that you keep failing to accept that there's a difference. That's what seems like bad faith to me: the fact that you continually repaint it as a situation in which you were the victim of targeted homophobic/LGBT abuse. It wasn't the intention, Colin has made it clear, you made it clear you regretted accusing him of homophobia, so why is this still an issue? I don't think it's fair for you to object to the language when it's not language directed at you. If I declared to you that "it's not nice to call someone a fucking idiot", that obviously doesn't mean I'm calling you a fucking idiot, it's simply a statement. Now, there's likely to be some reason why I made that statement and that reason may or may not be nasty. Perhaps I think you're a rude for saying it, or perhaps I'm empathising with you after someone else had called you that. It could be any number of scenarios. Either way, it's obviously not a statement calling you the fucking idiot. It's exactly the same with Colin's statement. he obviously wasn't calling you a raging gay, he was using it as an analogy, saying it isn't nice to be called one, with the hope that you might reflect your own behaviour in some way. That's it. Please understand this and stop reframing 'raging gay' as an attack on you. It simply wasn't. I'm not trying to reframe it at all. It was always framed that way, by Colin, myself and others. I argued at the time that you misunderstood. Whether you listened to me or anyone else is the real issue here. And it's still vitally important that you understand this, because it one of the major sources of conflict. Wanting to move on because you don't want to accept that you misinterpreted it is not a valid solution. It's just burying your head in the sand and maintaining that you were right all along.
3. I just don't think that asking someone to leave you alone is an acceptable response or refutation of their arguments in a disagreement. Sure, it's appropriate if you are being harassed, but it's not a valid response to a disagreement. Perhaps you might, at this point, think that Colin is 'harassing' you after months of arguments. I'm not going to get into that, but I think it's fair to say that your first significant clashes with him were not harassment, they were just heated disagreements. In some of them, you appeared to read into them some LGBT-bias and seemingly this is the source of many of your blind spots on the issue. You seem to view so many disagreements through the lens of a LGBT-victim or LGBT-advocate, and it's clouding your judgement here IMO. I'm certainly not saying there's anything wrong with being either of those, but when they're misused and implied accusations of LGBT-bias are made, people take offense. It's all too easy to see a conspiracy where none exists.
4. As for diffs of accusations, I haven't got any. I don't have a horse in this race. Perhaps Colin would have some but he's not contributing here anymore. I simply don't have the time or energy to go through and compile a list. It's hard enough work just slogging through this discussion. All I can say is that I've been witness to many of your disagreements and the comments I've made above are reflective of that. I haven't been methodical enough to assemble a list of your transgressions. ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll reflect on them. I have invested my time to search out the timeline of events and provided detailed diffs here to illuminate discussion with the unambiguous facts. The hard evidence, as far as I can ascertain by searching out relevant matches since the beginning of 2015, demonstrates Colin has repeatedly chosen to introduce the h-word and introduce LGBT as a negative issue in discussions where I am present and where I have not. This fits the description being used by others on this noticeboard of "playing the LGBT-card".

Without unambiguous contradictory evidence beyond repeating circular rhetoric, this discussion seems at an end. In my own interests, I intend to make reasonable good faith efforts avoid Colin on-wiki in the future. Colin is free to return to this project, and has been since he was unblocked over a week ago. Whether he chooses to avoid me and raise any questions he may have for me via an administrator he trusts, is a matter for him.

I have not requested any admin action against Colin and do not expect any to be taken. I strongly doubt that investing more volunteer time in creating more rhetoric that is likely to confuse the facts unambiguously put forward in a timeline of diffs would be helpful or productive. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I will write a longer reply later but Fae, do you understand that and why people associate terms like heteronormative (bias) with terms like homofobe? Fae, you have pushed someone past his breaking point. You cannot simply state that there is no conflict after you have done so. I am not trying to blame you or make you look quilty but please, look at the situation from Colin's perspective. Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand that people might find the word "heteronormative" confusing if they have never had to use the word academically, just as they may be confused by societal descriptions involving "patriarchal", "the other" or references to "groupthink". However I do expect it reasonable that people are open and calm enough to being corrected with the facts, and absorbing the standard dictionary definitions of these words rather than repeating them incorrectly and staying angry over many months ignoring attempted corrections, as false evidence of personal attacks. If Colin is seriously worried about the h-word being used, you must ask why he kept on repeating it as an allegation about himself that the evidence shows he originated. Had Colin stuck to using "heteronormative", even if he repeated it as a personal allegation rather than my actual question about a Commons process, you must agree that "I object to Fæ calling me heteronormative" would result in replies of "meh so what" rather than a long essay on this noticeboard.

The evidence shows that the pushing this year was on Colin's side. I have not asked for any admin action, I have twice in the last 9 months asked Colin to leave me alone. He appears unable to do so, and inserted himself into discussions where he was neither present nor mentioned, in order to make a series of allegations about me for which the only evidence we have remains Colin's rhetoric. I am happy to agree that perhaps I should have emailed Ellin and written nothing at all in reply to Colin's allegations on AN, however I was, and am still, being accused of doing something wrong by not answering questions from Colin. If something like this happens again involving Colin, saying nothing on-wiki and first seeking advice from Ellin or another experienced administrator is the path I'll be following.

As before, I do not think this discussion is productive or healing. No new evidence is being presented for us to review. I am happy to read your thoughts, but please consider if this discussion is worth extending in time and content beyond what it already is, and consider posting them for me to read on my user talk page instead. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti lagg section break

For the record, my intend isn't to heal but to create a workable situation. (Healing isn't doable at the current stage) It will be a rough road but it has to be done. Natuur12 (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Natuur12, you are looking for more, please spell out what you are seeking and why. At this point you appear to be creating a case for action where there are no grounds left and the discussion is unrelated to Commons policy or guidelines. From the evidence and timeline I gave above, I believe I have established beyond doubt that I have made reasonable good faith efforts to passively avoid Colin and asked him to leave in peace over the last 9 months. The hard evidence shows that Colin originated the h-word claim against himself, and then has been repeatedly using the h-word and forcing me to respond to his false allegations that I was the one making the h-word allegation about him. As Christian Ferrer puts it above based on seeing this tactic being used, "I do not share his fight but it is totally unfair to pretend [Fae] was a monster falsely accusing others about homophobia.". When you created your first summary your edit comment was "Please judge if my analysis is fair and square", it was not fair. You were relying on rhetoric from Colin as true "[Fae] has a long track record for claiming anti-LGBT-bias in others" which itself was pinned on discussions from 3 or 4 years ago and did not stand up to scrutiny. Further, you did not take on board the evidence that Colin is persistently the instigator and has forcibly created LGBT-related drama where it could have been easily avoided, and then repeatedly made false allegations to wind up the groupthink which relies on enough people not bothering to look for real evidence, or search through the long walls of rhetoric and unprovable allegations. Your summary of Colin's actions as "Not stating we have to agree with it but it the level of criticism is fair" ignores this evidence.

