Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 2021

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

Annual check for IP block exemptions

Hello. Considering the thread above, don't you think the IP block exempt user right should be revoked from inactive or hardly-active users? There are users who have few contributions and users who have not contributed in the last one year or two. There are even blocked users among them. I know that admins can grant and revoke this user right, yet I think here is a more appropriate venue to raise such issue, as 'crats have been "traditionally" the ones who manage user rights. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a user block should result in immediate removal of IPBE, as should long inactivity. Not sure if one or two years is more reasonable for local IPBE. --Krd 13:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
When I apply IPBEs, I set the duration to be proximate to the duration of the range block that is causing the issue. If a user remains impacted after the expiration of a definite IPBE, a new one can be set. I am of the opinion we should almost never apply indefinite IPBEs, as appears to have been done for most (all?) below, for the same reason we should almost never apply indefinite IP blocks. Эlcobbola talk 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Users with no contributions since 31 Dec 2018:

Blocked users:

4nn1l2 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the bit for this last one. Yann (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Removed for the above list. --Krd 16:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove users from gwtoolset group who haven't used it in the last two years

In phab:T270911 it's mentioned that a lot of people (including myself) are in the gwtoolset group who haven't used it for more than two years. Please remove the right from all the users except:

For these users: If you're no longer using it please indicate it so you can also be removed from the list. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I will take care of this next week if nobody jumps in. --Krd 21:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't use the GWT anymore, as I have my own API upload scripts. My GWT rights can be revoked. --OlafJanssen (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No strong views, however we should keep in mind this was a hard won and professionally commissioned tool, it still works, and significant funding went in to it. This is tidying up group rights rather than moving to retire the tool. It is also a "relatively" easy way to effectively have a fast upload farm so there are reasons to attract new users. Though I am not actively using GWT, it makes sense to retain access on the test wiki, should anyone wish to test usage, or investigate problems. I also suggest that previous users are free to request being re-added with no special barriers to do so, reasons may include training, experimental use or advising others who are thinking of using it in a future project. --Fæ (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: Did you notice the title of the phab ticket? "Remove GWToolset extension from Wikimedia Commons". The ticket refers to Commons_talk:GLAMwiki_Toolset#Removing_this_tool_from_Commons for objections and/or a discussion. Ciell (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, not a consensus. --Fæ (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I also agree that 2 years of inactivity is a very reasonable threshold for removing those users from the group. The permission was always granted quite informally, so it can be removed with common sense. Even without the proposal to disable the extension, pruning the group makes it easier to support users. Nemo 23:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

To be removed:

--Krd 18:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have now removed the rights per above list. Anybody who needs it again can of course request it back as long as the gwtoolset extension is available. --Krd 11:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Dschwen requests interfaceadmin rights

Hey, I'm back from the beyond! I'd love to continue maintaining my tools (most notably the Good Pictures Button). Rights would permit for a quicker turnaround fixing bugs than waiting a few days each time I make a {{Editprotected}} request :-D. You can totally trust me. --Dschwen (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course as a former crat you are fully trusted, but sadly the policy requires a RfA for users which are not current admins. If you'd ask me, I'd suggest to create a normal RfA. Different opinions welcome. --Krd 19:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Thanks! --Dschwen (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

