Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 2

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

OTRS flag for Rzuwig

Another new OTRS member with access to the permissions queues: Rzuwig (talk · contribs). I can confirm it, but please see the list of OTRS personnel. Trijnsteltalk 21:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Brandon

Will someone please remove Brandon's OTRS flag as he has been removed due to inactivity by myself. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 04:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Request to remove and add an OTRS flag

  • Please remove the OTRS flag of Fæ (talk · contribs) as he doesn't have access to the permissions queues anymore.
  • And please give Mr.Ajedrez (talk · contribs) OTRS rights - he just became an OTRS member with access to the permissions queues, see here.

Thanks in advance! Kind regards, Trijnsteltalk 17:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Romaine

Please give Romaine (talk · contribs) the OTRS flag; he's our newest member with access to the permissions queues. He confirmed this request via IRC. Trijnsteltalk 20:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove OTRS flag

✓ Done russavia (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hi, could you remove the OTRS flag from my account since I'm no longer member of the OTRS team. Thanks, --NEURO ⇌ 16:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS removal

Please remove OTRS flag for Juandev. His/her OTRS account has been closed in November 2011. Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal

Hello. Please remove the OTRS member flag for Glanthor Reviol (rights). I removed his OTRS account today per his request. Cbrown1023 talk 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remove Adambro (talk · contribs)'s OTRS flag as well. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 03:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the OTRS flag of DieBuche (talk · contribs) as well - he doesn't have access to OTRS anymore. Trijnsteltalk 15:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the OTRS flag of Dapete (talk · contribs) as well - he doesn't have access to OTRS anymore. Raymond 17:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the OTRS flag of Oceancetaceen (talk · contribs) as well - he doesn't have access to OTRS anymore. Raymond 17:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Another: Mikemoral (talk · contribs). Thanks, Tiptoety talk 04:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Admin rights for INeverCry

Hello,

please give admin rights to User:INeverCry. The result of his RfA was 16 in support, 0 neutral, 0 contra. Best regards.--FAEP (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S.:Please protect Commons:Administrators/Requests/INeverCry: Voting closed (‎[edit=sysop] (indefinite) ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite). Thank you in advance!--FAEP (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

New OTRS member

Please give user Pallerti (talk · contribs) an OTRS flag - he is a new member with access to the permissions queues, see here and here. Trijnsteltalk 12:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Pallerti (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of some OTRS flags

Please remove the OTRS flag of the following users. Both don't have OTRS rights anymore:

Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnsteltalk 13:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for two accounts

Please give the following users an OTRS flag:

Trijnsteltalk 15:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And remove it of Faebot (talk · contribs) please. The bot owner (Fæ) doesn't have OTRS rights anymore; they were stripped of his main account earlier. Trijnsteltalk 15:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done all three. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought the filter ignored admins, though? Jafeluv (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It did ignore admins, but I changed the filter a while ago as not all admins are OTRS volunteers. Trijnsteltalk 18:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I'm not sure about that change actually... Are we now concerned that admins might be misusing the OTRS tags? I can understand flagging edits by new non-OTRS accounts for review, but Commons admins? Jafeluv (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Bump. Was this change discussed somewhere? Jafeluv (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal

Please remove Neskaya (talk · contribs)'s OTRS flag. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 06:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done russavia (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

More: J.smith (talk · contribs), Theo10011 (talk · contribs), Nihiltres (talk · contribs), Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk · contribs), and NonvocalScream (talk · contribs). Thanks, Tiptoety talk 05:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done That will be $5 thanks. russavia (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Your mistake in the case of Theo10011 has already been corrected. --Leyo 08:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flags

I'm now an OTRS agent again, can I have the flag back please? --Neskaya (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Could anybody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Verified, Neskaya has OTRS access. --Krd 14:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of OTRS flags

And here are a few more. Please remove them all; none have OTRS rights anymore.

Thanks! Regards, Trijnsteltalk 13:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flags

I'm now an OTRS agent, can I have the flag please? --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I confirm his OTRS account. Raymond 08:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Olaf Kosinsky

Please give user Olaf Kosinsky (talk · contribs) the OTRS flag; he is a volunteer and triggered the filter a few times. Trijnsteltalk 16:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

User have OTRS rights since September 9. See section above. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Apologies! I didn't notice that for some strange reason. Trijnsteltalk 22:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Request of Change of User Group Rights

I am here to request that the COM:OTRS usergroup be added to my username. As I have recently became an OTRS member. Let me know if you need anymore information regarding this. Thanks. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I as an OTRS member, confirm that this user is an OTRS member. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done That will be $1 thanks. russavia (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I delivered it to your talkpage. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Renewed OTRS access

I became a OTRS user again today. I am an admin on Commons and from watching this board I see admins now need the OTRS flag. I have to admit I am not sure exactly what this flag does as COM:User access levels and COM:OTRS don't tell you anything. I have already processed about 6 OTRS images. Please elaborate on this flag and grant this flag. PumpkinSky talk 03:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

See Special:AbuseFilter/69. There's a new abuse filter that flags edits when non-OTRS members add OTRS templates to files -FASTILY (TALK) 03:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 10:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Need OTRS flag

OK, but I need the OTRS flag. Someone is already curious why it says my edits are marked as non-OTRS. PumpkinSky talk 10:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done That will be one slice of pumpkin pie thanks. russavia (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Delivered to your talk page. PumpkinSky talk 14:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal for Morning Sunshine

I have had my OTR S access removed on OTRS wiki. So the flag should be revoked here. Thank you and see you again. Regards Morning Sunshine (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS (Ks0stm)

I just got access to the permissions queue...any chance I could get the OTRS flag? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. It's save to give Ks0stm an OTRS flag. Welcome! Trijnsteltalk 13:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Please add me in OTRS member user group, I have recently got access to permissions queue, Thanks--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 14:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Trijnstel & EugeneZelenko--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Please add me in OTRS member user group, I have recently got access to permissions queue, Thanks--Jarekt (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. -Barras (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Second confirmation. ;) (and bumping) Trijnsteltalk 12:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please give Willy Weazley (talk · contribs) the OTRS flag too? I can confirm he has access to the permissions queue (see also here). Trijnsteltalk 14:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done both. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-admin

Hello. A while ago (3 months) I requested the removal of my admin rights because of lack of time. Things have changed and I feel I can now invest some time here again and I wonder if it'd be possible to have my admin rights back, as I've relinquished them in good standing, to resume my adminwork. Best regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 16:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-admin

Hi all. Four months ago I decided to give up the project and therefore I requested my admit rights being removed. I've had te opportunity of thinking it better and decided to return. I've requested previously reviewing and filemover flags and now I do think I can resume my admin task here. I've been an admin in commons since 2007 with no complaint or problem so that I'd like to return to work. If possible, I'd like to have my rights back. Many thanks in advance --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Muchas gracias / many thanks --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 16:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

empty usurp-account of deceased user

We have the zero-edit "account" User:Sanko (usurped), which per the userpage history seems to be linked to the deceased User:Sanko. What should we do with this usurp account (0 edits on Commons) and with the userpage? Can it be completely removed, as it does exist only on Commons[1]? --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this page contains anything useful, so it could be removed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking less of the page, but more of the "account" itself, if it can be considered as one. As it was never "used", could/should it be vaporized? --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 Comment At the projects where I am a bureaucrat I do block usurped accounts. If the user is also deceased then it might be a good idea to block such usurped account IMHO. Kind regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal OTRS flag

Please remove the OTRS flag of Bapti (talk · contribs) - he doesn't have access to OTRS anymore since today. Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

I now have access to permissions on OTRS. Could I be added to the OTRS group? Thanks. --Rschen7754 17:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed (and here is the confirmation on-wiki). Trijnsteltalk 18:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Several new OTRS volunteers

Their accounts were created today and they all have access to the permissions queues. Please give them an OTRS flag. Here are they:

Thanks in advance! Kind regards, Trijnsteltalk 18:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just getting round to posting a request for myself, and you've beat me to it. Thanks! KTC (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done all. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag missed?

Hey, I've been on OTRS for a while but no-one told me there was an OTRS flag for Commons until I stumbled across it last month; any chance I could have it for here? James F. (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed of course. :) Trijnsteltalk 10:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Restore adminship

Hello. I had had my adminship removed last month. I want to get it back now. See here, also here. Please restore my admin and OTRS bit. thank you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment His OTRS access isn't restored yet. No problem with the adminship of course. Trijnsteltalk 13:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done both. Please re-add you to related lists. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Wdwdbot

Hi, i would like to ask for the OTRS member flag for my new created second account User:Wdwdbot which is used mainly for script based OTRS work (ticket processing). Thanks,--Wdwdbot (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

edit from my main account to confirm.--Wdwd (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Late closure of an RfA?

This RfA was scheduled to end on 08:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC). Is there a reason why it's still open or not? Trijnsteltalk 18:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Eugene asked to extend it for a week (see last comment on the RFA). At that stage it had exactly 8 supports (the bare minimum), two of them weak, and quite a few neutrals. It was clearly not going to be a straightforward pass or a straightforward fail, so we wanted more community comments before closure. --99of9 (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, must've missed that. Thanks! Trijnsteltalk 09:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag request

Please give DaB. (talk · contribs) an OTRS flag - I can confirm that he is an OTRS member (see also here) and he also triggered the filter a few times. Trijnsteltalk 00:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Same for FSIII (talk · contribs). Fastily, the bot owner, has access to the permissions queues and this bot triggered the filter quite a few times. Trijnsteltalk 00:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
While that's being done, could someone remove the OTRS flag from User:FSII; I no longer use that account. Thanks! -FASTILY (TALK) 05:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Dschwen

Time to close, isn't it?--Morning ☼ (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and hello fellow bureaucrats! I have put a few job related pages on my watch list and will start off by going over the bot flag requests (I'll try to start slowly and to ease in). Has someone added me to the mailing list yet, or do I have to request that? --Dschwen (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you need to subscribe first. Then somebody (most likely me) should approve, since this is not public mailing list. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Smihael

Please give user Smihael an OTRS flag; I can confirm he's an OTRS volunteer and he triggered the filter as well. Trijnsteltalk 20:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for User:ישרון

Could User:ישרון please be given the OTRS-member flag. He's tripping the edit filter, but he does have an OTRS account (under the name Yeshurun). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for User:Dcoetzee

I was just added as an OTRS member, could I please have an OTRS-member flag? I'm not sure how to confirm this but my OTRS account name is Dcoetzee. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally another OTRS agent asks for the flag on your behalf, thus confirming that you have OTRS access, but I'll vouch for you as a glance at the recent changes on the OTRS wiki shows you were indeed recently added. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, my experience is that if Trijnstel doesn't beat you here, then the new OTRS member make the request themselves and Trijnstel come along and confirm the access. :) KTC (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I'm very quick usually. ;) Anyway, please remove the OTRS flag Rob Irgendwer (talk · contribs). He's not an OTRS volunteer anymore. Trijnsteltalk 14:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

New OTRS volunteers

Hi all,

Here are a few new OTRS volunteers with access to the permissions queues):

Regards, Trijnsteltalk 11:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done and ✓ Done russavia (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for User:ShinePhantom

Please give me an OTRS flag; now I'm OTRS member. Can you see OTRS-wiki log and on meta ShinePhantom (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fellow bureaucrats, how am I supposed to verify this with no login at otrs-wiki and ShinePhantom having added himself to the personel list on meta? No offense ShinePhantom, I'm just wondering about the procedure here for this. --Dschwen (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You should wait until an OTRS volunteer confirms it (which is the usual practice here). Anyway, confirmed. You may give him the flag. :) Trijnsteltalk 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, good to know. And ✓ Done. Have fun with your new flag :-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks ShinePhantom (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012

Perhaps a bureaucrat could summarise and close Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012? See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Commons:Requests_for_comment.2FOTRS_2012. Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Something about requesting a flag so the abuse filter doesn't trip, since I recently got access and may actually start using it soon... yeah. -— Isarra ༆ 04:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Isarra has OTRS access. --Krd 07:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Might as well add me to the list, too. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Philosopher has OTRS access, for the record. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

More OTRS volunteers

Please give Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) an OTRS flag, see also here for the confirmation that he has access to the permissions queues. Trijnsteltalk 12:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeking some input over on enwiki

If some local 'crats could check in at w:Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Vanishing instructions on other projects, that would be fantastic. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag request

Please give KRLS (talk · contribs) an OTRS flag - I can confirm that he's an OTRS volunteer since the end of July (see also here and here). Trijnsteltalk 20:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag request

I do OTRS activity as non-member flag because I can do without it and don't be affected. But I soon realize that Special:AbuseFilter/69 marked my edit. I don't care it, but I'm worry anyone requests ticket checking(Sadly, all related ticket consist of Korean!). It is double working.. No good idea. Therefore, I want to request the flag.. My OTRS member ID is 1222. Please any OTRS member verifies my OTRS ID.. Thank you and merry Christmas! --Sotiale (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access confirm? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. He/she has access to permissions queue--Morning ☼ (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please remove my OTRS flag, I'm not in the "OTRS-Team" any more (too less time). Regards, --Brackenheim (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal

Please remove Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)'s OTRS-flag. His account has been closed. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 05:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hi all, I'm in the process of getting added as an OTRS user, and so I'll need to get my account flagged. X! (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can verify that X! has access to the interface. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 03:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Meisam

Please add flag per List of accounts. Thanks! -- Meisam (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 23:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks -- Meisam (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please add the OTRS flag to my account as I've been given permissions access (user ID #1235). Thanks! —Darkwind (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll just confirm this since it popped up on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal for Kthoelen

Please remove the OTRS member flag from Kthoelen. He requested his account be deactiviated. Special:UserRights/Kthoelen. Cbrown1023 talk 18:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

RfA HJ Mitchell

Please close Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ Mitchell. It should've been closed today on 16:40 (UTC). Thanks in advance. Trijnsteltalk 22:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The RFA is still open. INeverCry 00:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Herby fixed that. Sorry, missed the obvious step! --Dschwen (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please add the OTRS flag to my account. INeverCry 06:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. He has access to permission and sister project queue--Morning ☼ (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please give Hanay (talk · contribs) the OTRS flag; I can confirm he is an OTRS volunteer. See here and also here for the various abuse filter hits. Trijnsteltalk 22:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal

Please remove the OTRS flag from my account. I've resigned and my OTRS access/acct is now closed. Thanks. INeverCry 00:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Inability to vote in photographic competition

Reproducing the discussion below from the "Help" page, as it describes the problem fairly clearly, I think. 62.254.251.1 12:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I vote?