With regard to use of the 'h-word', Jee has pointed to a 3 year old discussion on my talk page where I stated: "You know that if I mention homophobia anywhere on-wiki, no matter what the evidence, then the quote would be mercilessly used for *years*, so I am not going to be trapped into doing that thanks." I have followed this rule of thumb, apart from accurately describing vile trolling like this. However it is virtually impossible to defend yourself from someone who creates an h-word allegation against themselves, and then deliberately turns it into a false allegation against you so many times, over such a long period, that others start repeating the allegation and presuming that it's true.

I have put the current "workable situation" as: Colin leaving me alone seems an easy way to pragmatically "solve" this on an informal footing, without the need for any more lengthy discussion, formal proposals for action or using this as a reason to set up an Arbcom-like body. As for Colin asking me questions or holding me to account, he is completely free to do that, as many times as he likes, should he want to spend his volunteer time doing so, and I will publish answers as required. I see nothing but positive benefits asking that Colin's questions directed at me should first informally go via an administrator to avoid any possibility of escalation, or perceptions either way about what may be seen as bad words or misunderstood language. If Colin wants me to do the same, I'm happy to comply, though at the current time I cannot imagine having any reason to do so.

Let's leave it at that, a peaceful and passive approach of avoidance is entirely realistic and workable, and has been on the table from my side for the last 9 months. Continuing a haphazard fishing campaign without any new evidence being presented, nor any current issue to justify investing so much time in it, seems wasteful. Colin has been free to return for over a week, there is no need to hold Colin to account for his old actions, nor me for my old actions from years ago, nor to justify Colin's choice to make himself absent. Turning this noticeboard into a Kangaroo court with neither substantial evidence to support it, nor a community agreed process to follow and make it legitimate, is not positive nor can anything positive come of it. --Fæ (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Fae, I will draw a conclusion later giving the crats some time to respond. Please don't continue to slap this noticeboard with huge blocks of text merely repeating yourself and coming up with legal standards. I can read. Commons is not a courtroom and I am not a judge. Neither is any of you on trial. Any solution I am going to present will have to have the community's support of course. It is not like I am going to step over my boundaries and play the god-card. Please don't try to drag me into a heated debate with you since I prefer to look at it from a birds eye perspective. We know your standpoint, now it is time to collect some more viewpoints. Natuur12 (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If you check what I have written, I have not come up with legal standards nor have I accused you of playing a "god-card". However as you brought this up, I do have serious reservations as to whether you as the primary driver of this discussion, and the person wanting to make a proposal can be considered sufficiently uninvolved to both make a neutral proposal and to take on board the evidence already presented. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"Raging gay"

As a comment to the analysis done by Natuur12 above I stated that "You can push that button until it snaps. And Fæ is a master in pushing that button." I would like to illustrate that with the "raging gay" comment by Colin, which has been mentioned by Fæ in this thread no less than 8 times already. It is for me an example of a case, where Fæ very deliberately returns to something Colin has written, twists it to something it never was, and systematically damaging the reputation of Colin by repeating it over and over again. Unlike many of the other conflicts which date back 2-3 years, this is a quite recent conflict, which began in November 2015. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The origin of "raging gay"

In November 2015 a thread was opened on at COM:AN where it had been noted by primarily some wikpedians, that there appeared to be a gender bias in how media files of men and women were categorized in extreme detail such as (NSFW) Nude or partially nude kneeling women wearing high-heeled shoes. Especially one user appeared to be almost obsessed with this type of categorization for women. At some point in the discussion, Fæ makes his first comment in that thread. He notes (quite correctly in my opinion) that there is an imbalance in glamour photos of men and women, and proposes that it could be the topic of a "wiki-loves" project. He also acknowledges that it may be the case that some very specific categories (for example, 196 pictures in Bikini car wash at Twin Peaks, Round Rock is mentioned previously in thediscussion) have a disproprtionate number of photos, and that a deletion request may be opened in such cases. Both good points I think. But then he finishes his comment with

Unless someone has some positive proposals for improving Commons content, this thread appears mostly sustained by folks with a large footprint on the English Wikipedia and a much smaller toe on this project (based on sampling a couple of global contribution stats). Please keep in mind that it is bad form to import English Wikipedia dramah to this project. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Some days later Colin comments on this. He expresses a critique to the this viewpoint by Fæ, arguing that an important bart of Commons user base is not only those who actively edit, but also those wikipedians who use Commons to find files for use on the Wikipedias. I really think viewers should read his entire comment to get the full context, but among others he writes

It might help Common's serious problems attracting/retaining female contributors if it recognised it has a problem here, rather than, as Fæ exemplifies in his ad-hominem analysis/response, engage the typical Commons reaction of "Fuck off back to English Wikipedia" (or words to that effect). Hostility towards others because of what their global stats indicate as a home project should be as unwelcome on Commons as commenting on the gender, race or sexuality of a person in an argument.

What is important to note is that Colin compares hostility towards others based on their edit activity on Commons should be as unwelcome on Commons as commenting on the gender, race or sexuality of a person in an argument. You may agree or disagree if the two types of hostility are of the same severity (I do not agree, I think the latter form of hostility is worse, but that is just another opinion, which may be as valid as his). What is important is the ficticious comparison to a hostility referring to gender, race or sexuality.