To squeeze in a side note before this gets archived. The current Commons permissions structure is not friendly to people why just want to do tech wonky tools work. In the RfA some people complain about my inactivity and ask me to be "active" before RfA'ing. Active for me means maintaining my tools, which involves off wiki (WMF cloud) activity and activity on interface pages (which I need the rights for). Slightly frustrating catch 22. --Dschwen (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Dschwen, Have you seen RfAs like Commons:Administrators/Requests/Lucas Werkmeister (interface administrator) or Commons:Administrators/Requests/FDMS4 (interface administrator)? If you had applied for interface administrator only, there wouldn't be any serious oppositions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, the way I read the rules was that you have to be admin to be considered for interface admin. Interface admin is all I need. I'm about to hit the road but will try to fix this in a bit. --Dschwen (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I guess what threw me off was "Non-administrator users may request interface administrators right via Commons:Administrators/Requests. The same criteria as for normal admin requests apply.". In particular the same criteria part. This does not read like there is an easier path to just obtaining IA. --Dschwen (talk)
Interface adminship is an even more serious thing than adminship, not least because WMF requires to have 2fa enabled to get IA. I don't see any huge flaw in the policy, but of course it can be discussed. --Krd 15:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There are huge backlogs on Commons. The fact that some admins get crushed below the backlogs and some admins almost do nothing is a demotivating factor to some people. While I don't necessarily hold this viewpoint myself, I can understand it. That's why some users insist on activity, I believe. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
hum... frustration maybe... that is indeed a possibility. There are also sometimes those who do things just because they can, a kind of need of "freedom"; there are also those who deliberately want to annoy the world, and then those who copy the first two for various reasons, often without even realizing it. That's the joys of democracy, for the best and the worst. In FPC one thing sometimes happens, you have 10 supports, and just one oppose is needed to trigger a whole avalanche in this new direction. That's the joys of the democraty where you kown who have voted and what they have voted, it is like something alive which evolves according to the votes already cast. And there is also those who would not oppose if their votes were not visible, and who can be placed equally in the first three categories... One solution could be to have a system where the votes are made available to the public only when the votes are over, but while leaving the question / discussion part public. That was just a guess, I'm not claiming it would be actually better or even doable here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we find a general solution here. If there is some need, a larger scale discussion will IMHO be required. --Krd 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sealle

Some users who are voting remove of their sysop right are also supporting a block on them as well. Is that something a bureaucrat would be able to perform or would there need to be a discussion on COM:AN about it? 1989 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

My parsing of the process is that Sysop changes require 'crat involvement, but account blocks whether the account has sysop access or not, is an administrator decision, no consensus is required.
An administrator could choose to block in this case, regardless of whether the desysop vote is progressing or its outcome, but as with any action that appears to be potentially complex or controversial, they would benefit from discussing that block decision for community feedback, in turn there are no rules for such a discussion happening before or afterwards. --Fæ (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Fæ. --Krd 19:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin flag for my alt account

Hi!

I wonder if one of my alternate accounts User:MGA73bot2 (bot flag) or User:MGA73bot (no bot flag) could have admin status for a test.

There are about 13k files that have been moved from Japanese Wikipedia to Commons that have not yet been deleted on Japanese Wikipedia. Sadly many of them have been transferred badly.

Now we can move with FileImporter but it will not import the file if the file allready exist on Commons. I can fix that manually but it takes a lot of time. So I would like to see if it can be done faster.

My plan is this:

  1. Make a list of files to work on
  2. Delete the files temporary on Commons with my bot
  3. Import with FileImporter
  4. Delete the files temporary on Commons with my bot
  5. Undelete the files on Commons with my bot
  6. Fix manually on Commons

The second delete and the undelete is to merge history for the files. There can be good edits among the edits made to the original upload. For example categories and descriptions in other languages than Japanese.

I would like to test on 3-5 files first. If it works I can make a formal request somewhere to get a permanent permission.

Can it be done like this? --MGA73 (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of admin bots however for what it's worth I would certainly be happy to see a trial run of this bot with admin rights. Sadly there are very few active admins (& other rights) users. --Herby talk thyme 17:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd volunteer but strangely I have no wish to be crucified. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You could do the deletion actions using your current admin account. Is there a reason that you should not? --Fæ (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Fæ and Herbythyme: My main account need 2fa to log in and I do not know how to make the bot do that. The 2 accounts I mentioned does not have 2fa so I expect that it is easier to use one of them. If you do not like admin bots we can just pick User:MGA73bot that does not have bot flag on Commons (it has flag on other wikis). --MGA73 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Using OAuth will work on the same account with 2FA enabled. For Pywikibot there's a guide at mw:Manual:Pywikibot/OAuth. Even if you don't use it here, it's worth looking over. --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this should be done with the main or bot account (or if it should be done at all). In any case I think this should be discussed in a bot request, providing more details. --Krd 18:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ and Krd: Thank you both! I can do it manually like with File:Kurume.jpg but it does take more time. That one was a bit special because it had multiple files in history on Japanese Wikipedia. I will have a look at the link Fæ gave me and perhaps make a bot request. --MGA73 (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove admin access

Please, remove admin access from my account. The time I spent as a volunteer here was gratifying and I thank the community for their trust in me. I'm still here in less intensity, but I don't believe that I will help the project much with administrator access. Thanks in advance.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 16:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem with User:Steinsplitter

