Commons talk:Administrators/Archive 2

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

Block notices on user pages

I noticed vandalism from User:Blu Aardvark, cleaned up, and then observed there was an indefinite block recorded on en:, and applied it here, not realizing that Raul654 had already blocked. Yes, I should have looked at the block log first, but it occurs to me it would be handy to have the "indefblock" template to apply to user pages. What do people think of bringing over and multi-lingualizing it? The log suggests we're blocking several per day on average. Stan Shebs 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any harm caused by giving an infinite block to someone that already has an infinite block? (But if we do: we might be able to use interwiki links, if any exist, to start off the translation.) pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a tiny bit: the name appears twice in Special:Ipblocklist. (One can fix that by unblocking and reblocking.) User:dbenbenn 17:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To point to another part of the message that caught me ("Yes, I should have looked at the block log first..."), let me insert a plug here for my monobook.js, which adds a convenient dropdown menu on user/talk pages that makes checking these kind of things easier. (See screenshot at right). You can find a description on en at w:User:Essjay/Skins. </promo> Essjay Talk • Contact 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot flagging

I'm pleased to announce that bot flagging has now been made a task for local bureaucrats. Bots can be flagged and deflagged (this is a change; generally, removal of access is only done by stewards) by local bureaucrats through the Special:Makebot interface, and are logged at Special:Log/makebot. I'm happy to report this was done with great support from the stewards, and implemented on the order of Jimbo Wales.

If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

User:David Beckham vandalises and moves pages. (sorry if this is the wrong page to report but I couldn't find an "Admin's Noticeboard" or something like that...) Alensha 12:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC) solved. Danke schön. :) Alensha 12:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) Simply use COM:VP in future - after restoring it if neccessary ;) -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"A favor"?

What does "A favor" mean on a vote? The user is doing the nominated user a favor? ~MDD4696 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It translates as "Support" in another language (Spanish, I think). You can create and use the equivalent templates in your native language, the only important thing is the symbol. We have some attempts at multilinguality. 01:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

inactive admins

According to our policy we remove the sysop rights from admins that have not made a single edit within 6 months and less than 50 within one year. User:Duesentrieb provided me thatfor a SQL-query that returned the activity of all of our admins: User:Arnomane/Admins. The outcome is that we have four inactive admins according to our definition:

Several admins have been removed their rights in the past via the same procedure see Commons:Administrators/Archive. A steward in #wikimedia requested me to post it here first and wait for any kind of reactions until tomorrow. Arnomane 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Do whatever villy used to do. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Mayer has been active within the past 6 months, but under the name Maveric149. See Special:Contributions/Maveric149 and logs. I'll desysop the other three. Angela 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I have informed all three former admins and hope that they will return to Commons. Arnomane 22:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Matio

Może Ty mu przemówisz jakoś, bo ja już wyczerpałem argumenty i za momen sięgnę po bata po prostu :). A.J. 17:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon can you please post in English? I don't understand your language. Arnomane 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What should prospective admins do?

Here are some tasks that will be looked on favourably by me, at least... some are also things that just say "I am interested in the community".

  • Helping check users on User:Orgullobot/Welcome log - you will learn a LOT about how little most people know about copyright, how confusing it is, and how to warn users, which templates to use, etc etc. It's extremely vital and useful for the Commons. My estimate is only 1 in 20 new users don't need any corrections. Maybe 5 in 20 don't upload copyvios (usually because it's their own work), but need to be told to {{Please link images}}. The rest, well... using MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js will be handy.
  • Commenting on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests. This means USEFUL comments, not just " Delete" with no explanation. Many requests go without comments for a long time because nominators don't explain their request well. If you can summarise the easy cases succinctly, it might speed up deletion. Also close debates on here when the images should actually be dealt with elsewhere (eg no source, duplicate).
  • Commenting at Commons:Village pump (it is surprising how few people do), also if your native language has a Village pump, post on it, people will notice you :)
  • Carrying out a category scheme, either formally or just informally "looking after" a big problem category for a few weeks (eg country level - Category:France - look at it and help sort the images into finer categories so that the top-level category doesn't get too large)
  • Translating the interface, Duesentrieb's tools or most importantly pages listed at Commons:Help page maintenance. Make sure there is a CommonsTicker set up in your project (if you are an admin, set it up; otherwise, convince an admin to do so)
  • Promoting Commons use in your local project (giving advice about what our policies are, tell people moving images to use the CommonsHelper tool, offering to translate messages on user talk pages here)
  • Get involved with a project such as maps, diagrams, Chinese stroke order, Insignia, COM:IFC, COM:FPC (<-- the easiest :))