Fæ responds as follows

Colin, please do not deride my viewpoint as "Fuck off back to English Wikipedia". I object to what might have been serious Commons discussion getting distorted by importing drama-du-jour directly from the English Wikipedia, and there is no reason to feed someone who is blatantly using sock accounts to manipulate discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

And then comes comment by Colin, which Fæ and others have subsequently referred to as the "raging gay" comment. (I have emphasized the full sentence containing "raging gay".)

I'm not commenting on the sockpuppet issue. I'm commenting on the fact that you analysed people's global usage stats in order to dispense with them. It would in fact be less offensive if you had simply told them to fuck off, rather than hide your attitude problem behind language that makes it appear you have some kind of valid point -- you don't. Simply dismissing this as "dramah" is as unhelpful and insulting as if someone responded to one of your concerns about sexuality-bias with "more dramah from an editor who, based on his contribs, is obviously a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder". See, it doesn't sound so nice to be dismissed like that. You know an ad-hominem when you see it, Fae, and this is lame. The bytes on this page cost nothing and if some people want to discuss an issue that doesn't interest you, let them do it in peace. It would be nice, for once, if someone had an intelligent thought on this matter. I don't have a clue how to solve it myself, but that doesn't mean I fail to recognise there's a problem on Commons in this area, or easily dismiss those whose feelings in this area are different/stronger than my own. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It is important to note "...is as unhelpful and insulting as if someone responded..." comparison. For me this comment is a clear follow-up on Colin's previous comment comparing hostility towards editors with hostility based on gender, race or sexuality. This time spelling it out with an explicit example as if someone made such an ad hominem attack on Fæ. As Fæ has several times previously referred to himself as a gay man in public, this is the example Colin makes to make a point. I do not think this is Colin's finest hour, and the language is blunt, but it does clearly say "as if someone".

Fæ jumps immediately to the conclusion that he is describing a contributor here as "raging gay" disregarding "as if someone".

Colin, making apparent jokes or implicitly flaming me about me being gay and interested in LGBT material (a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder) puts you outside of acceptable discourse for Wikimedia projects. Describing any contributor as a "raging gay" is anti-gay language. I suggest you reflect carefully before writing anything like this again. --Fæ (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Colin replies immediately to point out it was intended as an example of an ad hominem attack, which should be evident as it is included in quotation marks.

Fæ complains about anti-LBGT language by Colin

On November 20, 2015 Fæ files a complaint about anti-LBGT language by Colin. Fæ quotes in this context only the "as if someone" part of Colin's "raging guy" comment in his complaint

"more dramah from an editor who, based on his contribs, is obviously a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder"

and he sees it an ad hominem attack. The following discussion is rather short, but the complaint is closed in a balanced manner by by Revent noting that it should be clear that Colin's words should not be taken personally, but are meant as an example, on the other hand Colin is criticized for choosing a rude example as it offended Fæ, and Colin is recommended to apologize.

Colin apologizes to Fæ, apology not accepted

Following the closure of the complaint, Colin posts this apology on Fæ's talk page.

I think Revent's comments are closest to what I would agree with, and thank Revent for showing some common sense. It was clearly not "a nasty personal attack" as you and Jmabel claim. To interpret it as such requires a mountain of bad faith. Revent is right that I should have known you would fly off the handle and take offence, rather than treat an example at face value. I did not intend to cause offence. And for that misjudgement and causing needless offence, I apologise, and do so sincerely. -- Colin (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

However, the apology is dismissed by Fæ, who instead accuses Revent of closing the discussion about his complaint too early. Colin again objects to the allegation that he has used anti-LBGT language. To which Fæ replies replies.

What you call an apology does not qualify as such. See also m:Apology. Nemo 15:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I don't know what is And for that misjudgement and causing needless offence, I apologise, and do so sincerely. for you, especially the bold one (bold is mine). Also Fae accepted Colin's apology below, so I don't know what you're talking about. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

As the essay explains, using the word "apology" or "apologise" doesn't automatically make something an apology. I maintain that the mentioned text is not an apology; I'm happy of course to hear that Fae is being so generous as to accept it as one nevertheless. Nemo 07:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Go away. Your rants manage to be both boring and offensive. You (not me) deliberately injected the abusive use of anti-LGBT language into a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT issues. It is easy to understand why you did that in response to an openly gay contributor. As a founder of Wikimedia-LGBT+, I will not gloss over the use of homophobic language by others, as well you know. --Fæ (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There is so much bad faith in this statement, that it is hard to believe. He repeats the allegation that Colin has used anti-LBGT language, despite the closure of his complaint saying that is not the case. He accuses Colin of using anti-LBGT language because he is an openly gay contributor, and he refers to the use of homophobic language "by others", which evidently refers to Colin. He is really doing his absolutely best to upset Colin and escalate a conflict. In his subsequent reply Colin urges Fæ to acknowledge this is an over-reaction and also repeat his apology. Colin also states that Fæ has now played a "homophobe card" due to the allegation of homophobic language. This comment is removed by Fæ and replaced with "< Further deliberately offensive trolling rubbish and allegations from Colin removed. [34] >".

Colin proposes topic ban for Fæ

In December 2015, Colin proposes a topic ban for Fæ "from making any complaint or negative comment that features LGBT". I will not go into detail about the discussion, but at some stage stage Fæ makes the claim

It was just two weeks ago (not 2013 and not on Wikipedia in 2012!) that Colin injected "more dramah from an editor [Fæ] who, based on his contribs, is obviously a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder" into a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT issues.

which is a carefully twisted version of what Colin actully originally wrote (already quoted above)

Simply dismissing this as "dramah" is as unhelpful and insulting as if someone responded to one of your concerns about sexuality-bias with "more dramah from an editor who, based on his contribs, is obviously a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder

So Fæ has inserted '[Fæ]' in the quote although it at this point been repeated several times by other editors, that selected snippet is not directed at him due to the as if. And still Fæ has not accepted Colin's apology for being rude but insists on framing it as deliberate ad hominem anti-LBGT language. That is bad faith editing and deliberate twisting of quotes. Fæ is deliberately trying to discredit Colin. In the same thread Fæ again refers to "raging gay" saying "Colin's "raging gay" comment was directed at me, nobody else, and he got away with it by wrapping it up as an example of homophobic abuse against me in a discussion that did not mention LGBT topics or homophobic abuse but just because I was there."

Clearly Fæ does not respect the COM:AN closure by Revent.