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. This includes a common way of communicating. To simply revert a justified criticism is not a permissible way of dealing with people. (permanent link)

Administrators should also be a role model. This also applies to dealing with criticism. --Charly Whisky (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Popping up on my talkpage in order to call my voting in a election here on commons "abartig", without saying hello or so isn't a nice way to communicate with other users. This complain here (which is also placed on the wrong noticeboard) is speaking for itself. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Talking to each other is different from talking about each other. But that is still no reason to treat someone like a vandal and revert.
And I am right here: Because I trust (after such experiences) a bureaucrat more humanity than an administrator. (It's funny: he didn't say hello: he needs to be banned!) --Charly Whisky (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
And by the way: my request to talk was in German. In German, it is not absolutely necessary to say Hi or Hello to describe a general situation about edit counts. --Charly Whisky (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
No clue what this is about, but it's definitely wrong on this page. Please bringt to admin noticeboard if required. --Krd 19:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove from user list

We don't use the GW Toolset anymore, we use Pattypan instead. You can remove us from the gwtoolset group. ETH-Bibliothek (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 22:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 22:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/おしりぺんぺん草

This candidate has withdrawn. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:F1D2:C827:4AA1:2230 03:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Not officially.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Technically is enough. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:F1D2:C827:4AA1:2230 04:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
That edit was reverted by De728631.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
And? 2603:301D:22B2:4000:F1D2:C827:4AA1:2230 04:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Closing as withdrawn. --Krd 07:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/AliciaFagervingWMSE-bot_3 ‎

I apologize for the presumptuousness, but it would mean a lot to me and User:André_Costa_(WMSE) if this bot request could be approved soon. We've done some work with User:Multichill to make sure it fits in well with his SDC work, and we (Wikimedia Sverige) would like to use the results of the uploads in some upcoming events with GLAMs we are organizing. Huge thanks to anyone who can have a look at it :) --Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2021

The following admins are subject to desysop for being inactive since last run. Please remove their admin and additional rights.

You may want to re-check the number of admin actions by yourself. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Checked and done. --Krd 08:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@CptViraj and Krd: you folks made a mistake, see:User talk:Krd#Admin actions mistake user:Jean-Frédéric. Multichill (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This has been corrected accordingly. --Krd 09:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Apologize, I didn't know we count MediaWiki namespace edits as admin actions. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I started a related discussion at Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Admin actions about the definition of an "admin action". Please consider contributing. Thanks. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The following admins have failed to sign before 13th March, therefore please remove their rights. Thanks to them for their service.

-- CptViraj (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you for handling this! --Krd 07:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hello to everyone, Any crat please grant me OTRS member flag here locally. I want to request OTRS member flag for Commons only. The reason is that I am currently working on transferring files from en.wiki. At en.wiki there are many files which have OTRS ID.--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 15:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A local right does not exist, so not possible. Which exact problem do you like to have resolved? --Krd 15:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Krd: But I have seen many people who have this right locally. I mean when a crat change his user group to OTRS member. By the way when I transfer files with OTRS permission it show Tag: OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member. --Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 18:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The tag creates no actual problem, and as said is is not possible to assign a local flag. How many files do you intend to transfer, over which time frame? --Krd 10:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to close this as not done. The tag documents that the transfer of an OTRS approved file has been done by a non OTRS member, which is the case. Besides that no additional issues have been shown. If I'm mistaken, please advise. --Krd 07:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, OTRS upload by non-OTRS volunteer is an informational tag, one invented a couple of years back to help with monitoring. There's nothing wrong with anyone doing a pre-approved upload, or indeed marking new files with an existing OTRS ticket that validly applies to a source or range of files or a file transferred from other projects. OTRS volunteers are not expected nor required to be the ones doing all possible uploads with records of OTRS correspondence.
Junior Jumper is free to do any good faith transfers, without needing permission, nor expecting others to do work afterwards. They can ignore these tags and refer to this discussion should they ever need a justification. --Fæ (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: per above --Krd 16:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

User:OsmHydrantBot

The bot is indef-blocked for almost a year now. Should be the bot flag removed? CC: OsmHydrant. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think so. --Krd 08:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 13:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:NilfaBot