I am User:Deb, active on en and eligible to vote. I have obviously voted in previous years, yet I cannot login to Commons now because my password is not recognised. I have requested a password reminder twice but have not received one. Another contributor suggests this is because there is no e-mail ID associated with my Commons ID. I have tried placing a note at Usurp requests but I assume this is an automated page as I've had no response. What exactly is the problem and how can I get round it? 62.254.251.1 10:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Unify your account. Once you log in to Wikipedia, you'll be logged into the Commons as well. Banaticus (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Already tried that. Unfortunately it will not allow me to do so, as I do not know my Commons password! 62.254.251.1 11:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I give in. After nearly 2 weeks of trying to vote, I am still excluded, for no obvious reason. Why on earth can't we just vote direct from the language wikipedias. 62.254.251.1 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The contest hasn't been open for two weeks, but it's just a matter of the Wikimedia SUL system. I cannot log on to 27 WM projects for the same reason. You can attempt to usurp that username on Commons - but apart from that, we are unable to assist you. Sorry. Mono 18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I said "nearly" two weeks. You can only ask for one password reminder a week and I've asked for two but got nothing back. Yet I managed to vote in previous years. I can't usurp the username because it already belongs to me. 109.153.149.3 18:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you should be able to usurp your own account. I recommend talking to a bureaucrat. Mono 20:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, where do I find one on Commons? (Not that there's time now.) 109.153.149.3 20:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
At COM:BN. -- Rillke(q?) 11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to help. It seems that User:Deb has no edits on commons. Would it help (or be procedurally acceptable) to rename the Deb user here to something else and have Deb try the SUL thing again? That being said, is there any documentation for new Bureaucrats on how to execute rename requests and ursupations? --Dschwen (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I just did it, renamed Deb to Deb.old. Didn't see potential problems here. I'll go ahead and notify Deb on his homewiki to try SUL again. --Dschwen (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, this seems to have worked! I am not sure why I don't have any contributions but perhaps previous votes don't count. Deb (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal for three users

Please remove the OTRS flags of the following three users. They no longer have access to OTRS.

Thanks. Cbrown1023 talk 01:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please add the OTRS flag to my account, as I have now access to OTRS and will work on the permissions queue. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

✓ Confirmed He/she has access to en, es and permision queue--Morning ☼ (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

Please add the OTRS flag to my account, as I have now access to OTRS premission-queue--Steinsplitter (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 22:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS (2)

Please add the OTRS flag to my account. (info-nl & permissions) JetzzDG (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 23:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

+ OTRS flag

Please add the OTRS flag to my account, as I have now OTRS access. Thank you! Amada44  talk to me 21:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And confirmed as well. :) Trijnsteltalk 21:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thank you! cheers, Amada44  talk to me 21:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please give user GRuban (talk · contribs) the OTRS flag as he replied on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard & can confirmed he's an OTRS volunteer. Trijnsteltalk 10:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag wanted

I am an OTRS member and as i don't mind telling it here, i would like a flag for it. Proof of me being an OTRS member. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You cannot assume that every bureaucrat has access to the OTRS wiki (while the page is called Public userlist it is password protected). --Dschwen (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Confirming that Dharmadhyaksha is an OTRS member. Legoktm (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah! I know. I was just making it easier for an OTRS member to confirm. But thanks both of you. This was quick. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flags

Some more new OTRS volunteers with access to the permissions queues who acknowledged it on-wiki, confirmed by me. Please give them an OTRS flag.

Thanks! With regards, Trijnsteltalk 12:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

On second thought...

I resigned my tools some time ago, believing that I no longer had any use for them. Lately, I have been developing several editing tools for Commons, and it'd really be useful to have the tools back so as to make testing less of a pain. Thanks! -FASTILY (TALK) 23:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've restored your bit. --Dschwen (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!! :] -FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:FSIII

Hi, could someone please remove the OTRS flag from my bot? I'm no longer active at OTRS (I resigned my access last month). Thanks! -FASTILY (TALK) 21:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

OTRS member flag for Whym

Dear Crats, please add OTRS member flag for user Whym. Thank you. --Krd 16:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please give for me the OTRS flag (confirmation). Thanks in advance. Érico Wouters msg 18:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hi Dear Crats! Please add OTRS member flag for Me. Thank you.--MehdiTalk 07:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please close

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2013 was suposed to be closed at 7 March 2013 but remains open as of today. I'll leave the formal closure and the review of those that didn't signed to you, but I've taken the liberty to post those that say they resign to m:Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access (diff). Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please add me a OTRS member flag (conf). Thank you! Kruusamägi (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access confirm? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I can confirm this. I would have done this myself, but for some reason I don't have the checkboxes on pages in order to add this right. russavia (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? You can't give people the "OTRS member" right via Special:UserRights? And you have bureaucrat rights, right? Trijnsteltalk 16:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope, on Chrome the radio buttons and check boxes aren't appearing on any WMF sites. But they do appear it seems on Firefox (which I abhor using now, but have done so). russavia (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

For your kind attention

I request your kind attention at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Double_voting_in_admin_election_on_commons because it is a matter related to an admin and many admins involved in that discussion too. And some admins are trying to threat ordinary users by words and actions, making commons a difficult place for poor contributors. JKadavoor Jee 06:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It is called an Administrator Noticeboard, so having Administrators talk there is no surprise. As for threats, I see none. I am not an administrator or a bureaucrat. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Could someone please give me a OTRS flag (confirmation)? Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 21:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Could someone please give me a OTRS flag (confirmation)? Thanks, Pleclown (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed (#1258) --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Pleclown (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User:MichaelMaggs is back...

...from temporary retirement. He sent me an email this morning asking if it was possible to get his admin bit back. I'm happy to comply with this request. Michael's retirement was uncontroversial (this time I did my homework ;-) ) and I know Michael as a mellow and well respected admin. I'm convinced that his return will be a great benefit for commons. Michael also used to be a Bureaucrat, but he is not asking for that status to be restored. --Dschwen (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you've already done this. Sorry I was slow to respond, but I'll just note now that I fully support it. --99of9 (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OTRS bit

As of today, I have access to the permissions queue at OTRS. Can I get an admin to add the appropriate bit so that it will show up at [2]? Thanks. --UserB (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(moved from COM:AN) Could a bureaucrat assist in this please? I can confirm user B@enwiki (aka UserB on Commons) has OTRS access. Trijnsteltalk 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 Thank you. --UserB (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Usurping pending SUL finalization?

I am en:User:B and am that is my primary account. When I took that name at :en, there was already a User:B here on Commons, who is someone else and, at the time, was an active user. (He is de:User:Balû and has edits as recently as November 2012.) So since User:B wasn't available here, I just went with User:UserB on Commons (and any other wiki where User:B was unavailable) and moved on with life. But with m:Single User Login finalisation announcement, my understanding is that nobody has any choice in the matter - the local B is going to be moved out of the way and I will have a shiny brand new account with that name. Meanwhile, all of my old contributions will still be under my current name. Would it be possible for me to request, in advance of that change, that I be allowed to usurp the name? My understanding is that once m:Single User Login finalisation announcement takes effect, there will be no way to ever merge my UserB contribution history into my new SUL account. So if at all possible, I would like to usurp the name while it can still be done and my contribution history can be moved. --UserB (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question. The SUL finalisation announcement says that All accounts will still work as before, and will continue to be credited for all their edits made so far. I realize that User:B is a waste of a really nice username ;-), but do we ursurp sccounts with over 500 contributions for that reason? --Dschwen (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything that tells me how they will decide who gets the overlapping username, or if you both get kicked off it. How do you know that you will be given priority (especially since (s)he's been at commons longer than you have at en-wiki)? I think you should talk to him/her first - if one of you were to voluntarily step off (e.g. you could request a rename of your :en account to UserB, or (s)he could request a rename at commons to Balû), then everything would be easy. But if nobody wants to play nice, then I suppose I'm happy to pre-emptively give it to whoever is going to get it soon - as long as you can convince us who will have priority. I suggest also asking your question on Meta, since they probably know how it is going to work. --99of9 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I asked at m:Talk:Single_User_Login_finalisation_announcement and they said to make a request there after May 27. When SUL originally happened back in 2008, whichever account had the most edits "won" and was given the unified account. For this 2013 migration, there is no question of priority to resolve any more - whoever got the unified account in 2008 still has it and will have it forever. You can see at [3] which "B" accounts are me and which "B" accounts are someone else. But I'm fine with what they said on meta - on May 27, I will ask them to move my UserB edits here to what will be my new Commons:User:B account. --UserB (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks, that helps my understanding of the process! --99of9 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This page might be of interest for all of you, I guess: en:Wikipedia:Unified login/Finalisation. Trijnsteltalk 22:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: there will be no way to ever merge my UserB contribution history into my new SUL account - there could be a way to still perform some kind of merge, as similar problem will arise when people are in the process of renaming when SUL finalisation happens (so they are stuck with old and new usernames, each with half of their local accounts). I'm not sure what the details are gonna be, or even if it's happening at all. But James did say that they can make a tool. --Bencmq (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please grant the OTRS flag to my account, User:Theopolisme. Thanks! Theopolisme (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Any update?

Hi,

Is there any crat that can update me on: Commons:Bots/Requests/Ed Lane Bot‎ ?

Best, Ed Lane (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What MichaelMaggs says. --Dschwen (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

Dear Crats, please add OTRS member flag for User:Chandres. Thank you.--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

TranslationAdmin

Hi dear bureaucrats,

FYI, I added a section on COM:RFR for translation admin rights requests. You folks are the only ones who can assign it at the moment.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please keep all requests for this right on this noticeboard for time being. russavia (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation admin

Please assign me to the translateadmin (Translation administrators) user group. I would like to be able to mark (especially technical help) pages for translation and create translations from existing pages (I won't discard the all the work done already by volunteers). Thank you. -- Rillke(q?) 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please assign me to the translateadmin (Translation administrators) user group. I would like to be able to mark (especially technical help) pages for translation and create translations from existing pages (I won't discard the all the work done already by volunteers). Thank you. --Ricordisamoa 21:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: I'm also a translation administrator at Wikidata and Meta-Wiki :-) --Ricordisamoa 21:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Request

I saw that Commons has established the translations system, and I'd like to be granted the translation admin permission to manage and assist in translations to spanish and portuguese. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 21:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for translation adminship

I've done translation work (from English to Spanish) on Spanish Wikinews and Spanish Wikipedia. I understand of Wikimedia projects licenses and how these affect translations on other languages projects. I also know how the Translate extension works, and I've translated using it on Meta, Wikimania wiki, and TranslateWiki.

I help other Wikimedians via IRC that seek help for translation and that doesn't understand how the Translate extension works. I hope to help even more being a Tranlation administrator. Thank you. --Ralgis (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation admin right

Hi, I am requesting the translation admin right. I am a regular admin and I am interested in migrating key pages to the new system. I have used the translation interface before on Meta. —Mono 22:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User:MichaelMaggs is even more back...

Hello fellow Bureaucrats, Michael has asked me to return his Bureaucrat bit as well (noting that we are understaffed with Bureaucrats). I agree with him (and I haven't been the most active 'crat either due to real life commitments :-( ). I'm happy to oblige with Michael's request, so if anyone has any objections speak now or forever hold your peace ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hurrah, welcome back Michael. :-) --Fæ (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Phew, when i saw your edit summary "c" on my watchlist I feared it would stand for contra :-). --Dschwen (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but shouldn't this go via a regular RfB? I mean, he's not been a bureaucrat for 3,5 years... Trijnsteltalk 19:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with Trijnstel here, 3.5 years is bit of a long time; and I am thinking that many in the community would probably think the same way. This doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a successful RfB, but I'd rather it go thru the community after such a long time. russavia (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation admin

Please assign me to the translateadmin (Translation administrators) user group. I would like to be able to mark (especially technical help) pages for translation and create translations from existing pages (I won't discard the all the work done already by volunteers). Thank you. Pleclown (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I have it too, please? I'm going to do some TA stuff here now (already began). I have such flags at wikidata, meta, outreach wikis (as m:user:Base that is my SUL) --BaseSat (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, be careful. --99of9 (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to request translateadmin rights too, thank you.  ■ MMXX talk 17:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please give ze-dan (talk · contribs) an OTRS flag. I can confirm he has access to info-ru and the permissions queues (list of accounts). Trijnsteltalk 13:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done by User:Russavia. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've checked the abuse log and found some more OTRS volunteers with access to the permissions queues and without an OTRS flag:

Please give them the flag as well. Thank you! Trijnsteltalk 16:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:FuzzyBot

Hello, User:FuzzyBot needs Bot-Flag. FuzzyBot is part of the Translate Extension and the translation administrators. It performs automatic tasks as a result of the actions of the translation administrators. What this account does:

  • Updates translation pages when the source page is modified.
  • Marks outdated translations when the source page is modified.
  • Deletes pages as requested by translation administrators who also are administrators (this is done via JobQueue, not immediately).