Later examples

In January 2016, Fæ chooses to pick up on "raging gay" again here persistently caliming it was a personal attack.

...Colin's behaviour in this discussion and in several other places is unacceptable, and has been for at least 2 years, with the low point of when he made a personal attack using a carefully written description of me as a "raging gay", using the foil that it was an example of a personal attack that could be made against me by others. Allowing and encouraging this type of behaviour on Commons is an embarrassment to the project and makes it appear an unsafe space for future contributors. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In May 2016, in User talk:Fæ/2016#Colin, another example

... Ever since your "raging gay" deliberately offensive jibe, words like "bigot" and "hatred" just build on that disruptive campaign....

And in this very thread, where Colin is not there to defend himself, Fæ brings it up again and again

A piece to a solution

As long as Fæ does not accept Colin's clear apology and accepts Revent's balanced closure, and stops referring to the ""raging guy" quote as a personal attack, I do not see how a constructive resolution can be made to this conflict. It is clear that Fæ keeps on repeating over and over again that this quote is anti-LBGT language directed at his person, he has no real intention to move forward. As I see it currently, the repeated referrals to "raging gay" is to upset and discredit Colin, and to censor criticism. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not censored criticism, I have only asked Colin to desist from writing on my talk page and expect him to avoid me in the future, as I have avoided him. There are now three active editors on Commons who have asked Colin to never write again on their user talk pages. It is inappropriate to continue to post critical comments on a user's talk page after they have specifically dis-invited you from writing there, and having comments removed from there on, but noting the removal so that anyone can find comments in the page history, is not "censorship". If Colin wishes to spend his time asking me direct questions then it is reasonable to ask for his questions to go through an intermediary.

I hold that Colin introducing the "raging gay" example of "anti-LGBT language" (to use your phrase) into a thread that had nothing to do with LGBT issues and never mentioned my sexuality, is not then an example of me "playing the LGBT-card" when I respond to it. This was Colin's deliberate choice to do this in a context of him being highly aware of past issues from his actions (2013 example).

It is not possible to respond to the allegations made and repeated on this Bureaucrats noticeboard thread, some without the benefit of any evidence, without actually quoting the evidence, so it is no surprise that I have done precisely that.

Yes, I absolutely agree we should move on, so I am happy to make the following statement:

I accept Colin's apology and admission of wrong-doing when making his "raging gay" comment --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of referring to it ever again, and will make every reasonable effort to avoid Colin on-wiki. I encourage @Revent: to comment if they would like to add anything to my acceptance of Colin's apology here. Thanks.

Addendum Since writing this, I realize that unfortunately for unknown reasons Revent has not contributed to the project for several months. --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting the apology, and for stating your intention to not refer to the "raging gay" comment again. That is a good step forward in this I think.

When I wrote that I felt that your referral of this now closed topic was a way to censor criticism, I did not mean it in the literal sense, that you explicitly removed comments made by Colin. What I had in mind was self-censoring, where Colin could be inclined to censor himself on community pages out of fear of you mentioning this now closed topic again, as it harmed his reputation here, and if repeated often enough could be taken at face value by administrators and others, who saw this topic mentioned as what appeared to be a more and more well established fact, without really looking at the background, possibly leading to an unjustified block of Colin, thereby shutting him up as a side effect. The most recent (now apologized) block by Ellin Beltz may have been an example thereof. Quite frankly I do not know as I am still very confused as to the actual block reason. But it is fine that you bring it up, such that I can clarify this.

Regarding the use of the term "anti-LBGT language" I would like to clarify that it is actually not "my phrase", but the exact term you used for the heading on the COM:AN thread, where you complained over the now closed topic.

Thanks for informing about the inactivity of Revent since months. I did not know that. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing out that anti-LGBT language was originally from something I wrote. My choice of this phrase comes from past experience of debates about terms like "anti-gay" which became politically loaded in the 1990s, especially after Mark Simpson's controversial book of the same name, so I realise that finding a neutral literal term is difficult and I doubt that any single phrase would be acceptable to everyone. I understand better your thoughts on censorship. I believe that asking that direct questions going through an intermediary need not be censorship, though an experienced intermediary may offer advice on evidence or neutrality of phrasing before putting the question to me. I see that step as simply ensuring that any questions, such as scrutiny of my actions, are on-topic and our collegiate environment is maintained.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a progress to me. My one doubt is, Fæ only mentioned about avoiding participation in a user's space (talk). It is fairly reasonable. My objection was about interaction ban in public spaces like a discussion at VP or AN boards as happened in the last case. If imposed, it will prevent both of you from expressing your opinions and the first person who expressed his opinion in a discussion can't be challenged by other. I believe it (interaction ban in public boards) should be used as a last resort where a dispute resolution is not possible. Jee 16:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The only proposal is an informal agreement to avoid each other, which seems sufficient, and avoids it being read as an official "ban" against Colin or me. A benefit of informality is that we could at some future time agree to end the informal agreement, should our understanding of each other change. This was on the table well before this thread was opened.

I have no problem in contributing to a noticeboard, village pump, or other discussion where Colin has contributed, without that becoming direct interaction or requiring it. If you look through my contributions I already have done so a few times this year with any issue, or even being noticed. I think it is easy to separate that type of collegiate community engagement, from expecting direct questions to be answered, or making critical allegations and then presuming bad faith when there is no reply. Asking a friendly intermediary to put a direct question avoids that ever happening, without meaning that Colin can never ask valid questions in order to hold me to account for my actions, or vice-versa should that occur. --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

My understanding from my memory about past discussions I remember, you tried to avoid "direct reply" like comments to him. You seems to wish same practice from Colin too. At the same time, Colin may express his opinion about your comment as a separate comment without intending under your comment as a reply. If this is your suggestion, I'm neutral as it may serve a bit to avoid direct conflicts. Jee 17:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I watched this now for a while, some thoughts: Now people explained what Colin did wrong and what Fae did wrong. Fae explained what Colin did wrong and Colin explained what Fae did wrong. We schould try to find a solution in this very emotional causa, a solution which makes both parties happy (winwin situation) ans solve the issue in long term. The first step is to change the communication style. Starting from scratch, trying to be nice to each other, avoiding unnecessary provocations (both does not complain about each other, ...), etc. If both are willing to solve this issue, i am sure then it is possible. @Colin and Fæ: It is worth a try? You agree? :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In effect that's a given if Colin accepts informally avoiding direct interaction. I agree. --Fæ (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Look like Colin is ignoring this here, but he opposed a grants request by Fae on meta today. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Colin is currently blocked at his own request so he cannot respond here. Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