The bot hasn't edited for over 2 years. Our bot policy says: "The bot flag can be removed as a result of inactivity", so should be the flag removed? CC: Nilfanion. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The operator has edited within the last year, so maybe they should be asked about that. --Krd 09:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Batch editing protected files

Dear Bureaucrats, I have a procedural question. As some of you might know I'm trying to find a way to add structured data claims to permanently protected files. There are ~500 fully protected files and an estimated same number of cascade-protected files. So far I have raised single edit request, which are both time consuming for myself as well as the admin to perform the edits. Would it be possible/allowed to develop a self-containing script that contains all code to add these structed data components and then ask an admin to run the script on my behalf? Any special discussion needed in such a case? The script will make the edits transparent. Please advise. Thank you. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends well on the admin understanding the script. If you provide one that I can handle, I'm willing to do so, unless there arises any objection. --Krd 10:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I will follow up on your discussion page regarding the next steps. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of permissions

~riley (talk · contribs) did request on Meta-Wiki yesterday the removal of his administrator and interface administrator permissions, but bureaucrats on Commons can remove both permissions, so I have denied it there and instead I'm linking it here as a service. Could his request be granted? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 11:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The 24 hours hold period is not yet over, is it? --Krd 11:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Krd: Not yet, no. I am however leaving this message so it can be actioned when you think it's appropriate. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 11:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 17:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kematen

probably, it should be closed or something like that. Not added to the list of requests, and the user has just ~30 edits here rubin16 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

request for translation right

Hey,

My name is Michel BAKNI, I am an admin in the Arabic Wikipedia. I am working on translating Commons templates into Arabic, and I have been doing so for more than a year. I need this right for continuingthe work I am doing.--Michel Bakni (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 18:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

De-Bot User:YouTubeReviewBot

Please remove bot flag and block User:YouTubeReviewBot. The bot's tasks are subset of User:LicenseReviewerBot, but LicenseReviewerBot checks the content before reviewing. Thank you -- Eatcha (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 18:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for Translation Admin rights

Hi, I frequently organize campaigns and events related to Wikimedia Commons (for example: Commons:SVG Translation Campaign 2019 in India) and am also part of the Wiki Loves Monuments international coordination team. Apart from these, as we are prepping to organize another campaign in India in the coming months, translations are quite important, and as I am setting up pages, it would be helpful for me to have the translation adminship rights to mark pages for translation. KCVelaga (talk · mail) 12:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a link to previous translation activities. --Krd 06:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@KCVelaga:  ? --Krd 06:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Krd: Hi, sorry, missed the previous reply. I would actually like to revoke my request for now. KCVelaga (talk · mail) 08:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2021

The following admins are inactive since last run:

Please remove their admin rights, you may want re-check the number of admin actions by yourself before that. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't. --Golbez (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
What a horrible policy. You lost an admin today. Great job, the project is clearly better off with my help I guess. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Golbez What help ? Other than appearing here in Feb and deleting 6 copyvios this year you've done absolutely nothing and you've certainly done nothing to continue warranting the bit.
It's easy my friend - You either help out on a daily basis or you wave goodbye to your tools. Also worth noting this policy is doing it's job - weeding out useless admins such as yourself. –Davey2010Talk 17:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Davey2010 "either help out on a daily basis" oh ok I wasn't aware it was a job. Useless? Cry me a river? Absolutely nothing? offensive language removed rubin16 (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)--Golbez (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It isn't a job but neither is it a tool that you get to keep whilst doing absolutely nothing here. <comment removed> Enjoy the rest of your day. –Davey2010Talk 13:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: take care not to create a hostile environment for others, that includes poking the bear. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Fæ, Fair enough, I've removed my poke-y comment to try and defuse the situation. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe I just read this. But good luck with a future RFA. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I think there is nothing more to discuss here. Thank you. --Krd 16:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Resignation

I hereby resign as an administrator with immediate effect. Please revoke all my rights except for "autopatrol" and translation administrator's rights. --jdx Re: 15:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