Greetings--Steinsplitter (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Before I consider granting bot flag to this account, will all actions done with this bot include which translation administrator is responsible for that action? It isn't really appropriate to direct people to Commons:Community portal if there are questions relating to its operation. russavia (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
All translation admin actions are logged. And in fact, you cannot stop FuzzyBot bot, even in emergency cases. If there are serious errors, you'd always need to file a bug in bugzilla and let the devs fix the problem. So any discussion about whether to flag the bot or not is pointless, in my opinion. @ "It isn't really appropriate to direct people to Commons:Community portal": Just change the link on its user page to COM:TN :-) Regards, Vogone (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) Vogone (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Does this change prevent translators from getting notified of "FUZZY"-ing, when they "Hide bots" on the watchlist? If so, giving FuzzyBot the bot flag seems a bad idea. Some bots have the bot flag so that they won't annoy editors with updates of routine edits that do not need any further action or review from human. I don't think it applies to FuzzyBot - FuzzyBot's job is to notify and solicit actions from translators. --whym (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to reverse it if translators agree it's detrimental. We need more opinions on this. --99of9 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation admin

Please remove me from the translateadmin (Translation administrators) user group. I am not able to correctly mark pages for translation and create translations from existing pages, so I'll need some more practice. Thank you. --Ricordisamoa 22:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Local rename

Hi, sorry if this appears undue, I don't want to pressure or rush anyone, but I am globally renaming (see my en.wiki talk page for details), and the Commons request is the one holding up the process. I've listed myself at CHU on the 24th. Any help would be greatly appreciated to allow the rest of the rename process to carry on. Thanks! Salvidrim! 16:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Name change requests piling up, including mine

The guide says to ask a bureaucrat if it's been a couple of days. Well, requests have largely gone unnoticed for a week or so. Of course, the name change request I really care about is mine, but I'm not alone. Guðsþegn (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

OTRS Flag

Can you please remove my OTRS flag. I have not been active recently and my OTRS account has expired. Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

Please add me to group "OTRS member". Jeepday (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal

Please remove the OTRS flag of Micki (talk · contribs) as he's not an OTRS volunteer anymore since yesterday. Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 13:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove translation adminship to Ralgis

Hello, please speedy-remove translation administrator flag to Ralgis, for blatant incompetency/unresponsiveness, to be restored if he cleans up his own mess.[4]
After this is done, if nobody else does, I'll clean up the mess he created at Commons:Licensing. Let me also suggest Commons' bureaucrats to be more careful about this flag, to avoid the pains Wikidata went through; and clarify that I don't mean to be always available to clean up further mess made by hasty Commons users, doing the homework in Commons' stead. Thanks, Nemo 11:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi, could you grant me the OTRS flag? I recently joined the team, thanks, Poco2 18:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please give FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs) the OTRS flag; I can confirm he's an OTRS volunteer since Feb '13 and he already hit the filter a few times. Trijnsteltalk 09:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Rename/usurp docs for Bcrats?

Hello fellow Bureaucrats. Is there documentation on performing renames and usurpations for crats anywhere? All I find are pre-execution docs (criteria etc.), noting that helps me deal with warnings about "detatching accounts from unified login". I just executed an ursupation. This is in theory quite easy, with the prepared (1) and (2) links that fill out the rename special page, but I did get a bunch of red warning messages that I chose to ignore... oops? --Dschwen (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Or should we just close these request pages and make people wait till August when the "finalization" comes (which, I guess, I have not yet fully understood). --Dschwen (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dschwen. While I'm not a bureaucrat, I still think my help might be useful. Let me first explain something about the account system on the Wikimedia projects. Unified login (SUL) was implemented in 2008. This meant that users could create an account on one project and then automatically get an account on another project when they visited it. Before that date users had to create an account on each individual project and login there when they wanted to edit on those. Unified login solved those problems. People could merge their accounts so that they had one global account. But in the past different users created accounts with the same username, see for example my sockpuppet sulutil:Flower on nlwiki.
-Now we have two different rename requests:
  • the regular requests = people who wish to have a different username
  • usurpations requests = people who wish to use their username on all wikis but can't
The first type of renames is easy. People usually request a rename because of privacy reasons or simply because they want to have another name. The usurpations are a result of the unified login. It's when a user would like to edit with his username, but can't as it's already created by someone else. If the account was created long ago and doesn't have any edits, the bureaucrat usually wait (informs the user sometime) and then renames it to [username] (old) for example. That means the other user is free to create an account here. If you request a normal rename, you have to merge your "new" (renamed) accounts via Special:MergeAccount. You mentioned the warning "detaching accounts from unified login"; that means that there *is* an unified login, but with the rename it will be split from it. A unified login makes that you are automatically logged in on all projects, but if a project is split from it you can't do that anymore. Also, (that's relevant for us as stewards), account's can't be globally locked or the global lock isn't working on all projects where an account exists. The finalisation of SUL in August means that we won't have "non-SUL" accounts anymore as all accounts will be merged/renamed/etc. This should have happen years ago - when SUL was implemented in 2008 - but it didn't. Once the finalisation is complete, bureaucrats can't rename anymore; only stewards can globally rename a user. Hope this helps. Trijnsteltalk 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
That does help. So it is up to the user that I just helped usurp a username to go to Special:MergeAccount? And should we execute the remaining renames and usurps to get the work done while we can? --Dschwen (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It depends. When that user doesn't have an account here (or doesn't want to use the temporary account he might have created to request the rename), you just rename the old non-SUL account and that user can create an account by logging in on another project and then go to this one. It's automatically merged then. When he already has an account here (though with a different username), you rename first the non-SUL account and then the other account of that user to the name he wishes to use. If you do this second scenario, the user has to merge the renamed account with his other accounts. The bureaucrats don't have to - and can't! - do anything more. The only thing you have to do is to rename the old account (if possible/if you have the permission etc) to [username] (old), [username] (SUL) or something like that. Trijnsteltalk 22:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

I just joined OTRS this week, so I am requesting the OTRS flag. Thanks. –Fredddie™ 00:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Confirming that Fredddie has access to permissions. --Rschen7754 00:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation admin request

Hello, I hereby request translation administrator right. I'm an admin here and I have translated system messages in translatewiki, policy pages in Meta and Commons. I'd like to help out migration to new system. Thank you. – Kwj2772 (msg) 17:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Did you read docs? --BaseSat (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If you mean the docs are those (Commons:Preparing a page for translation, mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation administration, and mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation example et cetera), Yes I did. – Kwj2772 (msg) 16:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, good :) --BaseSat (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Translating the main Slide-bar into cy

Can someone create this page for me please: MediaWiki:Village pump-url/cy so that we can finish the translation of the main left side menu / roll-bar. Diolch. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What page should be mentioned there? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The 'Village Pump' could be changed to "Y Dafarn"; also:

Many thanks a diolch yn fawr! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I added MediaWiki:Village pump-url/cy. Please note, that some of messages you added later is not Commons specific, so it'll be good idea to translate them on http://translatewiki.net. Nomination for deletion belongs to gadget, so you need to request translation on gadget talk page. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Translations requested as above. I cannot find "subpages" at translatewiki.net at present. Lloffiwr (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • One pending request at AjaxQuickDelete. Please translate the whole gadget or at least the most important parts like "Why should this file …".
  • Please request edits at the talk page of the page that should be created. This makes it easier for the administrator fulfilling the request.
  • COM:AN is sufficient for edit requests.

Thank you for your efforts. -- Rillke(q?) 10:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you. Your comments noted. Lloffiwr (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

More OTRS flags

Please give an OTRS flag to these users; are confirmed OTRS volunteers:

Thanks. With regards, Trijnsteltalk 10:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

One more new OTRS member with access to the permissions queues who hit the abuse filter a few times already:

Please give him the OTRS flag. Thanks. With regards, Trijnsteltalk 15:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

I joined as an OTRS volunteer today. So I hereby request OTRS flag. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove my OTRS flag.

I need my OTRS flag to be removed please.I resigned from OTRS this evening. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Dear bureaucrats,

Please flag Jastrow (talk · contribs) as OTRS agent.

Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Jean-Fred (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

raname

from user:Salvo da Palermo to user:Rosa nero, as in my principal wiki (it.wikipedia). thanks --Salvo da Palermo (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

unfortunately I came here on commons with the SUL and I edited with the name "Rosa nero". So, there are some contributions with the name "Salvo da Palermo" and other contributions with the name "Rosa nero". Is it possible to merge all my edit under the name "Rosa nero"? --Rosa nero (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(non-crat note) It's not possible to merge accounts. And in case it takes too long until a crat replies, the request pages are COM:RENAME and COM:USURP. Trijnsteltalk 20:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
ah, if it is not possibile to merge accounts, I prefere to rest in this situation to prevent other difficults, since there is no trace of bureaucrats and it's passed much time by now. So I'll stop using old user name since now. --Rosa nero (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please give RonaldB (talk · contribs) the OTRS flag. He has access to permissions-nl and has hit the abuse filter recently. Trijnsteltalk 20:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag for User:Emha

Please set the OTRS flag for User:Emha. I confirm that he is a new OTRS member. Thx. --Krd 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for translation admin right

Moving this from COM:RFR. INeverCry 22:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Please grant me translation adminship rights. My main work at Commons (and also in the Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki.org and Wikidata) - with ordering and improving translations and translatable content. I are translation admin in Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki.org and Wikidata. Thank you. --Kaganer (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'm working on this, hang on. --Dschwen (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --Kaganer (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Username change request

I requested a username change nearly two months ago, and since then I've had no response from any bureaucrats. I'm still waiting for my username change request to be accepted. Thanks! --Daniel Lafranca (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is not much motivation for us Bureaucrats to do the renames locally when, starting in August, renames will be performed globally by the Stewards. --Dschwen (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you want, you can already now allow stewards to rename here.. --MF-W 01:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway. --Daniel Lafranca (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please flag my account as an OTRS member (I was added with this diff), if you could add confirmed as well that would be appreciated. Thanks, Callanecc (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. --Rschen7754 00:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OTRS member

Hi. I added a {{PermissionOTRS}} tag on a file, but I didn't know I had to have a flag to do it. So, my edit triggered an abuse filter. As I don't want to spend others' time checking if I have OTRS access, I am asking OTRS-member flag. Thanks—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you ping someone for confirmation? Then I'll add the flag. --Dschwen (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You are not on the meta:OTRS/Personnel page. --Dschwen (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed. --Rschen7754 02:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Rschen. Dschwen, I've added my name there.—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 02:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. Thanks for helping out! --Dschwen (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
:) —Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 02:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please give Anthere (talk · contribs) an OTRS flag; I can confirm she has access to the permissions queues and she has hit the filter a few times. Trijnsteltalk 16:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And please give em also to JurgenNL (talk · contribs). He has access to the queues info-nl/wikiportret and permissions-nl. Trijnsteltalk 23:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And please give me an OTRS flag :) −ebraminiotalk 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, waiting for confirmation. --Dschwen (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed. --Rschen7754 01:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

And please give me an OTRS flag ;)--Iluvatar (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hey guys. Could a kind crat please remove the 'translation administrator' and 'patroller' bits from my account? I am not using those and I think that keeping them is hat collecting. Thank you in advance. — ΛΧΣ21 00:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done and thanks for your help with any work you did. russavia (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks russ :) — ΛΧΣ21 22:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS Flag / McZusatz

Please add User:McZusatz to the OTRS group. Thanks, — Pajz (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Translation admin

Hi. Please give "Translation admin" right to me. I have this right on Wikidata and am a bit familiar with the extension. Thanks. −ebraminiotalk 00:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done translate away! --Dschwen (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS Flag

I have recently been granted access to the permissions and photosubmissions OTRS queues and, seeing as I may very well be dealing with Commons photos, I would like to preemptively request the OTRSPermission flag to be added to my account so I may add and maniupulate the OTRS permissions templates. Informally, my OTRS membership can be confirmed (again, informally) here, and can be formally confirmed on the private OTRS wiki here. Thanks, --FastLizard4 (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access confirm? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I confirm his OTRS account.--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I'm late, just realized this was done. Thank you very much! --FastLizard4 (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag / Starus

Please add OTRS flag to User:Starus. I can confirm he is listed on the wiki and he hit the filter twice.

→ Starus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (Assign)

Thanks! Jean-Fred (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of OTRS rights — Adrignola

Stewards have had a request for the removal of rights for admin and OTRS member for User:Adrignola. The admin rights have been done, though the OTRS rights need to be done local. For your reference m:Special:PermanentLink/5729342#Adrignola@commonswiki). Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not closed in OTRS interface AFAIK. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I've removed his bit here on commons. In the request he states that he has no time to use it. --Dschwen (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Plus Adrignola requested an OTRS admin to close his OTRS account, so it was just a matter of time. Trijnsteltalk 11:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Usurpation backlog

Hi. I've been waiting for a Cananian->Cscott usurpation for a while to finish off an SUL rename. There seems to be quite a backlog on the usurpation pages. Is anyone available to help me out? Cananian (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would have helped if you had a complete request, including diffs to prove ownership. I'll try to track down the usurp on en.wp. --Dschwen (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I went through all unhandled requests and executed a whole bunch of usurpations. Some requests are still incomplete (diff missing). --Dschwen (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators inactivity section started.

I opened Inactivity section Aug-Sep 2013. Admin flag of sixone user who areis inactive since last run are to be removed. (one of them is a checkuser) It's just to let you know about it. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 08:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I found the 5 users have made more than 5 log actions, but they do not satisfy 5 logs since the recent 6 months. I moved them to normal section. Regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 10:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The rule is the following:
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.
You counted that these had 5 log actions since the beginning of the last run but didn't have 5 log actions in 6 months... shouldn't they lose the rights anyway? I mean, they already got a second chance six months ago when they were asked to be a bit more active then they were and they didn't take that chance. Trijnsteltalk 14:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please give Lomita (talk · contribs) the OTRS flag; I can confirm he/she has access to the permissions queue on OTRS. Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 20:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag again

Please give Natuur12 (talk · contribs) also an OTRS flag. He has access to the queue permissions-nl and wishes to add OTRS templates. Trijnsteltalk 20:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

request for translation rights

I've asked for rights to put pages for translation with Translate Extension. Please attend my request. Thank you. --Dvdgmz (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 Question Did you read docs?--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, which docs? I'm familiar using Translate-Extension rights in Outreach wiki. --Dvdgmz (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation administration ... --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've read it now. It's a good document, specially interesting the migration recommendations because I should to do it in some pages. --Dvdgmz (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Ooh it's very sad to hear that it just now when you read it but not before asking it at outreach(((. But better late than never :) --BaseSat (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is not easy to found the appropriate pages without human help :-) it is a little bit messy, there are some old pages about translations... but step by step I'm learning how to deal with that :-) However I try to be cautious using it. --Dvdgmz (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
That's my fault that i havent give you the links in outreachwiki( Anyway, now when you know what mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page_translation_example and mentioned page say and in case if you are going to respect (what sure I assume) I have no objections. --BaseSat (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the documentation. The extension is pretty self explanatory, but with that the 'rules' are more clear. If I had doubts about using it, where should I ask? In the Extension discussion in mw? --Dvdgmz (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably, TP you mentioned is ok. You can also use m:Meta_talk:Babylon, Commons:Translators'_noticeboard for meta and commons. There is an ##wikimedia-translation where several users are ready to answer questions quite fast as well. --BaseSat (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. I've just set the bit (now that you know where the docs are ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Can you add OTRS flag to Linedwell (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Users#L)?