He can ask to get unblocked, and agree (or not agree) with the proposed solution. As far i know blocked accounts can receive pings as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it looks like Colin is ignoring this all and going on. Colin, can you read this? The best way to deescalate is that Fæ stays away from any discussions related to you AND you stay away from any discussions related to Fæ. This oppose on Meta is nowhere near helpful to resolve the issue. --A.Savin 13:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have asked to be unblocked solely in order to make minimal necessary comments here. I am encouraged that some progress has been made but there remain some unresolved issues. I ask for patience in analyzing these issues and in coming up with solutions we can all be happy with. I think we can find a solution that addresses the underlying problems affecting both users, rather than coming to some hasty solution involving blocks or interaction bans, which (as Odder noted in a previous AN/U) simply sweep the problem under the rug and provide no long term solution.

My comment at this grant proposal is exactly why I reject an interaction or topic ban for either party. Community requests such as that should be able to be made, to be supported, and to be opposed, by anyone. I hope you will find my oppose to be argued in a respectful and thoughtful manner, and regardless of whether you agree with it, will find it hard to argue that anyone on Commons should be censored from making those arguments and registering their concerns. -- Colin (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: Unfortunately, you have ignored my proposed long term solution. As far i can see Fae is willing to solve this issue asap. A hasty solution? This causa has consumed enough community energy/time (it was on AN, it is on BN). I have the feeling that you are putting oil in the fire. Colin, what we do now to find a solution? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Steinsplitter, I just glance through those pages; didn't see any conflict other than different opinions. We can't stop Colin from expressing his opinion on a topic. As far as both of them express their opinion without attacking each other, I see no problem there. (Further, It is Meta, a different project where we've no control.) Do I miss anything? Jee 16:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@A.Savin: , @Steinsplitter: We often state on Commons, that drama from other wikis should not be imported into Commons. So, why are events on meta even relevant? Assuming it is (which would be inconsistent): Colin is expressing an opinion on a proposal there, which happens to have been authored by Fæ. I do think he is doing that in a completely factual manner, which relates strictly to the proposal, where he points out some things he believes makes it a bad proposal. There is no personal attack, smear, rudeness in what he writes there. He expresses opinions you may either agree or disagree with. Colin's concern is that due to repeated accusations, his reputation is damaged such that he is effectively censored. For me it appears this is exactly what you are trying to do. Not to censor him yourself, but to make him self-censor own opinions in order to avoid allegations that he is escalating a conflict. I do not see (currently) any conflict there. Do you?-- Slaunger (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Slaunger, I know very well that Meta ≠ Commons and that Colin has the right to spend his 2c in any discussion he likes; for me, however, as we all (hopefully) have confirmed global access (and so it is like a unified account in all projects), it is nonetheless not useful to further interact with a user you have a permanent conflict with, and the point is, that Colin should stay away from Fæ voluntarily, even though he is not obliged to do it. This is so far the only chance to come to a solution... --A.Savin 20:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Steinsplitter, unlike all the discussions I have read through on COM:AN, this COM:BN discussion is actually progressing - as a rare exception - in a fairly contructive way, and has not escalated into the non-constructive polarised views we see too often. It is lenghty yes, the material is overwhelming in size and it is complicated to unravel who said what, when and why. I do think it is worthwhile to keep this discussion open for a while and take some more time and bytes here to find a both reasonable and fair win-win solution for both users. At least I have a lot more, I would like to present, I have just not had the time (my previous post about "raging gay" took three hours to put together to check all the sources and sequence of events). I have also been in off-line contact with Colin prior to him requesting his block to be lifted today, and among other things I have raised a criticism of his communication style, a topic you also touch upon above is vital for both parties to improve on IMO. Colin acknowledges that there is room for improvement also from his side. I will not go into more detail as I think he should write a statement about it himself, when he is ready for it. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Slaunger: i won't a rhetoric battle, i won't defend Fae nor Colin. I just proposed a solution and commented that Colin edited on a other wiki in the main time. I agree with you that stuff from other wikis is not relevant here. But back to the topic: My proposal :-). Now is up to users to decide, i have nothing further to add. Good luck :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: No intent to battle here either. I agree that something along the line of your proposal is also a piece to a solution, but adressing the communication is not the last piece to the solution IMO, and it has be elaborated on what is meant by "Non-violent communication" or whatever the term is for an improved way to interact. Thus, I do not agree with that "Now is up to users to decide'". When you say that; are you having some kind of vote in mind? Are we in any particular hurry? -- Slaunger (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Steinsplitter, I don't accept that the analysis of what either party has "done wrong" is complete or has found satisfactory agreement. This section is entitled "A piece to a solution". There are other pieces. Let us not become impatient. You are welcome to unwatch if you are unwilling to invest more time. I am not "putting oil in the fire". I care very much about the Featured Picture process and have experience helping the running of large photo competitions (WLM UK two years). I also care that nobody, myself especially, is censored from taking full part in commons activities and discussions, when they do so in a respectful manner, in good faith, and without making personal attacks. I don't think you can say my comments on the Grant Proposal are blockworthy, or even a matter for the slightest concern. If you are focusing on "who said" and "to whom" then you've got it wrong. You should be focussing on the "what" they said. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I have no problem with the Meta discussion being mentioned here, and think one's conduct on other WMF wikis can be relevant. Indeed, I think it is relevant to the point I make about censorship or suppressing valid criticisms. -- Colin (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming

Hi, just a quick note to tell, that I am in the process of working my way through past interactions, and a review of root causes for the escalation of the dispute over the years. I am also working on a proposed solution. It takes a lot longer time, than I originally anticipated, I hope you still have a little patience, and I am sorry it is taking such a long time. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as a quite note. I haven't forgotten about this but I am waiting for Slaunger'ss analasys. There is no rush after all. Most important it that we do this properly. Natuur12 (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 1
===Proposal=== The only solution I see here is indef interaction ban for Fae and Collin on any page on Wikimedia Common. I propose an indef interaction ban for Fae and Collin Wikicology (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)  Support as proposer. Wikicology (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC) .