Other people may have other suggestions of what activity can "impress" them...that said, most admins would do one or two of these at the most, and it's still reasonably easy to become an admin here without having done any of this. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In relation to that I was a little bit bold (please raise your voice if you have concerns) and adjusted the rules for future adminship candidates [1] a little bit in order to avoid too many more inactive admins (and not communicating admins). For example User:ALE! was a perfect candidate IMHO. He was working for quite some time now at solving copyright issues and the additional rights will boost his maintenance contributions. Of course and I suppose we all agree here, we don't want to introduce the w:Inquisition as seen on RfA in Wikipedia. I think we should emphasis as well the idea, that admin ship is not so much an honour for good contributors (experience shows that good contributors reduce their valuable contributions because of maintenace overhead after they got admin) but just an additional tool for people that showed that they want to clean up. Arnomane 22:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

experience shows that good contributors reduce their valuable contributions because of maintenace overhead after they got admin - that is so true. In fact we should ban good photographers from even being nominated. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have now added a note about that see [2]. Hopefully it changes as well a little bit minds that there are many more ways feeling "core member" of Wikimedia Commons. Arnomane 09:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What should admins do?

The list above is so good, that there should also be a list of things that an admin should do. -Samulili 09:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if our admins did those things, it would be a great start. :P Template:Deletion requests is probably the most important for admins, plus deleting stuff as a matter of routine, also following up on dodgy users and blocking them if necessary. It's important to take time out and do something enjoyable, like upload your own pictures (or, for me, whinge on the mailing list ;)), every once in a while too. The sheer weight of copyvios here can be rather depressing at length and it's better to avoid burn-out. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

All admins should be on commons-l

I would like to propose that all Commons administrators need to subscribe to the commons-l mailing list as a matter of policy. Commons-l is a good way we have to inform people about important policies, especially given that many admins will only show up here once every so often, and may not check the Village Pump or other places regularly. I would volunteer to inform all existing admins of this policy. What do others say?--Eloquence 11:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes this sounds good. Although I must admit that I just recently joined the list (was a little bit reserved because of my experience with other wikimedia mailing lists). We simply have a lot of admins but very less communicative admins. Arnomane 12:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
May I be excluded? :) Seriously, I have a huge email problem and I follow Commons and #wikimedia-commons better than my mail box. And even more seriously, I agree that communication is a problem at the moment and I agree that administrators are obliged to follow discussions. Still, I wonder if we could use other means (Commons Journal, to mention one). -Samulili 12:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you describe your e-mail problem? I'd be happy to send you a GMail invite, it has very good filtering. I use a GMail account for all my Wikimedia list subscriptions.--Eloquence 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Number of them. I use Opera, so I have no problem with filtering. It's just this reading part... -Samulili 13:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Being subscribed doesn't mean that you have to read everything, or have to check it daily (it's very low traffic anyway); just that you should occasionally check up on what's happening there.--Eloquence 13:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to be in the way of better communication, so if this is not a problem for many people, I will naturally join the list. -Samulili 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can make it a should, rather than a must, and inform all existing admins about this.--Eloquence 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, it's annoying that there is no central way to contact admins. But the language barrier is rather a problem. I wouldn't want to sign up for a list which was 90%+ in a language I didn't know well. But it is reasonably low-volume and on-topic, so...on the whole, yes. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Great discussion is taking place on the list, with very little off-topic noise; compared to the other lists, this one is cake. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This is horrible proposal. All other mailing lists I've been subscribed to (wikipedia-l, wikipl-l, I didn't even bother with wikien-l) attracted so many flame wars at some point to make them almost unusable. Commons-l will probably get like that at some point too (and I'll unsubscribe immediately when it does). Making subscription to it obligatory is really silly. Taw 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If flamewars become a problem, I will be happy to volunteer for moderation duties.--Eloquence 05:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with subscribing to commons-l, as it would be my 4th Wikimedia mailing list and I have the messages skip my mailbox in gmail and go straight to a filter anyways. Even though I don't do much around here anyways. —Ilyanep (Talk) 14:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly join commons-l, though I would greatly prefer if the Pump remained the main avenue of discussion. But that's just me; for others whose primary projects are not Commons and don't visit here that often the list can me a lot more convenient than navigating through a wiki-based discussion page. Eloquence, I did get your request. —UED77 13:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
VP should have some mention of subjects being discussed on the maillist. But face it, VP is a flawed mechanism for the simple reason that when the thread scrolls off the bottom of the list, it is out of sight, out of mind. That is not conducive to careful consideration of complex issues- and we have a heap of them. It is not immediately obvious when new responses have been added to discussions initiated even a week ago. This is ok for hot topics that can be dispensed with quickly, but very poor for issues that require deeper consideration. In addition, the current mechanism encourages institutional amnesia since it is not possible to respond to thread discussed even a month ago because they have been archived. That disrupts continuity and ease of reference to the same issue on the same subject. Though not ideal, mailists do not suffer from such limitations. -Mak 00:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The mailing list is great for some things, because it is read by a variety of people. Several meta users, Jimbo and some lawyers are also active on it and it is nice to have their feedback sometimes.