The volunteer asked (and received) some explanations about this Commons user group, and plan to handle soon some Commons-related OTRS tickets. --Dereckson (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

does he have access to the queue yet? --Dschwen (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

I noticed Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) hit the filter, but he/she has access to OTRS (+ to the permissions queues). Give them the flag please. Trijnsteltalk 13:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons and Defamation

According to m:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Policies#Office_Actions #7. Biographies of Living Persons and Defamation: “As a general matter, disputes regarding biographies of living persons or defamation should be resolved by the Community.” “An office action by the Wikimedia Foundation – which should be approved by the Office of the General Counsel -- may be appropriate if community actions have not been effective and legal considerations require such action.”

So I think I can suggest Jimmy to approach The Office/ Office of the General Counsel since the matter is well discussed within the community several times (Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_(the_making_of).ogv and User_talk:Mattbuck#Conflict); but the community failed to make any action so far. Am I right or does the Bench of Crats have any further comments/advice in this matter?

I doubt whether Commons has no clear policy to handle such cases in accordance with http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. I failed to see any progress in Commons_talk:Courtesy_deletions . See the current example too. JKadavoor Jee 15:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In the most mellow way I can think of, and even though I'm not a bureaucrat - I suggest you read what defamation is (hint: not this), think about what legal considerations really exist in this case (hint: none that I'd be aware of, given the broad free speech protection in the US), and then drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass because you're really the only person who still seems interested in the Pricasso thing. As for general discussion on better processes for deletions on request of photo subjects, everyone's open for that (and I actually have some ideas on that which I'd propose if somebody started a discussion), but this noticeboard isn't the right place for that (nor is Commons talk:Courtesy deletions, which was originally supposed to be about uploader requests). darkweasel94 16:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We already have a General Counsel to decide/advise us whether something is defaming or not if we are in a confusion. :) JKadavoor Jee 16:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That's true. Until they tell us anything, perhaps you have a suggestion what might be the false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation (quoted from the linked Wikipedia article) that is, in your opinion, being communicated here? The only statement I read from it is "Tim Patch painted an image of Jimmy Wales with his penis", which is a true statement, so it cannot be defamatory. It also states some details about the painting process, all of which are also true. But perhaps I am missing some false statement that is in that video or image? darkweasel94 17:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion chasing the "angle" of defamation leads nowhere, that far I do agree with Darkweasel94. This looks to me like an attempt to cast the issue into a different one, one on which our policies are clear. I wish it was that easy, but I'm afraid it isn't. It is my personal opinion that the issues at hand are unprofessionalism, bullying, and potentially sexual harassment. Combined these would be enough to justify a block, if only the victim was just a regular Joe Editor. But here (somebody else came up with that, so I take no credit) people with freudian Killing Your Father issues vehemently disagree ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Jkadavoor, I really do not think that Jimmy needs to be suggested to approach the WMF office. I'm pretty sure he is fully aware of his options, and that he has consciously decided against going down that particular path you want to suggest. Personally I think his choice makes sense. He is putting the burden on the community to deal with this case. I do not think that the community response has been optimal, but I am sure that cutting the community out of the loop will only trigger a backlash that would be counterproductive for a more friendly and collegial development of commons. --Dschwen (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dschwen,for your response. I think we have to make a conclusion. The more we lag, the more it gives a bad impression to others. I already have a communication with many members in the Board of Trusties; and their (indirect) opinion is very clear. While requesting for a better guidance, Phoebe Ayers (the new Vice Chair) even exclaimed: "What more you need? We already passed those resolutions a couple of years ago.I'm sympathetic to the request for guidance, but struggling a little in what form that guidance would take beyond (e.g.) the resolutions that we passed a couple years ago on this subject."” Further she encouraged to implement a courtesy deletions policy soon. JKadavoor Jee 17:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Uhm, sorry, but that is not quite what I read there (did you mix up diffs?). I see some of the confusion about what Commons:Courtesy deletions is about. It seems to me that we are not all on the same page here. --Dschwen (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I corrected to her exact words. Other members (Kat Walsh (now retired) and Samuel Klein) expressed their opinion on their talk pages that I included in my first comment ([5], [6]). JKadavoor Jee 17:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
And I fully agree with them. The community should get its act together and drop some of that fundamentalist free content at any cost attitude and the misguided censorship-paranoia. The community needs to find a consensus on when and where to exercise editorial judgement. What I don't understand is where you get the idea of suggesting Jimbo should ask for an office action. That seems like the exact opposite of what I read from the board members' comments. --Dschwen (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It was only my thought of depression because I felt all doors are closed in front of me, after reading Mattbucks decision to stay "kept" even after a lengthy discussion with Colin and Slaunger on his talk page. :( JKadavoor Jee 18:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, when discussion about this has been going on for months in deletion requests, user talk pages, de-bureaucrat discussions, and off-wiki soapboxes, and there's still no consensus for your opinion, then it's perfectly possible that at some point "all doors are closed". Commons isn't about winning. A decision has been made, and now let's get back to actually improving this archive of free media. :) darkweasel94 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This is my last attempt to make a discussion on this topic. I will leave it respecting our crats decision whatever it may be. :) JKadavoor Jee 03:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I don't understand the last sentence. As much as I'd love to be some kind of god king of commons (hello wikipediocracy! here is some stuff for you to quote out of context! :-P), that is not my understanding of what bureaucrats are for. Just like the admin buttons are a mop to clean-up, the bureaucrat buttons are a just a mop dispenser ;-). Well, not quite, you know, with all the community trust stuff. But really all I can do is trying to make a case for what I think is right. At the end of the day it should be a community decision. Or are you really expecting me to go in delete the files yelling "CRAT OVERRULES ADMIN!!!!". How long would that stand? Files restored within seconds, de-crat opened within minutes, and rightfully so! So let's se what you could reply to that... Am I a coward for not acting upon my beliefs? If so, was Lee Harvey Oswald a hero for acting upon his beliefs? Nah, didn't think so. --Dschwen (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
No; I don’t want to lose a good crat for deleting them. :) That why I used the word "Bench of Crats" above. I welcome if you have a collective decision after a thorough discussion (as seen in some meta cases).
On the other side, from Commons:Bureaucrats#Community role; I think it is not good our crats prefer to stay away from difficult situations where the community really need their help. There is no problem in showing some extra courage for the ultimate good. :) JKadavoor Jee 15:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues (emphasis mine). --Dschwen (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Should we use Category:Living people to categorize living people's categories, like Category:Barack Obama, until they die for much closer watching?--Jusjih (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I don’t want from the crats to impose their will; but wish they should take utmost care to find the will of the community which is very clear here.
Regarding the DRs: When Michael Maggs speedy closed that DR, he told me: "Dear Jee, I am just dropping you a note to let you know that my re-closure of your new deletion request was done for purely procedural reasons, as without some sort of final closure these things can be discussed forever, which would not be good for Commons as a whole." What it means? My understanding is that he, another crat or a bench of crats will review the entire issue and make a formal closure; that is my understanding. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I don’t care the last rapid DR; as I don’t think it opened in good faith. The votes were 11 remove and 10 keep; and closed by an involved admin (that he agreed later). Moreover, the license of the original picture was a bit ambiguous at that time; [cleared later. Now the files in question are unethical derivative works to harass the Original Author (Jimmy Wales per the work for hire contract); a clear violation of our Terms of Use #4 from the uploader. Further, This page in a nutshell: Commons respects the legal rights of the subjects of our photographs and has a moral obligation to behave ethically with regard to photographs of people.
Commons:Personality_rights#Consent: "While a right of publicity permits consent for use, consent is not needed for use within Wikimedia if that use adheres to policies and guidelines and, for off-Wikimedia use or reuse, the Wikimedia Foundation does not generally keep records of consent for the right of publicity. A reuser needing consent is generally responsible for obtaining and keeping it independently of the Foundation. If the person whose consent is needed cannot be contacted, so that consent has not been obtained, then the reuser probably has no right to commercially reuse the content." We have no evidence that Pricasso collected the consent of Jimmy. So a violation from the creator of the derivative works.
I have no problem in keeping in that video if Jimmy gives a formal consent through OTRS. (I know arguments like no need to record the consent. But Jimmy is an active user here; only a click away. Why not contact him.) :)
Last but most important: I think you noticed this comment. "Can we really believe that no-one on the WMF board is aware of these issues? Surely Jimmy knows, so perhaps people can ask him why nothing is being done by the WMF, and why he isn't pushing for these things to occur." Trolling him from one side; forcing him from the other side for spending more money for Commons so that we can better troll him. Nice idea. :) Coming to the point: We have to start respecting the Foundation if we really need any consideration from it. There is nothing wrong in expressing some one’s disagreement with any; even a higher authority. But it has its own ways. Trying to harass him at every now and there or troll him like this case will make us reach nowhere.
@Jusjih: Thank you for listening this discussion. JKadavoor Jee 08:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
As for the "clear will of the community", you linked to a de-bureaucrat discussion. A de-bureaucrat discussion is just that: a discussion whether somebody should be a bureaucrat. It doesn't make sense to infer anything about file deletions from it. As for your concerns about russavia's comment about the WMF's priorities - Jimbo Wales is not the WMF, and the WMF is not Jimbo Wales. Jimbo Wales is one member of the WMF Board of Trustees. darkweasel94 21:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Opinions are opinions regardless where it is expressed.
"Jimbo Wales is not the WMF, and the WMF is not Jimbo Wales." I think I know it. Many of them already expressed their general concerns and suggestions; even members outside the board, including our Executive Director and Director, Community Advocacy. JKadavoor Jee 05:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

María Sefidari enquired us whether we need any further formal advice regarding the BLP matters to prevent and resolve the problems Commons is facing, if any. JKadavoor Jee 08:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The closure should be restated

User:Jkadavoor don't like the way User:Mattbuck closed the discussion about the Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_(the_making_of).ogv. I don't like it either, may be not for the same reasons. Let us recall this discussion. It was together:

Combining the three discussions, the consensus was a *clear and massive* keep. And this is the reason why one or another of the 8 remaining Bureaucrats should discard the closure written by User:Mattbuck and replace it by something like:

Despite the fact that I dislike this file, I must close the discussion by saying that, according due weight to all of the assertions, the result is Keep, and is likely to remain Keep should a 5th deletion request be open.

Indeed, the minority voters (User:Jkadavoor among them) deserve a non-inflamatory closure, and the majority voters (User:Pldx1 among them) deserve a closure that doesn't suggest that these Keep voters could be a bunch of unfair people. Pldx1 (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other crats but my own feeling on this is that that specific issue has been decided, and that any attempt to re-close or to re-frame the closure would simply inflame passions again, on both sides. We all have to accept as editors here that we won't always agree with the actions taken by admins, nor indeed will we always agree with the majority view of the community. The way forward is not to keep picking at specific previous decisions but to engage constructively with discussions about the future direction of policy. There are several of those currently open which seem (again!) to have talked themselves into the ground. Does that mean that the community does not want change, or does it mean it's just hard to find consensus for it? By all means discuss those wider issues, but let's leave the correctness or otherwise of the Pricasso decision aside now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Michael for clarifying your stand. As I said earlier, I’m willing to accept the decision of the crats here; whatever it may be (leaving the major responsibility of the aftereffects merely on them ). JKadavoor Jee 02:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The notorious are not all of the people

User:Jkadavoor is expressing great concerns about the so-called 'bee-ell-pee' and 'hi-hi-pee'. What about? The first [7] one is a Wikimedia-Fundation resolution. Passed in April 2009, it describes how biographies should be written. This amounts to some words about "taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account... especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest", but nothing else. If you don't deserve an article, what can you deserve at all? The second [8] one is another Wikimedia-Fundation resolution. Passed in May 2011, it urges to "require evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline". The urgency to require what is required induced two years later (June 2013) a marvelous 28-fold discussion Commons:Project_scope/Update_2013 about what requirements the guidelines should require. The masterpiece of the millefeuille pastry was about "Courtesy deletion" and mainly asserts that "we are under no legal obligation to [delete anything]. That is not to say we won't, just that it is our choice".

Issuing a resolution each two years! This rather appears as a simple lip service. But this is not the only thing that seems questionable. The very fact of only expressing these concerns in the restricted context of the former Pink Parrot Incident is not so far to appear as a two standards attitude, courteous towards the notorious and the "people of our world" and rather careless towards the random people. Taking into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy means requiring consent from the model for *any* publication of a picture of a private person taken in a private place. Naming the required process as "courtesy deletion" instead of "rightful erasing" of stolen pictures is only escalating the misdeeds. I have allready signaled a proeminent case of such stolen pictures and written 2013/08/01:

what happened to these files that were quite clearly private pictures of a private person taken in several private places? A strong keep, two years long, enforced by the usual "I like it" fan club. Here is engaged the moral responsibility of all the bureaucrats of http://commons.wikimedia.org: some of them encouraged the pack, some others turned a blind eye and this during two long years.

May be something has changed in between. May be not. Let us try again to be sure. To summarize the case, the following set of three 'ex-girlfriend' pictures has been published in 2011:

Dcp01043.jpg
Dcp01053.jpg
Dcp01063.jpg
...part of the people would be ashamed if their coworkers were knowing how much of non-free media is stored here... but will this kind of curtaining be sufficient in the long term?

These pictures were allegedly taken in 2001, ten years before, and were presented as "self-pictures". In reality they were a blatant continuation of a series of nine, published in 2008 and targetting the same identified person. Each time, even an allegation of consent was missing. Was the model a well-known person? No, she was not. Was the photographer an artist or what else? No, he was not. So what ?

Pldx1 (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Let us try again to be sure. Pldx1 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Laci.d

Hi!

As a new member of the Hungarian OTRS-team, I would like to apply for an OTRS-flag for myself. Thank you, Laci.d (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. (#1362) --Alan (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to let OTRS flags be handled by admins

Is there a good reason why the OTRS flag should not be handled by admins? This seems a bit pointless for bureaucrats to handle, particularly as so few of them even have access to OTRS.