1. Please retract your proposal. We still aren't done analysing the situation. Natuur12 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

1. In addition, Colin has specifically rejected that proposal already. Diliff (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Natuur12 and Diliff. Proposal collapsed for now. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Rights for GLAM group accounts

Hi, though on Commons we (the community) can accept group accounts being run, my understanding is that the intention is that there must be a responsible and accountable individual that runs the account at the time specific edits are made. By granting significant rights to apparent group accounts, we run a far greater risk that later inexperienced users will inherit the account for later projects without this being publicly declared, and without a chance for the community to ask questions about their intentions, or to double check whether new projects are still in-scope, or that appropriate thought has been given to the policies that apply (such as for the best licenses or templates to use). There is a risk that later "account owners" will not be responsible for past projects/edits by earlier owners; when they accept rights for the account it probably would be beneficial to spell out that the community will expect them to remain responsible for all edits made, and be prepared to answer questions that arise from earlier projects.

I am not suggesting that we should stop allowing group accounts asking for rights, but there appears to be no questioning before handing out significant rights as to how they will be managed by the institution long term. If the intended projects are time-limited (as GWT uploads have invariably been in the past), then I see no harm in encouraging a project based name, or even better project manager + project name account in preference to a permanent and open-ended institution account. This way if later projects pop up, the institution representative or new project managers need only ask for further accounts to have similar rights on the same basis as the original request.

(Tangent) It is worth considering that our norm for being tolerant of anonymity is rarely an issue for official representatives of institutions and may even be confusing or detrimental if issues arise with edits from such accounts.

GLAMtools list notified here.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fae, are you responding to a real issue or to a hypothetical one? - In theory, I see your point. In practice it is of course easier for an institution to have just one user account accredited (user rights and OTRS confirmation of rights clearance) than creating a new account for every person ever entrusted with the uploading of media files on behalf of the institution. So I presently don't really see a need for change with regard to the present policy. (Regarding the rationale for the use of institutional accounts in general, see the discussion here). --Beat Estermann (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As said, "I am not suggesting that we should stop allowing group accounts asking for rights". The issue is the fact that significant rights are granted without asking how an organization will manage access to a group account and ensure there remains a point of contact for questions that might arise in the future, even when the current account holder moves on.

The discussion you point to seemed to be about blocking accounts (and only 3 people expressed any viewpoints), but this is not the issue here, which is more one of best practice to recommend to institutions for their group accounts. --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea. --Krd 17:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"(...) than creating a new account for every person ever entrusted with the uploading of media files on behalf of the institution" I fully agree. - My experencies show that most GLAM accounts are managed well. Some are not. It depends if they got guidance. For example User:RCJU-ArCJ above. It is a GLAM account but was created without any guidance. Before a week they get in contact with Wikimedia CH and the Swiss Federal Archives because they plan to upload about 3000 archive pictures and I will advise them now how to use the account. - Maybe we write down a best practice somewhere which is more a recommendation than a rule. But we can use that for new GLAM accounts. At the moment a lot of GLAM are also overstrained when they become active without guidance like a single person which begins first time editing. --Micha (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: I'm glad to see that you are now seeing the potential problems with institutional accounts. Of course it puzzles me to hear your observation that there appears to be no questioning before handing out significant rights, especially in the context of your reaction towards my handling of the rights request by the Finnish Photography Museum (Archive?). I would like to reiterate my position that I consider group accounts harmful, for precisely the reasons so eloquently stated by you above. In my opinion the goal of protecting commons from damage caused by potentially inexperienced users piggy backing on institutional account weighs much stronger than the slight inconvenience of creating a new account. The inconvenience of demonstrating the ability to use the GWT should really not be called that. It is a requirement that we should have. If institutions designate new people for a job that someone else is trained to do they will simply have to deal with the fact that the new person needs to be trained as well! And that training should be demonstrated to us. As I wrote above this is not a simple one way street where we give a thumbs up or down. I'd rather like to see it as an opportunity for the institutional uploaders to get feedback from us, engage in a conversation with actual commons users and learn from each other. --Dschwen (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, this section is still open for almost 4 months. Can this be archived, or the discussion will still continue? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this can be archived now. --Krd 10:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not resolved. Not unless we draw a conclusion out of this, or at least summarize the gist of this discussion. I'd love to see a follow up RfC here. Do we want to put restrictions group accounts? How do we balance protection of Commons vs. ease of access? --Dschwen (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be better if a RFC is created, rather than creating a section here. COM:BN is less noticeable than COM:VP, COM:AN, etc. With a RFC, more users can express their opinions about one topic. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and create it. Then this can be marked as resolved. --Dschwen (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Uh, I think Fæ should do that. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ:  ? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been busy IRL. May look at this in a while if nobody else wants to pick it up again. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Rules for restoring admin permissions without RFA

The discretionary restoration of admin permissions without RFA is one of a number of areas where bureaucrats are expected to make decisions based on past precedent and on unwritten rules. That is really unjustifiable, and naturally results in misunderstanding and disagreement. I propose that we set down clearly what the community-agreed rules actually are, so that the bureaucrats have clear guidance in taking this type of action.

I would appreciate comments on the following suggested wording. If there is general agreement, I will make a formal proposal along these lines on COM:VP/P to seek broader consensus.

Bureaucrats have discretionary authority to restore admin permissions without an RFA to ex-admins who have requested reinstatement under the following conditions:

• The ex-admin’s permissions were relinquished voluntarily not more than 12 months ago while the user was in good standing; and the user remains in good standing;

• Notice of a bureaucrat’s provisional intention to restore the permissions is placed on the Bureaucrat’s Noticeboard for a waiting period of at least 2472 hours before the restoration is actioned, to provide the opportunity for bureaucrats and other community members to comment;

• No bureaucrat has posted any dissenting opinion during the waiting period; and

• Taking all comments into consideration, there is a clear expectation at the end of the waiting period that the candidate would be successful if an RFA were to be held.