:( -- CptViraj (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jdx: Thank you for your service, but is there any chance you would reconsider? What brought this on?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I have been going to resign since a few months. The main reason is that I was spending way too much time on Commons while I have a lot of work in real life. I got kinda addicted, so I had to take drastic measures. I am not leaving Commons. I am going to calmly upload images and translate pages/descriptions into Polish – just ordinary stuff, without time pressure. The second reason is that after about six years of patrolling and chasing vandals on virtually daily basis I feel tired, burnt out. This is a Sisyphean task. Also WMF's actions are not encouraging. The foundation seems to give a shit about vandalism and existing users by pushing this nonsense (and wasting man-hours BTW) instead of simply blocking "anonymous" editing, what would "magically" solve many problems. --jdx Re: 09:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to see this Jdx, Thank you for your service and I certainly hope you return in the not to distant future. –Davey2010Talk 17:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done, thank you for your service! --Krd 10:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for Translation administrator right

Good day. I'm currently a TA at Metawiki and I'm doing translations between Russian and English. I want to spread my translation activity to Commons, but most of Commons: and Template: pages in here are not even marked for translation. I think my work on that can be useful. Красный wanna talk? 22:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 11:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Phab:T282624

FYI: WMF T&S has decided to allow only stewards to grant/revoke interface admin permission, that means the power to grant/remove IA will be removed from you, the bureaucrats. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@CptViraj: Thanks for the update. That sounds fine to me. --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's fine from security perspective, it will be same as CU/OS, though I still prefer permission in crats hands because of local log stuff, but there seems to be no easy and good alternative. But they should have atleast informed us before submitting the phab ticket/patch, so we could make changes in our policy/procedures before the change goes live. But the good news is they have now stalled/postponed the task for communication with communities after the complaints/feedbacks they got. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
They wanted to inform the wikis, which is why they added the #user-notice project tag to that task. They just haven't done that yet, because there was a lot of voices against such a change. Creating a phab task does not mean that there is no announcement for the change going to be made. Creating the phab task before making the announcement is quite a common thing to do and I don't really see a problem with that. --Zabe (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Zabe: I see. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: stale --Krd 14:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Flag removal

Please remove this account's privileges, as it was globally locked nearly a year ago. Thanks in advance. Unnamed UserName me 10:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 10:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Wieralee

Hi!. Please, put attention in this rogue edit of User:Wieralee, was requested a move about an error in a Flickr moved file and from this account request was undo and with this text: "rename request declined: does not comply with renaming guidelines Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better". Janiclett (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, in summary appears the tag "Manual revert", a potential evidence that edit was made impulsively. Janiclett (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Perfectly valid refusal of rename request, and outside the jurisdiction of Crats. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Please explain with links your statements. "Crats" are on of admins. "Jurisdiction" are a real life serious issue, also xD. Janiclett (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: What crisis? --Janiclett (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Per above, this is the wrong noticeboard and the issue cannot be resolved here. --Krd 05:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

JGHowes

User:JGHowes is unfortunately deceased on 14 September [1]. Please remove the admin bit.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done with regret. RIP. --Krd 16:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
RIP. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for GWtoolset.

Request for GWset — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vusi vilanculos (talk • contribs)

GWtoolset is deprecated. Please elaborate why you need it. --Krd 08:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Follow up

Would it be of any good to remove GWToolset from Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Template? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Ezministrator

This user seems does not meet the criteria of become a candidate, so I suggest a SNOW close. Thanks. Stang★ 01:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Could be wrong but are they the same person as Sodacan - very peculiar edits to say the least. –Davey2010Talk 01:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Request deleted per patent nonsense. User is blocked indef by CptViraj per xwiki vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem with User:Ruthven and User:Elcobbola

I opened a discussion about a problem with 2 admins that I had on the Administrators' noticeboard, that included some IMHO serious issues like edit warring and defamation by one of the admins, but no substantial reaction followed. So I ask if this problem can be adressed here or to whom I can reach out for this. --Don-kun (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