In the meantime can the flag be re-added to my account and my Faebot (talk · contribs) account please? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, agree with this Fae (it was ultimately my suggestion). The only reason that crats are doing this is because it was assumed that crats have OTRS access. I've looked and only one crat currently has OTRS access, and they don't have that right nor do they identify as an OTRS member on this project. It is pointless that someone, such as say Trijnstel, needs to waste time and come to this noticeboard and verify that the person has OTRS access, when that person could probably ultimately add the user right themselves. It would streamline this process to eliminate crats from the equation in this instance. russavia (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and yep, I can verify that Fae has OTRS access. russavia (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Applying the flag is not really time critical, and there are several OTRS members having this page on their watchlist to confirm such requests. OTRS admins have already been asked to request the flag themselves when there are new permissions agents, in which case no confirmation is necessary. I'd like to avoid non-OTRS admins assigning the flag on request they cannot verify, or even assigning it mistakenly, which nobody would ever notice. Having these right changes documented on this page seems affordable. No need for change from my point of view. --Krd 17:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you know that there is only one crat who is also an OTRS-admin ? I don't have an opinion on this matter, but I think that Fae propose to just let admins handle OTRS flags, in the same way vrats do right now. with requests on a page, to keep a trace. But it's only my guess. Pleclown (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I could see admins not doing their homework when assigning the flag though, and thus reducing the integrity of the system. With 5-6 crats it's easy to make sure that they know what's going on; with 200+ admins, less so. --Rschen7754 18:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I just don't see this as a task that required a bureaucrat when there are other solutions. For example we could ensure that these requests go via the OTRS noticeboard (or a sub-page of it) and get responded to by any one of the OTRS volunteers who happens to be an admin. I disagree that admins in this situation would not "do their homework", so long as the guidance is spelt out in the right place. I see admins as tending to avoid taking action if they are not completely confident in their understanding of the community guidelines as they know it'll be picked up and criticised later on, it's one of the reasons we end up with backlogs. In the meantime my original request to have the OTRS flag on my account remains to be done. :-) --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Undone you mean? @crats: please give User:Fæ and User:Faebot an OTRS flag. Trijnsteltalk 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dschwen, appreciated. --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What problem are we trying to solve here? Is there a particular occurrence that makes people think that the current procedure does no longer work? Please keep this (very small) task to the crat's and concentrate on real admin or otrs volunteer tasks, there is a lot of work to do in both categories. Jcb (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This small change would not stop bureaucrats continuing to do this if they wanted. It just makes a lot more sense if someone with OTRS access were confirming the OTRS flag in one quick step, rather than eating up the time from two or more volunteers to coordinate it. In my view the role of the bureaucrat should be focused on the essentials rather than an odd bundle of unconnected tasks that other trusted users can easily handle. I note that Commons:Bureaucrats does not even list this job as part of the defined community agreed role, so it's a mystery to me why it happens this way at the moment. --Fæ (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Having the right assigned by 'crats gives the community more confidence in the process in my opinion. It's easy enough to say that the right should only be assigned when it has been verified that the recipient has OTRS access, but actually enforcing that would be a nightmare, and I suspect we'd rapidly end up with admins not verifying that somebody has OTRS access or misunderstanding the purpose of the right and incorrectly assigning or removing it. I think the current system is thorough enough and transparent enough that the community can have confidence that the right is being assigned to the correct people, and the requests aren't so numerous or so urgent that the 'crats can't cope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Following this logic one could also suggest that admins shall assign bot or admin flags, or that all admins shall be also crats. I'd think we at least don't need this. If if ain't broken, don't fix it. (And shall the real problem addressed here be inactive crats, it is a totally different story needing a different approach.) --Krd 19:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Admins can already give filemover, autopatroller and rollback rights - which actually do something technically. OTRS volunteer flags do not actually do anything, so they should be less dangerous to have granted by admins. darkweasel94 19:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course the OTRS flag "does something", see the abuse filter log. We don't have this just to flag OTRS volunteers. Trijnsteltalk 20:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The filemover, autopatroller and rollback rights are mainly about files. The OTRS rights are mainly about real-life persons. This is not the same thing. The fact that some admins don't perceive this difference seems to be yet another reason to maintain the present way of granting rights. Pldx1 (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Most admins know how rollback and file moving works and who is eligible to get these rights, whereas I assume that many admins do not know much about OTRS. Anyway, this discussion now used more time than it was ever able to save, which could be a good moment to close it. --Krd 10:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree this chat has run its course, but within reason we do well to regularly review working practices. Socrates' urge to examine applies today as well as it did millennia ago. :-) --Fæ (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Automation

In the light that OTRS flag changes are the main request for this noticeboard at the moment, I'm wondering if we should just automate it. As I understand it the principles are:

  • Changes to the Commons OTRS flag need to be accurate and the most accurate and up to date list is the master table maintained on the otrs-wiki.
  • Only some queues are relevant for Commons (I believe that any relevant user account would have access to the permissions-commons queue or its sub-queues).

I could create an automated report that takes the master otrs-wiki table, filters it for relevant accounts with access to permissions-commons, filters the list of accounts to see if they have made any edits on Commons in the last month, checks whether they have the otrs-flag enabled on Commons and then spits out a table (perhaps as a subpage of this one) neatly showing relevant accounts with and without the otrs flag set. My assumption would be that any account matching these criteria ought to have the otrs flag set. There is a further twist, in that given such a list gets running and automatically maintained on a daily run, then we could approve a special bot account with the power to add or remove the otrs-flag and do away with this burden on our handful of bureaucrats who have better things to do with their volunteer time. Is there any particular reason why we should not change the current manual process to an automated one with bureaucrat oversight† instead? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
† - for example, bureaucrats could manually maintain an override list of accounts that have or do not have the otrs flag regardless of what a bot thinks.

Mugging up on a long discussion on otrs-wiki shows that names are public (m:OTRS/Users) but no information about queues which is implicit in doing this report. I'll consider creating the report but will assess its value off-line rather than publishing anything on-wiki unless there is a consensus among otrs volunteers. It may be sufficient to publish a reconciliation list on the closed otrs-wiki which by-passes any concern about expectations of privacy as all the data is already published there. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
An automatic list might be hard as users with access to info-nl also have access to info-nl::wikiportret and permissions-nl. And there might be more queues with access to "permissions-" queues. It's not that only the permissions-commons queue and it's sub queues are related to commons, there might be more permissions- queues relevant. Plus it's not that everyone with access to the permissions- queues will also need the OTRS flag. At the moment I only request the flag for users who could use it. Trijnsteltalk 15:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
We might rework the use case, but it seemed a fair assumption that there would not be OTRS volunteers who need the flag on Commons without having the permissions queues (in any language) and on the reverse of that, that we could ignore adding new flags for OTRS volunteers that edit here less than once a month. If you have any examples of users that don't fit this profile, they would be great to think about. Even if we think this cannot be sensibly automated, a report that is used just for reference (i.e. a bot is suggesting new flags needed and identifying volunteers without access to any relevant queues that may not need the flag any longer) might be worth creating and be a good regular check. --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm starting to get worried that you are spending too much of your precious volunteer time on this ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Due to this upload, I can confirm that User:Filzstift is an OTRS volunteer with access to info-de and permissions. Please give him the OTRS flag. Trijnsteltalk 14:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Could I be added to the OTRS group as I now have access to the permissions queue? Cheers /Lokal_Profil 09:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed #1141. Alan (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag for User:Banfield

Hi, could you flag User:Banfield as an OTRS member? Jcb (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Botflag removal

For security-reasons, please de-flag my bots. The tasks bot permission was asked for are done:

Thanks in advance. -- Rillke(q?) 15:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/Hazard-Bot 13

Can we please get some eyes on Commons:Bots/Requests/Hazard-Bot 13. Almost a month has gone by, and everything has been done, and all it requires is for approval. I would imagine that there are some other similar bot requests at similar states that could do with the approval. russavia (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests

Hi Admins, Could anyone of you resolve my request in Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests?. It is there since 9 October ready for approval. Thanks in advance, --Keysanger (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of OTRS flag

Please remove my OTRS flag. I've come to realize that I haven't been able to be as helpful this way as I'd have liked. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of TA flag

log user has never uses his TA right. Pleas remove TA right. Thanks--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done--Dschwen (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I need it (as I said) to mark to translate the Commons partnership pages for Art Schools. But first I'm doing changes in the header template to organize it differently (I'm running a migration about it). You can see here the old way and the new one. I've been busy with this and other improvements in wikiArS Commons (and Outreach!) resources the last month and a half, and this is why I didn't used it. But I'll need these rights next weeks. --Dvdgmz (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I see no need, only for marking ~5 pages. We have active TAs, these can mark the page for translation. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The number of schools involved is growing and there will be other documentation about the initiative to translate (but yes, mainly in Outreach). But if you prefer don't giving me the rights, where can I ask for marks when necessary? Thanks --Dvdgmz (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:TN --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll use it when necessary. --Dvdgmz (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Set OTRS Flag

Please set the OTRS flag for User:Didym. — Pajz (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC) (OTRS administrator)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flag removals

Hi 'crats,

The following users have had their OTRS accounts closed due to inactivity and should have their 'OTRS members' flag removed:

Thanks! -(OTRS Admin) Rjd0060 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


Dito for User:Avatar. Thanks in advance, — Pajz (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC) (OTRS admin)

Also ✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Translate admin request

I am a MediaWiki developer, outreach volunteer, hackathon coordinator, and a MediaWiki.org admin. An admin and translate admin on Meta, I also have accounts on several projects and am an active participant on Commons and English Wikipedia. Additionally I am a member of AffCom, involved with Wikimania program activities, and supporting Wikimedia affiliates. I would like to help expand translate availability on Commons and continue to experiment with solutions to various issues raised by projects I am offering support to. I have been doing this over the past few months on Meta, and would like to extend to that user groups and projects on Commons. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 20:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. This should be uncontroversial. --Dschwen (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Changing username/Usurp requests

In Commons:Changing_username/Usurp_requests is a lot of users waiting for name changes. I am waiting since 9 October 2013. Can anyone of the admins or burocrats resolve the cases there or give a new here why is not possible to do the task?. --Keysanger (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Keysanger. We were all waiting on the SUL finalization, I guess. I'll look at the requests in the coming days. --Dschwen (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sysop

I see the DRs are piling up, and that help is needed. Checkuser was a bit too much for me, but I could handle doing some deletions. I'd like to have the sysop flag back. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 21:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

When did you leave?! It would be fine with me. --Dschwen (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I set the flag back. Happy to see you back here. Take it easy. --Dschwen (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. INeverCry 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for translationadmin rights

I was recently applying some changes to Template:Translate. In the aftermath User:Rillke was marking the template for translation and did all the necessary steps to migrate it from {{Autotranslate}}. I looked into the changes he was applying since I was curious and subsequently read up on the documentation of the Translate extension. I also had an enlightening discussion with him on his talk page. Overall I got very interested in the possibilities offered by this extension, especially for template development, and I would like to do administrative tasks on translations in the future very much. I was already translating easy templates in the past by using system messages and {{Langswitch}} and I'm also familiar with the {{autotranslate}} system and it's pros and cons for more complex templates. Being able to make use of the Translate extension's functionalities would allow me to improve upon the work I did so far and clear up as well as improve more translations in the future. Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please check out Commons:Translators' noticeboard and thanks for helping out! --Dschwen (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Patrick87 (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Return to CU

Per Trijnstel's suggestion, I wanted to let Commons crats know that I've put in a steward request for the return of my CU flag. INeverCry 23:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I left message there. Sorry for delay, I overlook this page in my watchlist. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know. Sounds fine to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

OTRS-flag

Grashoofd (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) Could a Bureaucrat please give him the OTRS-flag? Grashoofd recently joined the Dutch OTRS-team. See this page for the list of Dutch OTRS-members. Please grant him this flag. Thanks in advance. Natuur12 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. He has access to the permissions queues. You may add the flag. Trijnsteltalk 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Photographer

Could a Bureaucrat please give him the OTRS-flag? He has access to the permissions queues. Thank you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Translation Admin Rights

Dear Bureaucrats, as I am currently involved with project pages on Commons for international (read: multilingual) projects, I'd like to ask to get Translation Admin rights. I already have them on Meta since a while and I also run wikis with the Translation Extension for several Wikimedia Chapters (see my userpage on details). Apart from that I am an OTRS user (several info and chapter queues) and sysop on als:wp. Active on Commons since 2005, Wikipedian since 2004. https://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/80686. Thanks a lot, --Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 22:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done (it is very inconvenient that your signature only links to de.wp and does not contain your username. I had to go to the page history to find out who to assign the bit to.) --Dschwen (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, somebody told me the same on yesterday's admin request and I have changed that accordingly. Thanks for assigning the right to me! --Manuel Schneider(bla) 14:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Translation admin

Hello,

I am requesting translation admin right. I am admin on Commons since 2005 (or 2004, don't remember ;o) ), former check user, steward. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, admins can assign TA on their account, so you should be able to assign yourself TA rights! --레비Revi 13:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, done. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

otrs flags for new members

Please, give flags to the following users:

Thanks! PS: I hope that my confirmation is enough here rubin16 (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Also ✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

OTRS flags requested

Please give these users the OTRS flag, I can confirm they have access to the permissions queues:

Thanks! With regards, Trijnsteltalk 20:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. Happy New Year. --Dschwen (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sysop bit

I believe I can ask here to have my sysop bit restored. Apologies if that's not the case.