These rules do not apply to reinstatement of bureaucrat, checkuser or oversight permissions. Returning users who wish to have those permissions restored should reapply in the normal way.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this proposal! How about 72 hours? Weekends, holidays and all could make people miss a request with a 24 hour deadline. Natuur12 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that something like 72 hours would be better. It's certainly not going to hurt anything if it sits here for a day or 2. Reguyla (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 for 72 hours. It may be worth mentioning that this is a minimum period as someone making the request on, say, Christmas Eve or at the start of Wikimania, might be reasonably expected to wait for 5 days instead of 3. --Fæ (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I have edited the proposal to say 'at least 72 hours'. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I can fully  Support that, thanks for taking the initiative, @Michael. odder (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support suggestions by MichaelMaggs be codified into rules. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support This has my wholehearted support. I agree with Fae, requests should have a "Closing no earlier than" date/time too which can be extended if needs must. Nick (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Thank you for this clear proposal MichaelMaggs. I have one objection on the "one year" period, because we consider inactive admin who has made fewer than 5 admin actions on Commons in the past 6 months, thus the temporal de-adminship could be seen as a way for administrators to avoid inactivity by auto-suspending their admin rights. I mean, it can be done if someone has no time to dedicate to Commons for a while, but it should be clear. IMO, everything would fit if we'd have: The ex-admin’s permissions were relinquished voluntarily not more than 6 months ago". --Ruthven (msg) 23:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

12 months or so is the current unwritten 'rule of thumb', and I'm trying to codify so far as possible rather than set up something entirely new. Intentional suspension of adminship for a year when the user has no time to dedicate to Commons is the most usual situation, and so far as I recall we have always supported that. Bear in mind that this is all discretionary, and that if the crats have any suspicion that the user has deliberately relinquished rights just before they are going to be forcibly removed in any event, they will of course require an RFA. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• The notion underlying "No bureaucrat has posted any dissenting opinion during the waiting period" needs to be better thought out. That is a rather large trump card to give a single editor, and the simultaneous requirement of 24 (or 72) hours for community comments suggests bureaucrat opinions outweigh the opinions of other community members. This simply is not true, and sends (or implies) a poor message indeed. Эlcobbola _talk 23:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of this rule isn't to replace a standard RFA with a new mini-RFA, where everybody is invited to comment and to !vote, but rather to help the crats on their noticeboard in the exercise of what has always been a discretionary power. In this situation, crats will very often consult with one another to make sure there is a common understanding that the discretion is being exercised in the right way, and an objection from even one of our number should tell us that the proposed restoration is too contentious to be done without an RFA. This proposal replaces what has often been an offline discussion with a requirement for on wiki comments. MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not responsive to my concern in the slightest. Эlcobbola _talk 00:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The proposed written rule follows what normally happens within the crat group when considering whether we should exercise our discretion (though unfortunately that didn't happen in this case). The differences are that: (1) other users can now contribute, and (2) crats are asked to state any objection they may have on the public wiki. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The implication, then, that you allow a single editor's opinion, regardless of merit ("No bureaucrat has posted any dissenting opinion" and "The proposed written rule follows what normally happens within the crat group") to impact the process of an important decision is troublesome. The purport of "other users can now contribute" is empty, disingenuous, if the opinion of a single bureaucrat is able to alter the procedure. The actions of a single bureaucrat, for example, are the very reason we are having this discussion in the first place. No process, involving editors with any level of access, should be subject to the whim of a single editor. Эlcobbola _talk 00:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The question is specifically "how should we bureaucrats exercise our crat discretion?" All the crats may and should have a lot to say on that, and if there is no unanimity the default position is and ought to be the need for an RFA. The opinion of one crat could force a community RFA but never - as happened here - bypass it. But crat unanimity on a discretionary matter, where it exists, can't be controlled or overruled by a non-crat, or it wouldn't be the crats' discretion at all but some other user's opinion.

If you've a counter-proposal, do please start a new section below and set it out. I'd struggle however to understand how your idea of allowing crats and non-crats absolutely equal say in a decision which is supposed to be taken by the crats could possibly work. MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Per COM:BURO: "Bureaucrats are expected to be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues." (underlining mine). You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that the community's discretion is subordinate to that of the bureaucrats ("how should we bureaucrats exercise our crat discretion"). I see no mention of a crat having unique "discretion" - the role is explicitly not to determine ("impo[se]). Regarding, "your idea of allowing crats and non-crats absolutely equal say": this is not my idea, this is policy. The opinion of a 'crat is no more valuable that the opinion of an editor without the flag. Эlcobbola _talk 02:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support except the point "No bureaucrat has posted any dissenting opinion during the waiting period." I agree with elcobbola on that crats or admin opinions have no extra weight or merit in an opinion poll. Jee 03:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Who is playing Commons-God and decides what's good standing? Just read the bunch of text above. Let's make it perfectly clear: RfA only, no exceptions, no loopholes. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As per my colleague Hedwig above, Rfa only. Эlcobbola's point of view is also being reflected in me. That's true that a Rfa is always possible if the quick restoration is not accepted but let decide the comunity for all cases. It is equality. ?If you have no concern with crats you can see your statut restored, while, even if you were good adm, if you have concerns with one crat then you go to Rfa? no!
"while the user was in good standing; and the user remains in good standing" is also a thing that can vary according to the point of view.
Abandon definitely this practice, this is the appropriate time, look the result here. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Only the rule "no (re-)sysop without regular RfA" will help to avoid situations like here. --A.Savin 06:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral What MichaelMaggs proposed here is a light procedure, and I am in favour of low bureaucracy, as long as it is done with good sense. A new RFA would be more formal, with no space for interpretations, but here we are talking about trusted users that "took a leave": trust is not lost for going on holidays for few months, so there should be no problems in reassigning the flag. If a problem with a specific admin exists, it should be solved in another way. --Ruthven (msg) 06:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Just curious: why should one resign their sysop bit for "going on holidays for few months"? The only explanation I can imagine, would be the security of the account, but a secure password will help instead, and is hopefully self-evident anyway... --A.Savin 07:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I agree that's one possibility, implied by many causes (compuer stolen, connecting for a long while from unsecure locations, ...). Another one would be RL constraints or, in the case with INC here, to change ones mind. --Ruthven (msg) 09:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose We had the tradition at Commons to give crats some discretion in regard to return the admin-bit without a formal RfA. But it should be obvious now that this no longer works. In summary, I think it is best to require an RfA independent from the circumstances surrounding the loss of the adminbit. This has the advantage that this process is accepted by all in the community. I do not think that the implementation of a 72-hours pre-RfA here at COM:BN is a good thing, the time is then best invested in a regularly running RfA where all voices count. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per a number of intelligent comments above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I appreciate that Michael was attempting to (largely) codify existing or expected practice. But I agree with others that this event has shifted the Community's views of how trusted our 'crats are to make these decisions on our behalf. That they are no longer trusted, should be something AFBorchert reflects on when he writes his resignation post ASAP. We have known for a while that many of our 'crats are absent or not active enough to have their "finger on the pulse". Nor have, frankly, our two newest 'crats demonstrated any of the qualities or activities that they were elected for. Elcobbola is right that although we hope (againt experience) for them to guide the community wisely, their voice should never have more power than that of the community. We saw above AFBorchert dig in his heals rather than swiftly rectify his mistake. This is not acceptable. -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It does seem that this incident has shifted the community's views, and that no codification of existing unwritten practice will now be good enough. On that basis, I withdraw this proposal and concur that we ought to have a full RFA in every similar case. Colin's suggestion, below, of some sort of fixed-period voluntary suspension is a good one. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I know this is withdrawn, but I do want to make one final comment. It seems to me a quite reasonable expectation that any administrator should act in such a manner that the community still has confidence in their actions... that they would pass a confirmation RFA, with the understanding that 'short-term' drama, regarding a particular action, might bias the results of such a confirmation at a particular moment. The sole purpose of 'procedural' re-adminship, based upon a request here, would be that in particular cases there would be no reason to doubt that a particular ex-admin still retains the confidence of the community. It would indeed be reasonable to assume that crats are capable of assessing, as a group, if there is any reason to doubt that a particular ex-admin would pass an a RFA.... that the consensus would be obvious, and so there was no need to re-debate the point. This would be akin to a 'speedy deletion'.