NAC - Your AN thread was closed, so therefore you should consider the matter closed. Stop beating a dead horse and do something actually productive here otherwise you might find yourself blocked. –Davey2010Talk 17:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it an option here to focus on the content problem, if there is any, and not to exagerate any personal problem for the sake of itself? --Krd 18:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Wie ich erwähnt und in der verlinkten Meldung oben ausgeführt habe, besteht das Problem (mittlerweile) weniger im Inhaltlichen. Sondern darin, dass ein Admin mich verunglimpft hat, Editwar geführt hat, Urheberrechtsverletzungen ignorierte, eine Quellenfälschung produziert hat, eine Sperre nachträglich mit leicht als solchen nachvollziehbaren Lügen begründet hat und vor diesem Hintergrund drohte, er würde gegebenenfalls noch weiteres (er)finden, um mich erneut (unbegrenzt) zu sperren. Und das alles unsanktioniert. Daran nahm bisher kein Admin weiter Anstoß, bis auf eine kurze folgenlose Wortmeldung auf dem Noticeboard. Bei einem solchen Verhalten mir gegenüber lasse ich mich nicht abwimmeln, das doch einfach auf sich beruhen zu lassen; ich solle nun einfach wieder etwas konstruktiv tun. Ganz im Gegenteil fühle ich mich in einer derart toxischen, bedrohlichen Umgebung überhaupt nicht sicher und werde gewiss nichts beitragen. --Don-kun (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC) p.s.: Ist das übrigens normal, dass ein nicht beteiligter (soweit für mich erkennbar) nicht-Bürokrat hier gleich als erster kommentiert und gar den Meldenden zurecht- und abweist?
Ich verstehe. --Krd 08:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Don-kun: Diese Seite ist keine Revisionsinstanz zu COM:ANU. Bevor eine Unterseite der Kartenwerkstatt auf de:wp genutzt wird, um persönliche Angriffe unterzubringen (Zitat: „Bei solchen Urheberrechtsgenies sind die Löschanträge bei Commons ja wirklich toll aufgehoben“ bei vorangehender konkreter Namensnennung), empfiehlt es sich vielleicht, den konkreten Hinweisen nachzugehen, die in der abschließenden Begründung im Löschantrag standen. Konkret: COM:INUSE, COM:NPOV – bitte lesen und bei Bedarf nachfragen. Ebenso hätte es sich gelohnt, diesen Hinweis zu beherzigen (Zitat: Not a copyright violation. If you disagree, nominate for deletion). Dann hätte der Punkt in einem neuen LA in Ruhe diskutiert werden können. Sperren für das Revertieren administrativer Entscheidungen können auch auf de:wp zu Sperren führen. Die Länge der Sperre über einen Monat mag überzogen gewesen sein, aber mittlerweile wurde diese aufgehoben, so dass wir hier konstruktiv vorangehen sollten. Zu guter Letzt sei noch hinzugefügt, dass es sich ganz offenbar um eine auf OpenStreetMap-Daten beruhende Karte handelt mit einem Kartenstil von OpenTopoMap, siehe hier. Ich habe das bei der Datei angemerkt und den Hochlader darauf angesprochen. Ich denke, dass etwas guter Wille hier auch auf Commons zum Erfolg führt und dann die Umgebung auch etwas weniger toxisch erscheint. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Wenn nicht hier, wo ist dann die Revisionsinstanz? Deine Antwort geht auf keines der von mir genannten Probleme mit den beiden Admins ein. Und ich werde mir keinen guten Willen abverlangen lassen gegenüber einem Admin, der mich verunglimpft, bedroht und gegen mich zur Unterstützung eines Nationalisten-POV Editwar führt. --Don-kun (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Don-kun: Die Revisionsinstanz von COM:ANU ist COM:ANU. Dein letzter Satz belegt, dass Du die geltenden Richtlinien von Commons zu COM:NPOV und COM:INUSE immer noch nicht verstanden oder akzeptiert hast und stattdessen es vorziehst, mit persönlichen und sehr verletzenden Unterstellungen zu arbeiten. Das ist nicht akzeptabel und wird hier auch nicht gut gehen. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Die genannten geltenden Richtlinien geben keine Auskunft zu den hier und bei ANU angebrachten Problemen. Alles, was ich hier bisher vorgebracht habe, ist in der Anfrage auf ANU mit Links belegt, nichts nur eine Unterstellung. Eine Entgegnung, ich würde mit persönlichen und sehr verletzenden Unterstellungen arbeiten, obwohl alle Vorwürfe belegt sind und ich selbst unbelegten, teils offensichtlich gelogenen Unterstellungen der beiden Admins noch während und als Begründung der Sperre ausgesetzt war, ist bloßes victim blaming und nahe am gaslighting. Meine Fragestellung hier und bei ANU ist nicht: Wie geht es mit den Dateien weiter? Sondern: Wie geht man mit dem Verhalten der beiden Admins um? --Don-kun (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_2021&oldid=622206031"