Many thanks, Nick (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you please remind circumstances for status removal? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Any reason this does not show up in the User rights log for me? --Dschwen (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Because it is on meta? -- Rillke(q?) 16:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It was removed due to inactivity, EugeneZelenko. Nick (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I found it, Eugene, the bit was removed due to inactivity. --Dschwen (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
2.5 years is quite long period of time. I think will be good idea to demonstrate activity in Commons maintenance and then come to regular voting. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Eugene. --Dschwen (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Dschwen: , may I ask what the difference between my request and that of [9] is, please. Nick (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I voluntarily retired, your sysop bit was I believe removed for inactivity. In the latter case the usual procedure here is to go through a new RFA. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@MichaelMaggs: so if I'd announced a retirement that would change things. Why ? You had your sysop bit restored but not your 'crat bit, that seems just bizarre. Could you direct me to the policy that states retirees can apply to have their bit restored at any time but not those who become inactive, if not, I'd appreciate the restoration of my admin bit per your experience earlier in the year, thanks. Nick (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Nick: I think inactive (former) sysops are recommended to start RfA per a statement at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship which says Administrators who have lost admin rights through inactivity but who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process. I'm not sure if we have any written policy for the case of resigned sysops. whym (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@Whym: Thanks. There's no policy, so I'd be interested to hear from @MichaelMaggs: and @Dschwen: why they feel the addition of a retired template makes all the difference. If I had known that was necessary to ensure I could apply for my sysop bit back without all this trouble, I would have done so when I first became less active. I don't believe it's fair that I or any other administrator should suffer because the policy doesn't really exist. Nick (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@Nick: I don't get it, why don't you just do an RFA? See also Commons:Requests_and_votes/Andre_Engels_(oktober_2007) (which is ~6 months after his/her status removal). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: I've no objection to RfA and have a draft version ready to go, I'm just hoping for an explanation on the policy grounds for forcing inactive former administrators to go through RfA but allowing retired former administrators to return and be granted their sysop bit back without RfA. If nothing else, this should lead to a properly constructed policy, unlike the existing (and previous versions) of the policy. Nick (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@Nick: In my view, in a voluntary resignation, the decision to remove the flag is solely made by the administrator themselves, and that is why it is usually up to their will to reverse the removal. An inactivity removal appears more like the community's decision (indeed, different wikis differently decide), and that is why it seems appropriate to me to get another community decision to reverse it. Some communities might see inactivity and resignation equally, but I believe Commons, for most of the cases, considered them distinct, presumably because of the reasons I wrote above. I think documenting the practice for resignation is preferable (if there is none), and as you probably are aware, you can always propose a change. --whym (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Whym: The argument that resignation or temporary retirement makes a difference needs to be put to the community to see if they agree (your argument makes sense and I doubt there would be any problems) and if so, added to policy. The only thing I would say is that had the policy formally existed, you would need to examine how many inactive and now desysopped administrators would have made the decision to temporarily retire, instead of trying to find time to remain active and failing the activity requirements. I don't know if I would have or not, being completely honest with you.

There's also Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Prolongation_of_inactivity_period to be considered too which shows some members of the community here want change in this area too - I don't honestly know how you would go about implementing that, I'd suggest it couldn't be retroactive and could only apply to the admin corps as it stands if/when the changes are implemented, or you get into a horrible mess of trying to figure out which former administrators it would or could retroactively apply to (I don't think it would have made a difference for me either). In either case, whilst I support change, I'm not the person to get involved with proposing and championing it given it could easily be argued that I'm interested in change to avoid RfA and it could overshadow what is otherwise a necessary discussion. Nick (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, but I remembered Michael and his work, I cannot say the same about you unfortunately. This is not meant as a judgement but rather means that I cannot comfortably make a decision in your case. --Dschwen (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dschwen, I know it's not personal, just confused by the policy and trying to figure it all out. Nick (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 Comment I don't see any downside to giving Nick his adminship back. I don't see how he would abuse it or do anything bad with it. We don't have a lot of interest around here for adminship, so I'd hate to see a capable and trusted editor turned away. He's been relatively active lately, and I'm sure he still knows what the extra buttons do. INeverCry 20:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Having previously considered RFA reform, but there being a distinct lack of community interest, I have followed this thread. There does seem a lack of clarity. If Nick does start a new RFA to regain sysop rights, I suggest this is added as a clear requirement to the guidelines for all administrators who have lost their bits through inactivity, rather than continuing to rely on who happens to know or be friendly with a bureaucrat with inconsistent results. I'm afraid the apparent working practice appears to rely on personal networks, or charisma, rather too much, which at some future point is likely to be externally challenged as deliberately opaque, or land someone in rather embarrassing hot water. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I think former sysops are recommended to start RfA to regain the admin bits for whatever reason. Maybe a resigned/inactive admin is clean from doubts; but not sure (people can resign/inactive to escape from a sanction). We may short of good admins; but better short than running into problems. See the current case (28bytes) in EN. Jee 12:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
So... should we increase the level of Bureaucracy for the sake of appearances? Or should we allow judgement calls if people know the requester and vouch? Is this "deliberately opaque" use of "personal networks" or is that trusting people who know the applicant to expedite the process? Personally User:INeverCry's opinion would be enough for me to tip the scale. But seeing that people are getting out their big spoons to stir up the next tea cup tempest I'm not feeling particularly motivated to hand out bits... --Dschwen (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
See my vote in Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/MichaelMaggs (2). I know Michael now; but no idea about him then. I had some bad experience that a new "returned" admin shouted at me. It is not his problem. He didn't know me; I too. (Just an "imaginary" example.) Clin Jee 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that a RFA for a returning admin is a bit overkill. Could we have a simpler system, i.e. if 5 admins agree, and no admin disagree, then a returning admin gets his/her right back? Yann (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Or as they do it in town council meetings: Motion and motion seconded (that would be two people). --Dschwen (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That smells like a good choice. But what we do if the oppose is from a non admin? I remember a case where Tomas Castelazo was attacked by an admin who retired. I think he oppose the "return" of that admin at any cost. ;) Jee 03:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see any significant difference with RfA, except arbitrary limiting of number of participants. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • A special process is double thinking this. RFA is already a simple process and should not be thought of as a test of fire. Had Nick been asked to start one on 20th Dec, there would be nothing to see here, apart from using it as a case study, better to document the project norms for governance. Saying that, it is true that Nick has a rather low number of total contributions to this project[10] compared to what is expected these days for new admins, but that is something that can be sensibly explained in a RFA. --Fæ (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal

Hi. Please remove the OTRS flag from PeterSymonds (talk · contribs). Thanks, -Barras (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Another OTRS flag

Please give Bidgee (talk · contribs) an OTRS flag. He has access to OTRS since November 2012 - also to the permissions queues. Trijnsteltalk 18:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing RfAs

Not that we're in a hurry, but in case you're around could you please close the successfull RfAs of Natuur12 and JurgenNL? :) Trijnsteltalk 21:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Do it, do it now! INeverCry 21:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello? Trijnsteltalk 11:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems like all people on Commons are sleeping. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Pinging EugeneZelenko, 99of9, MichaelMaggs, Dschwen... :) Jee 11:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Michael. Sorry I totally missed these, I was also away for just over a week. --99of9 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys. In on travel and don't want to close this on my phone. I'd be happy to hand out the bits though.--Dschwen (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

While we all have full understanding for the holiday season and periodical personal offline times, I also see some quite old rename requests and bot flag requests that could be processed (or at least archived). Is there any need to increase the number of active crats? --Krd 08:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
No; I think. Jee 08:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal for closed accounts

Hello. The following users are no longer active on OTRS and should get their OTRS-member flag removed:

Thank you. --Krd 17:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm on it. --Dschwen (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Some of these names are a surprise to me. When we mass remove this particular right (due to retirement of one sort or another), is there an easy way of leaving an information and thank you note on each user's talk page? This could be done by an OTRS admin if not a Commons bureaucrat. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Went back and added autopatroller to all of them (per INeverCry's suggestion). I also created {{User7}}, although the i18n part needs some cleanup (I suppose we already have a message for "User Rights Management", I just did not know it's ID). --Dschwen (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of them retired longer time ago, for different reasons. --Krd 18:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well actually, the notification (email) just now came as a total surprise to me (a) as I hadn't "retired" as such - just too much to keep an eye on elsewhere I've not had the time, and (b) re Fæ's comment, there was no note on my talkpage at all about this. A warning that is was planned would have been sensible / permitted me to consider positive options. --AlisonW (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Your access was removed on 9 September 2012 by the same admin who did that in early 2011. I'm sure he send you a note. Trijnsteltalk 23:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so long as they were thanked at some point. It all seems a bit mechanical otherwise. --Fæ (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer icons instead of text…, generally in MediaWiki. -- Rillke(q?) 20:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
For the User* templates. Yeah, might be nicer. Do we have such icons? How does a user rights log icon look and a user rights management icon? --Dschwen (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We don't, that's the whole tragedy. Rd232 started Commons:Standard icons, maybe we get some graphicists to create a set of intuitive icons but I would really like seeing MediaWiki coming with stuff like that instead of local approaches. User rights management could be a gear, for example, logs a piece of paper with lines on it and so on but this going to be off-topic here. -- Rillke(q?) 21:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Another one:

Thx. --Krd 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Last one who is flagged but not active on OTRS:

Thank you. --Krd 08:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sysop bit

I believe I can ask here to have my sysop bit restored. Apologies if that's not the case.

Many thanks, Nick (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you please remind circumstances for status removal? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Any reason this does not show up in the User rights log for me? --Dschwen (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Because it is on meta? -- Rillke(q?) 16:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It was removed due to inactivity, EugeneZelenko. Nick (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I found it, Eugene, the bit was removed due to inactivity. --Dschwen (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
2.5 years is quite long period of time. I think will be good idea to demonstrate activity in Commons maintenance and then come to regular voting. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Eugene. --Dschwen (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Dschwen: , may I ask what the difference between my request and that of [11] is, please. Nick (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I voluntarily retired, your sysop bit was I believe removed for inactivity. In the latter case the usual procedure here is to go through a new RFA. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@MichaelMaggs: so if I'd announced a retirement that would change things. Why ? You had your sysop bit restored but not your 'crat bit, that seems just bizarre. Could you direct me to the policy that states retirees can apply to have their bit restored at any time but not those who become inactive, if not, I'd appreciate the restoration of my admin bit per your experience earlier in the year, thanks. Nick (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Nick: I think inactive (former) sysops are recommended to start RfA per a statement at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship which says Administrators who have lost admin rights through inactivity but who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process. I'm not sure if we have any written policy for the case of resigned sysops. whym (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@Whym: Thanks. There's no policy, so I'd be interested to hear from @MichaelMaggs: and @Dschwen: why they feel the addition of a retired template makes all the difference. If I had known that was necessary to ensure I could apply for my sysop bit back without all this trouble, I would have done so when I first became less active. I don't believe it's fair that I or any other administrator should suffer because the policy doesn't really exist. Nick (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@Nick: I don't get it, why don't you just do an RFA? See also Commons:Requests_and_votes/Andre_Engels_(oktober_2007) (which is ~6 months after his/her status removal). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: I've no objection to RfA and have a draft version ready to go, I'm just hoping for an explanation on the policy grounds for forcing inactive former administrators to go through RfA but allowing retired former administrators to return and be granted their sysop bit back without RfA. If nothing else, this should lead to a properly constructed policy, unlike the existing (and previous versions) of the policy. Nick (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@Nick: In my view, in a voluntary resignation, the decision to remove the flag is solely made by the administrator themselves, and that is why it is usually up to their will to reverse the removal. An inactivity removal appears more like the community's decision (indeed, different wikis differently decide), and that is why it seems appropriate to me to get another community decision to reverse it. Some communities might see inactivity and resignation equally, but I believe Commons, for most of the cases, considered them distinct, presumably because of the reasons I wrote above. I think documenting the practice for resignation is preferable (if there is none), and as you probably are aware, you can always propose a change. --whym (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Whym: The argument that resignation or temporary retirement makes a difference needs to be put to the community to see if they agree (your argument makes sense and I doubt there would be any problems) and if so, added to policy. The only thing I would say is that had the policy formally existed, you would need to examine how many inactive and now desysopped administrators would have made the decision to temporarily retire, instead of trying to find time to remain active and failing the activity requirements. I don't know if I would have or not, being completely honest with you.