The problem in this case seems to be that a particular bureaucrat decided that INC met the 'technical' requirement, and restored his adminship on his sole authority. This was clearly done far too quickly, as a strong shout of opposition immediately emerged. This was, simply and obviously, an error in judgement on the part of a single crat. It seems clear that the resignation was considered to be 'under a cloud' by many people.

This has cast doubt on the ability of the crats to make such decisions. I think the later removal shows that the crats, as a whole, will assess such matters correctly At the same time, it's unarguable that the community has the right to withdraw the authority to make such a decision from the crats. I think this requires discussion at a wider community venue, however. - Revent^talk 10:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree with the point that a discussion at BN, as part of a rapid discussion about a single case, should not be sufficient to change the role of Bureaucrats for the project. I suggest that this discussion is seen as part of preparation for a proposal to the community, and if there is enough appetite here to take changes forward, then this needs to be communicated more widely, such as with a project notice and a formal proposal page and discussion running for 30 days. --Fæ (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My reading of community consensus here is that bureaucrats should cease making use of the (unwritten) convention of using their discretion to give the admin bit back to returning ex-admins in good standing. All ex-admins who would like to have the bit restored should from now on go through an RFA. We need to make that clear, and I have made a corresponding change to Commons:Administrators. If any current admin will be away, and wants to exempt themself from the minimum activity requirements for a limited period without giving up the admin bit in the meantime, they can avail themself of the procedure for taking a temporary break mentioned at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. If anyone has an alternative specific proposal, I'd suggest starting a new section below. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Voluntary suspension of adminship

There is a concern that an admin taking a break from his or her duties for reasons coming from real-life issues (e.g. goes travelling, gets a new job, a baby, etc) would have to face an RFA when he or she returns. If we feel an RFA is unwelcome drama and bureaucracy for this case, then perhaps we can propose some new status of voluntary suspension of adminship, for a fixed period. The idea then, is that the de-adminship is explicitly temporary, rather than retired and then a change of heart occurs. The admin can then inform us that they have returned from their break. -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Our current policy on such temporary breaks is at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. Specifically, the admin minimum activity requirement can be suspended by the admin placing a message on the administrators' noticeboard "stating that they will be away for a period and giving an intended return date." If the admin does not return as stated, the minimum activity requirement then resumes two months later. The maximum period that can be taken is not specified, though by implication it must be greater than six months or else the procedure would not be necessary at all.

The approach seems a sensible one, though it has not been used much. With a strict requirement to go through RFA whenever admin rights are relinquished this will probably be used more often. My concern with it is the lack of clarity as to how long the period away can be. I'd suggest changing "will be away for a period" to "will be away for a period of not more than 12 months". Something more might be needed if we start to find admins misusing the procedure to avoid the minimum activity requirement, but let's try it and see. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• I reckon that - as said by MichaelMaggs above - we already have a similar rule that allows to take a break (and pospone the inactivity calculation). We must interrogate on why it is necessary to have the flag removed. As suggested in the previous discussion, the most obvious reason to remove the admin flag would be for security reasons (and we can imagine many possible scenarios where this is necessary). Otherwise, it is pretty useless to retire for a few months leave because if you don't want to perform administrator's activity for a while, nobody forces you, and you can contribute as a regular user (or even not contribute at all). --Ruthven (msg) 09:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that the period of inactivity or absense would be such that we'd want to revoke admin powers partly from security but also so that they aren't bothered by requests for, or expections of, their admin action. As Michael suggests, this is perhaps a procedure that can be worked out from actually trying it, rather than codified right now. There may also be a time-limit on the absense whereupon an RFA would still be necessary. Someone returning after 4 years is a different person. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem much interest in discussing our policy of allowing admins to be away for a period, and I've been bold and made the suggested change: "away for a period" --> "away for a period of not more than 12 months". Nobody has objected to the suggestion and I think it should not be contentious. Of course it can still be discussed if anyone feels the need to. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No complaints, I think we should see how it goes and if something unexpected occurs, revisit things. Nick (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this section as resolved per MichaelMaggs; if there is anything missing feel free to reopen. --Krd 07:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)