There's also Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Prolongation_of_inactivity_period to be considered too which shows some members of the community here want change in this area too - I don't honestly know how you would go about implementing that, I'd suggest it couldn't be retroactive and could only apply to the admin corps as it stands if/when the changes are implemented, or you get into a horrible mess of trying to figure out which former administrators it would or could retroactively apply to (I don't think it would have made a difference for me either). In either case, whilst I support change, I'm not the person to get involved with proposing and championing it given it could easily be argued that I'm interested in change to avoid RfA and it could overshadow what is otherwise a necessary discussion. Nick (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, but I remembered Michael and his work, I cannot say the same about you unfortunately. This is not meant as a judgement but rather means that I cannot comfortably make a decision in your case. --Dschwen (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dschwen, I know it's not personal, just confused by the policy and trying to figure it all out. Nick (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 Comment I don't see any downside to giving Nick his adminship back. I don't see how he would abuse it or do anything bad with it. We don't have a lot of interest around here for adminship, so I'd hate to see a capable and trusted editor turned away. He's been relatively active lately, and I'm sure he still knows what the extra buttons do. INeverCry 20:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Having previously considered RFA reform, but there being a distinct lack of community interest, I have followed this thread. There does seem a lack of clarity. If Nick does start a new RFA to regain sysop rights, I suggest this is added as a clear requirement to the guidelines for all administrators who have lost their bits through inactivity, rather than continuing to rely on who happens to know or be friendly with a bureaucrat with inconsistent results. I'm afraid the apparent working practice appears to rely on personal networks, or charisma, rather too much, which at some future point is likely to be externally challenged as deliberately opaque, or land someone in rather embarrassing hot water. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I think former sysops are recommended to start RfA to regain the admin bits for whatever reason. Maybe a resigned/inactive admin is clean from doubts; but not sure (people can resign/inactive to escape from a sanction). We may short of good admins; but better short than running into problems. See the current case (28bytes) in EN. Jee 12:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
So... should we increase the level of Bureaucracy for the sake of appearances? Or should we allow judgement calls if people know the requester and vouch? Is this "deliberately opaque" use of "personal networks" or is that trusting people who know the applicant to expedite the process? Personally User:INeverCry's opinion would be enough for me to tip the scale. But seeing that people are getting out their big spoons to stir up the next tea cup tempest I'm not feeling particularly motivated to hand out bits... --Dschwen (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
See my vote in Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/MichaelMaggs (2). I know Michael now; but no idea about him then. I had some bad experience that a new "returned" admin shouted at me. It is not his problem. He didn't know me; I too. (Just an "imaginary" example.) Clin Jee 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that a RFA for a returning admin is a bit overkill. Could we have a simpler system, i.e. if 5 admins agree, and no admin disagree, then a returning admin gets his/her right back? Yann (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Or as they do it in town council meetings: Motion and motion seconded (that would be two people). --Dschwen (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That smells like a good choice. But what we do if the oppose is from a non admin? I remember a case where Tomas Castelazo was attacked by an admin who retired. I think he oppose the "return" of that admin at any cost. ;) Jee 03:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see any significant difference with RfA, except arbitrary limiting of number of participants. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • A special process is double thinking this. RFA is already a simple process and should not be thought of as a test of fire. Had Nick been asked to start one on 20th Dec, there would be nothing to see here, apart from using it as a case study, better to document the project norms for governance. Saying that, it is true that Nick has a rather low number of total contributions to this project[12] compared to what is expected these days for new admins, but that is something that can be sensibly explained in a RFA. --Fæ (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've unarchived this, given there's still no clarity on how to proceed in future. Nick (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's easy I think. If you want to have your admin rights restored, just follow the appropriate procedure. If you had started an RfA 3 weeks ago, you would almost sure have had your right restored 2 weeks ago. If your goal is not to have the bit restored, but to have a nice discussion with bureaucrats instead, then you probably found the right place for it. So can we expect your RfA today? Jcb (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jcb: Is it necessary ? Given there's a couple of crats above who would have been happy to restore the bit without an RfA (but won't because I've apparently upset the delicate balance of things by asking) and others who think it's overkill, what do you think ? Nick (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Only one person described it as overkill. Why not start just kick of an RFA and get it done? At the same time that RFA can set a precedence on whether the community is happy for Bureaucrats to re-sysop based on somewhat arbitrary norms, or whether the community thinks the same procedure should apply to everyone whether a 'crat happens to know them well or not. --Fæ (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Fæ: RfA is ready to go, but I'm not sure how to explain it'll potentially be used to form a precedent in the way you describe or indeed if such discussion should go elsewhere. Any thoughts ? Nick (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it is worth linking to this discussion on BN to give the request context, however you may want to just include it as a minor endnote as it is not relevant to your getting through RFA. As a case study, I would imagine this is mostly in the hands of current 'crats to recognize a guideline or additional policy note is required rather than creating an RFC; my experience being that apart from current admins, the vast majority of our community are happy that 'crats exist but are not interested enough in (literally) bureaucracy to take part in policy or guideline discussions. --Fæ (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
+1. 'Crat's have no special rights. :) Jee 15:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
upset the delicate balance of things by asking, I'm sorry that the discussion has come to a point where you feel sarcasm is the only way to continue. And insinuations like same procedure should apply to everyone whether a 'crat happens to know them well or not are rather disheartening as well. If it is expected of me to around procedure (an RFA before handing out the sysop bit) I will have to assume full responsibility. I cannot assume that responsibility if I do not know anything about the person I'm handing the bit to (and I am burned by a specific case). --Dschwen (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Dschwen: My comment was not sarcastic, I was responding to your comment, in which you said "Personally User:INeverCry's opinion would be enough for me to tip the scale. But seeing that people are getting out their big spoons to stir up the next tea cup tempest I'm not feeling particularly motivated to hand out bits..." so I'm left confused by what to do, what is expected and what is the accepted course of action, which I'm trying to clarify. I'm clearly upsetting people by asking what I believe to be sensible, rationale questions about the process of returning to administration here. Nick (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Dschwen: I don't understand how my observation that Commons would be better off if the same procedure applied to everone, regardless of whether our small number of bureaucrats happen to know them well enough or not, is "insinuation". Bureaucrats should be seen to manage rights using transparent processes, not based on happen-chance personal knowledge. In this case the only solid reason put forward for a 'crat not re-sysoping Nick is that none of the 'crats happens to know him personally; that is neither fair, nor equal, nor transparent. This is not "insinuation", it actually has nothing to do with you personally, it is a simple statement of fact about our current unfair working practices in this regard. --Fæ (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, ok. So the alternatives are crats give the bit to every former admin who ask, and crats give the bit to noone wihout an RFA. I can pretty much tell you that the only viable option is number two. Simply because of the possibility of a controversial admin resigning before he is officially stripped of his bit. So RFAs for everybody. Long live bureaucracy, where a few potential edge cases make life miserable for all of us! All in the name of "transparancy". I find this rather frustrating. Did Nick get his RFA started yet? No, still not? Why? --Dschwen (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Dschwen: - why not the first option ? Judging by the comments at Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship that's more in keeping with the mood of the community. Nick (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
To my kids I would say asked and answered. It is because of the possibility of a controversial admin resigning before he is officially stripped of his bit, thereby trading a permanent de-admin for a short beak. --Dschwen (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another OTRS flag (2)

DixonD (talk · contribs) got OTRS-access too.--Anatoliy (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And please give the flag to Fluff (talk · contribs) too (access to info-sv where apparantly come in permissions emails too). Trijnsteltalk 17:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment - there is no SV permissions queue, so any SV message I find in the permissions queue, I usually move to info-SV, that's why they find permissions emails there :-) - Jcb (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Dschwen (or any other crat), could you handle these requests please? (Thanks for clarifying btw, Jcb!) Trijnsteltalk 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please also add MARKELLOS (talk · contributions · user rights management). Thx. --Krd 11:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Riksbot

Bot is flooding the RC, pleas flag as Bot. See Commons:Bots/Requests/Riksbot. Thank you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flag

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#OTRS flag. INeverCry 22:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin censorship of own behaviour

User:Denniss is ignoring COM:UPLOADWAR guideline per own POV agenda. Massive number of users raised the question here. Then, he is censoring attempt to gain neutral comment about following of basic guidelines. Can someone help, and stop this attempt to use commons for political purposes? --64.88.0.246 22:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So who or what determines which version of the map is the "right" one? I suggest looking at the source at http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm which actually depicts Kosovo Region as within the intanational boundary of Serbia (and I'm just stating that regardless of what my personal views are). Where does the map that excludes Kosovo from Serbia come from? --Dschwen (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Involved User:Bobrayner, one of those who started this mess redraw that new map by his own standards and point of view. Right version is only the first one. Who have different map, should upload new version under different name. Local wikis will decide what to use. But uploading and reverting new version over established old files are violation of COM:UPLOADWAR. Right? --64.88.0.246 00:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. But as there is an alternate file (for the municipalities map). I don't see why it should be set to any other revision than the one Deniss set it to. We'd have the same map twice otherwise. That does not seem to be useful. --Dschwen (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That other version was created in order to push new version of old files. All of those files are several months or days old. But it is obvious. If they push new map on the old file name, already widely used, despite COM:UPLOADWAR, they will change maps on all local wikis without even notifying them. That is deliberate plan to use commons as propaganda tool. Commons must not decide what version is right, but only to have both versions here. Original version should be restored on original file names. Everything else is direct violation of COM:UPLOADWAR and COM:OVERWRITE in general. --69.64.50.225 00:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 Comment All of these IPs being used to advance this argument here and at other venues are open proxies, and have been blocked by me and Denniss. INeverCry 00:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP is basically right though? The way a map should get changed when a political development occurs is to make a new filename, link both versions in both directions, then the Wikipedias can sort out whether to switch over usage. Some of the usage may be about a historical event/time, so there are some cases where it will not get switched. (One filename included the word "modern", which would justify renaming if it was no longer in date.) I haven't looked at any of the maps, so this is a bit of an uninformed comment at the moment, but the IP seems right on procedural grounds. (PS are open proxies disallowed if they are engaging in civil discussions? or has there been disruption?) --99of9 (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with you and the IP. Overwriting when the file is already in use is like trying to enter through backdoor. Jee 05:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
So just one more thing then. Please, dear admins, react. New sockpuppets are created every day to push new versions of that old files. I beg you. Come here, here or here (10+ editors reacted against this behaviour, on several locations) and solve this serious problem, restore original file versions, and protect them for some time. It is nothing questionable, i see that you all agree that common guidelines must be followed. Thank you in advance, i count on you to stop this. --83.89.72.171 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@IP: You have what appears to be a valid point. But you are breaking policy by IP hopping and using open proxies. Please edit from your own IP and your existing account (if you have one). If you keep IP hopping, I will simply protect this noticeboard (and any others as necessary), and close the discussion. You will not face retribution for editing via your regular account; there is no reason to edit from open proxies unless you have been banned. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flag again

Not very active anymore, but he still has access to OTRS (queues info-nl and permissions-nl) and he hit the abuse filter recently. So please give Husky (talk · contribs) an OTRS flag. Trijnsteltalk 13:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Trijnstel, EugeneZelenko! Husky (talk to me) 10:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS agent

Please give an OTRS flag to this new agent:

Thanks, as always. With regards, Trijnsteltalk 16:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, Agent Sjoerddebruin this is your mission, should you accept it... --Dschwen (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, now I need to find my Invisible Boatmobile. Hm... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

remove OTRS agent

Please remove OTRS-member flag from YourEyesOnly (talk · contributions · user rights management) (and please keep at least autopatrolled). Thx. --Krd 11:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just added YourEyesOnly to the autopatrolled user group and I confirm that their account on OTRS is now disabled. odder (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Translation admin

I'm requesting translation admin right.Because I want to translate COM:POTY in Chinese,but a banner says "Translate the page is not an important Task."[13]Then,I want to translate it in zh-hans,but only translation admin can translate it.[14]-Byfserag (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can translate pages. No need to be a translation admin. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
it says "Translations to this language in this group have been disabled. Reason:Translate in zh please."--Byfserag (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is disabled in the config of the translate extension. Translate in zh please. It will be autotranslated to zh-hans. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

new OTRS flag

Please set OTRS-member flag for Sicherlich (talk · contributions · user rights management). --Krd 06:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

yes please :) - OTRS member since 2004 :D ...Sicherlich talk 15:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Translation Admin

Chrumps (talk · contributions · user rights management)

I would like to mark versions for translation on Commons. I am an active TA on Wikidata and Meta, an editor on MediaWiki and Translatewiki.net. Rights would be also useful after my changes made for a consistency of source messages in Wikimedia projects. --Chrumps (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Translation Admin

Praveenp (talk · contributions · user rights management)

If possible please grant translation administrator right. I'm a bureaucrat in ml.wikipedia and I translate system messages in translatewiki (betawiki:User:Praveenp), policy pages in Meta. I frequently translate pages and templates here also. I'd like to fix errors (most commonly segmentation errors) while translating. Thank you--Praveen:talk 03:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by segmentation errors you mean wrongly placed translate tags in the source page? And fixing these you need the TA bit to re-mark the page for translation? --Dschwen (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've given you the flag. use it wisely :-) --Dschwen (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I've TA right somewhere (I rarely use it there), so somehow I believed that I was able to edit source page only because of that. Thanks for correcting me. :-) However a new flag is always encouraging. I'll try my best to use it correctly. Thank you--Praveen:talk 15:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can edit the source, but it needs a TA to outdate existing translations and push the new content for translation. However that should be done carefully to avoid annoying the translators :-). --Dschwen (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OTRS Access

Hello, I got OTRS access since yesterday. Can I get OTRS userright? —레비Revi 11:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I confirm that this user has OTRS access. Jcb (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done; thanks for helping! odder (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

User:(1.VSNCT)Bot

Moved from Commons:AN

Just found out about this account from me (I had been on wikibreak from Wikimedia activity for a couple years) and I was still surprised to see that it retained the bot flag. So I'm requesting an administrator remove it, as I can no longer operate it without the Python script, which was lost when I transferred to a new computer. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, only Bureaucrat can add/remove bot status. Moving to BN. —레비Revi 12:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done; flag removed. @TeleComNasSprVen: thank you for your help! odder (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

OTRS access

Users: Delfort and ThaddeusB have been given access to the permissions queues on February 8 and need to be added to the OTRS-member user group. odder (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: Yes. odder (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52 - OTRS

I have been given access to the queue. Can I have the userright please?

Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. odder (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Translation administrator rights

Lokal Profil

already working actively with translations here and on translatewiki. This also ties in with the work on batch-uploads where the portal page for the Collaboration will often be designed to be translatable. Cheers. Lokal_Profil 10:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You're sysop, so you can assign TA yourself. —레비Revi 10:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
True and done. Was unsure due to the phrasing at COM:RFR. /Lokal_Profil 11:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OTRS-member flag

Please set OTRS-member flag for Mohamed Ouda (talk · contributions · user rights management). Thx. --Krd 18:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done odder (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing RfA

Fæ4 needs your attention. Jee 07:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done; thanks for the reminder. odder (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Few OTRS flags

These Arabic OTRS volunteers have access to the permissions queues for quite some time, but never received an OTRS flag:

With regards, Trijnsteltalk 16:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

OTRS-member flag

Please set OTRS-member flag for Emergency doc (talk · contributions · user rights management). Thx. --Krd 12:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. odder (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove OTRS flag

Please remove the OTRS flag from Wpedzich (talk · contribs). He has left us as sysop/OTRS member today. JurgenNL (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done odder (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation administrator permission

Hi. We are launching with user:Micha L. Rieser, in the scope of our WiR, a new project named Swiss GLAMmies. This project proposes, on a regular basis, pictures with small stories about Switzerland. The idea is to better advert within our community, but not only content coming from Swiss GLAMs. Like you know, in Switzerland we have many national languages and we have setup this in a way to make the translation work easier. This use the Translate extension. To tag a page ready for the translation we need obviously a special permission and that's why I'm here. Would that be possible to give us this permission? Kelson (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. odder (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Kelson (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for translation administrator-right

Hello, I want to help with the progress of making more pages translatable. So the translation administrator-right would be good to have. I have experience with translations on Facebook, Commons, Wikidata and translatewiki. I've read the documentation and I can't wait to begin. Have a nice day, Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Dschwen (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

new OTRS flag

Please set OTRS flag for Piastu (talk · contributions · user rights management). Thx. --Krd 18:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User:HuskyBot

3500 edits in the past day or two, with no bot flag. I noticed it because it's filling up recent changes/unpatrolled. INeverCry 17:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I did a request earlier for a bot over here, but got no flags. Please let me know if there's anything i need to do to fix that. Husky (talk to me) 18:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
@Husky: I'm not sure if there is anything else we need from you; as far as I see, the request got blocked on our (bureaucrats') side, so apologies for that. Pinging @99of9 so he can have a look, and decide whether there's anything more to be done before the flag can be granted. odder (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Husky (talk to me) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that you'd cleared the copyvio issue. I'll reply there. --99of9 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

rm OTRS flag

Please remove Rodrigo.Argenton (talk · contributions · user rights management) (account has been closed). Thx. --Krd 07:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done odder (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS flag

Please set OTRS flag for Hosse (talk · contributions · user rights management) per OTRS wiki. odder (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Yes. odder (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing of RfA

This RfA can be closed now I guess, so if a bureaucrat would be so nice to do that... (And thanks in advance!) Trijnsteltalk 16:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: ✓ Done, thanks for the reminder. I had an e-mail notification scheduled one minute before the RfA should've been closed, but apparently my e-mail server is having some trouble. Anyway, Indeedous is now an administrator. odder (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

GW Toolset right

Hi,

The GW Toolset user right can be assigned by any sysop. There currently is a section to request the right on COM:RFR.

In the December 2013 discussion on the AN, odder shared his thoughts that this right is very powerful and should be bureaucrat realm.

What are your thoughts about it? Shall we keep it at RFR or move it here?

Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It could be like TA: self-assign for sysop, and others for here. — Revicomplaint? 16:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my opinion from December that GWToolset is very similar to what bots are doing — it gives users the ability to perform hundreds (if not thousands) of edits/uploads in a very short period, and by analogy should be granted and removed by bureaucrats. We had three full months for everyone involved with the GLAM toolset project to be given this user right (and most already have it), so I guess bureaucrats can take it from now on. Of course, as a bureaucrat myself, I'm highly biased, so if other people have different opinion, I'd like to hear them. odder (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A minor clarification, the GWToolset right may be usefully granted to GLAM professionals or associated volunteers who wish to support Commons by uploading hundreds of thousands or millions of images. The point of investing in the toolset, is for GLAMs to do this for themselves, rather than relying on a bot creator like myself to find time to support them. We would expect these to be planned projects with the knowledge and support of the Commons community in order to reduce any surprises, however the right may well be granted to people without much of a track record on Commons. If the Bureaucrats need a written specification of the minimum criteria under which this right should be granted (and how it might be time-limited to nominated projects), then Jean-Fred and myself can take this as an action back to the Steering Group. --Fæ (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Personnally, I don’t see any problem with having it bureaucrat realm: our bureaucrats are as far as I can see very reactive, and Commons generally has a tradition of boldness so I don’t expect the bureaucrats to require a 10-pages memo signed in blood before granting rights ;-þ
I can see a problem though: for bot flag we generally ask folks to make a test run of a few and then granting the flag based on the results. As for the GWToolset there is no way to make a test run without the full right. We could ask them to use the Beta Cluster, but that’s what we are doing right now with Tounoki and it’s a huuuuge complication (templates that to do not exist there, account not part of SUL, etc.) so I would really, really avoid it if possible.
Jean-Fred (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I second Jean-Fred's point and agree with odder. Crat's have been pretty responsive for quite a while now, at least when it comes to Userrights and the GWToolset flag looks like a pretty big gun so having a crat as the final arbitration seems only consistent to me. I would suggest an informal process like the OTRS flag handout, where the request is made and possibly seconded by a user also involved with the particular project. --Dschwen (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest we have a living project page with the list of GWToolset right holders and a brief explanation of why they have been granted it along with links to their batch upload project pages (hopefully every 100k+ upload project would have a good on-Commons project page). This would probably make OTRS a bit unnecessary and would pre-empt any possible questions about spammish uploads or educational value, particularly as users might be part of commercial organizations as well as non-profit ones. I would expect most GLAM professionals to want the GWToolset right for the life of their particular project (a year might be plenty of time before it expires) while longer term Commonsists who have been part of its development, and from time to time may be an informal support group for other users (Jean-Fred, Kippelboy, Multichill, me...) would probably need the right until the tool expires or we hand it back; indeed listing us on a central project page would probably be a smart thing to do. I'll ping Kippelboy on this as he is probably planning something like this as part of the public launch. --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I do also secon JF's & Odder points. Then if I understand it correctly, the procedure you propose should be:

  1. An institution has an online collection and lands at Commons:GLAMwiki Toolset page.
  2. They do request for a 1 year permissions right for using the GWToolset.
  3. A Crat/Admin/someone approves GWToolset rights.
  4. When rights are given, user-list should be updated, with rights expiration date if needed (Who should update it, user or admin/crat?) I will prepare the page.
  5. A project page shoud be created (Who should update it, user or admin/crat?: :can we count on local chapters for help, here?, or design a easy-to-fill template?)
  6. GLAMs do the upload
  7. Upload is notified at the village pump

Notes:

  • GLAMs won't use beta environment (avoiding problems)
  • Experienced wikimedians (Fae, Multichill, JF...) can have a permanent user rights of GWToolset.
  • Question1: When doing the pilots, GLAMs realized that they have problems categorizing because their metadata is not in English. What would be your recommendation here? Leaving it all in one major category or doing some pre-upload efforts in creating some kind of category mapping?
  • Question2: Am I missing something? --Kippelboy (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Question 1: I don't think Bureaucrats can help on this. It is an eternal debate and perhaps an ethical question. To upload a million images into a "bucket" category would be careless, similarly uploading a million images with haphazard categorization would be a disaster with the community too. The answer has to be careful categorization and if that causes a bit of a delay for some projects, that might be a necessity. --Fæ (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

General note, the right is being allocated in practice at Commons:Requests_for_rights#GW_Toolset_users and due to a related email list discussion is quite active right now, with trusted Commons regulars who work with GLAMs asking for the right. This is a good thing as the rationales being asked for there are quite sensible, indeed it would be nice to capture these rationales on a tool-user list page later on. I suggest that if we change to Bureaucrat management, this happens next week to be in advance of the official launch. --Fæ (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Support: change to Bureaucrat management. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Gerrit patch merged. Now only crat can assign GW Toolset userright. — Revicomplaint? 07:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for translation adminship/WikiBronze

Hello! I have been directed by a translation administrator to place my RfTA here on this page. Please accept my apologies if this is the wrong place to do it and kindly redirect me to the right one.

Translation student and experienced translator. Translator in https://translatewiki.net (joined recently) and patroller in https://tr.wikipedia.org. Requesting translation adminship to mark the pages in Commons that need translation and also administer the translation requests relating to Wikimedia Turkey. I am also planning to launch an expedition with the translators of Turkish Wikipedia Community to deal with over 25.000 messages (as in translation message groups) in various wiki projects that are waiting either to be translated or updated, and one of these projects is Commons. Therefore, being a translation administrator would make my life considerably easier. I have thoroughly read and understood[*] the following list of documents concerning the translation, translation extension and translation administratorship. I have used the extension before and I know how it functions. --WikiBronze (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Read & Understood:

@WikiBronze: Done; I also added you to the autopatrolled user group so admins and patrollers don't need to patrol your edits anymore. Good luck with your work, and thank you for your contributions to Commons. odder (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Autopatrolled will come in handy indeed :) Thanks a lot Odder! Kind regards. --WikiBronze (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for GWToolset right

Hi, dear bureaucrats,

User:Tounoki, a GLAM person from the Haute-Saône museum, requests the GWToolset bit. We experimented on the Beta cluster and are getting closer to be ready to push to Wikimedia Commons.

Please let me know if any further steps are needed.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jean-Fred: No further steps are necessary; User:Tounoki is now in member of the GWToolset user group, so marking this as ✓ Done. odder (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks odder! Jean-Fred (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for User Rights GWToolset user Group

I am attending a workshop by Dan-nl. The workshop is our first introduction to the GLAMwiki Toolset. I am currently Wikipedian-in-Residence for the WSWB, a cooperative of GLAM Institutions in the Netherlands, including the library of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, the NIOD and others. Could you give me user rights for the GWToolset user Group on http://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/. My username there is also Theobald Tiger. My home wiki is nl.wiki. Thanks in advance. Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done on betacluster. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for translation adminship/Ата

Ата (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

May I please be granted TA flag here? I am TA on mw:, m:, d: already. I am not going to be an active translation admin on this wiki, but it's so sad sometimes to see a trifle to be fixed (e.g. mark a page for translation after a small change) and can't do this. I promise to be courteous -- Ата (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose Hat collecting? I am not going to be an active translation admin --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Steinsplitter, are you afraid of that, too? You're reminding me of Wade Duck. Just say what you usually say: "If it's broken I am not responsable..."
At least I am perfectly honest. And hope not to be the last in the list of 38 TA's actions -- Ата (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason not to add @Ата to the translation administrator user group given their experience on all those sister projects; indeed, I just assigned them those rights. Thanks for volunteering, and good luck with your work here. odder (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel a bit uncomfortable that there were only two of you here, this means 50/50 support, and I'm already granted this flag... Anyway if it's alright for you it's alright for me. Thank you all -- Ата (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This projects bureaucrat's are asleep at the wheel? -- please wake up

As we know from COM:BUREAUCRATS, "bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues."

I need to draw your attention to an issue which is going to blow up in the collective faces of this project, and with the exception of User:Odder, every single one of our bureaucrats has been asleep at the wheel. We are now destined for a trainwreck, and a whole heap of fallout. Numerous chapters, including Wikimedia Israel, Wikimedia Spain, Wikimedia Argentina and Wikimedia Venezuela, are going to be in a mighty pissed mood and ready to have the head on a stick of any bureaucrat who dares come along and do what has to be done for the good of this project.

As User:Odder has opined in the discussion, him doing what needs to be done will surely have cries of "INVOLVED" levelled at him, so this is now left up to the remaining 8 bureaucrats to snap out of the slumber they seem to be in as it relates to this issue, and deal with it before it blows up further in our collective faces.

Further information can be found at:

  1. Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
  2. associated policy pages, templates, wikimedia-l mailing list, undeletion request forums, etc.

The community is waiting for immediate action on this issue. Can you please initially confirm that you have received this message, so that the community knows that you haven't died in your sleep :) russavia (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I confirm that I have seen this. I am in the middle of a teaching semester, so recently have concentrated on simpler (but still important) Bureaucrat tasks. I will try to allocate time to this in the next couple of weeks. Briefly for now - if you believe "the good of the project" is opposite the current consensus, you need to convince people of that. (Maybe you've tried already... as I say, I haven't studied this yet.) --99of9 (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I confirm that I have seen this, and I confirm that I will recuse myself from making any decision or taking any action on this matter given my obvious oppose !vote on the RFC page. odder (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Already confirmed on my talk page (got quite a bit going on IRL plus I am moving my stuff to Labs). Quick comment to Odder: I have read your !vote comment on this matter. It seems very sane to me. In my opionon you should not have to recuse youself (unless I have missed further comments). --Dschwen (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @Dschwen: , it would be best if @Odder: recuses himself from acting as a crat in this instance, in no small part due to the fallout that is going to come from it; it is best that any opportunity for shrills of "involved" to reverberate across the project be avoided. I appreciate that you and @99of9: have responded; it would be even better if a crat who is actually active on the project is able deal with this issue; and the quicker the better. As a project with a well defined mission, we simply can not, and should not, allow this issue to fester to the point that it is clearly headed. russavia (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Here are some of the "associated policy pages, templates [...] etc" where I've seen this being discussed since the RFC was closed:
Feel free to add to the list. --Avenue (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to say that discussions are also ongoing on the crats mailing list. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote here, there is nothing confidential in this matter, and there is no reason that this discussion should not be occurring directly on this project. Would you all mind moving discussion here, or on project. Thanks russavia (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
+1. It would be a good thing for 'crats to demonstrate that open channels are the Wikimedia norm, especially if some 'crats are known to have a foot in different political Wikimedia camps. :-) --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
+1. Agree --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
If there is no privacy issue, or something should be hidden from public, discussions should be made onwiki. — Revicomplaint? 10:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
-1. It is ironic that we first requested the attention of the crats, then reverted a crat who tried to involve, now ask them to stop discussing with each other. Do you think crats are just rubber stamps of you, a few people who think they are the decision makers of the Commons? Jee 10:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
A minor correction; I did not request attention of 'crats, nor have I reverted anyone, nor have I asked 'crats to stop talking to each other. Yes, I am a decision maker of Commons, as are you. I do expect trusted users elected to 'crat to use closed channels judiciously. If there is a reason for closed discussion about this case, it would be good for a 'crat to explain why they need to have that discussion behind closed doors. In this instance, I believe Russavia is correct, there is nothing about this copyright problem that means that the 'crats cannot talk to each other in a public forum. --Fæ (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see "we are making decisions through a private channel" tone in Michael's words. All I see is "we are discussing privately; not ignoring this matters". If there is no such message and no comments on the pages Avenue mentioned above (as they take more time considering the complexity of this matter), people may think they are ignoring this issue. Give them some time. :) Jee 12:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
As Jee says, absolutely no 'decisions through a private channel' (which would be inappropriate for several reasons not least that the crats have no power whatsoever to 'decide' how this should be fixed). Sometimes the mailing list is just the best way to make sure everyone knows of the issues. As this is a copyright and policy matter some crats - as you might expect - have more interest and expertise in the area than others. It's likely that one or two individuals may post some thoughts on an individual basis rather than speaking for the crats as some sort of monolithic entity, which of course we are not. This issue has been live since at least as early as 2009, and is not amenable to quick fixes, so please be patient. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I sent a mail to the Crat list, as this is the best way to get all Crats' attentions (as opposed to.. let's say... passive aggressive posts on talk pages). --Dschwen (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
So you're saying my message on each individual talk page didn't get your attention? Bureaucrats are supposed to know what is happening in the community, so sending 8 crats a message shouldn't have been required in the first place. With the exception of @Odder: , the collective crat group has failed magnificently in that, and now have one almighty mess to clean up; and obvious fallout to deal with. And not to mention, we have a bureaucrat who is never active, and when they have sprung into action have given us nothing but facepalm soundbytes. Sorry, @Dschwen: , you'll have to forgive me, where I come from we tend to have a knack for cutting through the bullshit and say what we mean, but you know, we have to tone it down for our projects to be civil and the like. So what is in fact me being wiki-direct (you guys have dropped the ball/fucked up in a massive way) might appear to you to be passive aggressiveness....you can be assured it is not :) russavia (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made a proposal here that we should open a review of the scope of the precautionary principle. Many editors have spent a lot of time discussing this, and it would now be most helpful to have some crat input as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_2&oldid=207440108"