But I still think that the mailing list should be reserved for the more complex topics and not for general communications among administrators. How about an administrators' notice board? Fred Chess 10:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

statistics?

if someone could write a script to show how many deletions / administrators / month, I think it could motivate and give due credit to those administrators who delete frequently. hopefully this would spur activity.

Fred Chess 01:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! And we can harass those who don't delete very much to get active :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing pretty, but have some data. Luckily, commons's database dumps aren't that large. Kotepho 07:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
very nice.
So solely most deletions in July were made by User:Samulili with 2.950 (out of a total of 8697 -- that's pretty close to 1/3 !). Second was user:Thuresson with 427 deletions closely followed by user:Zirland with 422 .
I'm sure they wouldn't mind being honoured. If someone wants to create a ribbon or something...
Going back to June, I see that Dbenbenn made incredible 25.475 deletions ( 60% of all deletions !) , followed by Essjay with 6.772 and Zirland with 2.765.
The stats for May were: AndreasPraefcke 1.621 deletions, Pfctdayelise 677, Bastique 560.
April: Dbenbenn 2.244, Thuresson 837, Arnomane 771
March: Shizhao 1.023, Pfctdayelise 717, Crux 604
February: Shizhao 1.581, Thuresson 554, Red devil 666 553
For total number of deletions the list isn't sorted, but Dbenbenn with 30.058 is probably in clear first... Thuresson has made 9.814, Essjay 6.816, Paddy 5.803 . Well done!
Disclaimer: The quantity of deletions is unrelated to the quality of deletions.
Fred Chess 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Dbenbenn deleted all the weatherbot images, which is why his count is particularly high. that shouldn't count :P pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I made an ordered list. It doesn't seem quite right though. Surely User:Aurevilly made more than 156 deletions ever?! pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually according to the logs it seems right. I am really surprised... pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
now we need data about how long they have been an admin so we can rank by average monthly deletion rate (I'm getting into this ;)) pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a little caveat; deletions are just one element of what an admin does here. Just as important is not deleting when the situation merits it. There's no way to gauge that. --Durin-en 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:AlisonW

This user has administrator rights although the user registered in June 2006. The log has no mention of who made her sysop. Neither can I remember that this user has been nominated for sysop. The user has deleted 13 images.

There is a formal procedure for becoming sysop on WikiCommons. I suggest that AlisonW nominate herself. In the meantime, a steward should de-sysop the user. Thuresson 08:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Inactive Administators

I'm looking through admin contributions and User:Rfl (Rafał Pocztarski) has not contributed to Commons in over a year. It is in accordance with policy that inactive sysops be removed of status, and I am putting in a request on Meta to that respect. I'm listing this here for notification purposes and objections. Please note, it's far easier to remove sysop status than it is to grant it. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason keeping his status. Just do it as we did in the past. ;) Arnomane 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Inactive administrators project an incorrect image of how many admins w:com really does have. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

I've just made a nom for checkuser for User:Alphax, but we are required to have two at all times, and Ausir and dbenbenn are missing. I'm requesting at Meta that User:Kelly Martin be made checkuser at Commons to fill shoes until someone can be duly elected in accordance with our process. Kelly is already a checkuser at en: anyway, and has already established that she can be trusted with the checkuser tool. Furthermore, she has some activity here on the Commons. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 01:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. / Fred Chess 06:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh? I'm fine with Kelly holding down the fort CUwise if she's willing, I completely trust her (whatever might be going down on en:wp). But we may want another candidate... Myself I'd think maybe Bastique, our current seemingly most active 'crat, might be a good candidate? ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived Requests

I'm wondering if there would be any value in this Commons:Administrators/Archive having dates (or bunching up the noms by quarters perhaps?) in it... as right now it's a bare list. I can give it a go if there's consensus. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support such a listing change (seems sensible enough).--Nilfanion 00:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Based on some IRC comments with Bastique and others, have taken this to a table. Doing the analysis by hand or using a bot is about a wash, but what do you think of this format: User:Lar/sandbox/AdminStatusTable ? I can convert the whole thing to this over time. ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good so far. Could you add an entry for one of the crats or CUs? How would the table present those? Likewise those with failed nominations?--Nilfanion 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
My thinking is that every entry in Commons:Administrators/Archive would have a corresponding entry in the table (which would then replace the current contents). Some of those entries are fails, or CUs or 'crats. so I think (and Alphax and I were talking about how best to present this in IRC, he had some ideas...) maybe the last column carries that info as a note? Most of the entries represent active admins, after all (which is why I greyed out Active... it's not that key to have, but nice to have so grey seems good). Adding 3 new columns to carry active or not, failed or not, and type would be another possibiltiy I guess... Open to ideas. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, I havent forgotten about this, I still plan to do it, I just slipped the completion a bit. Feel free to nag me. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Category moves and merges

Hello... Is this the right place to ask about Category moves and merges? Some time ago (late August - early September 2006) I organized the Japanese art categories and labeled a number of them to be renamed or merged. IIRC, Commons has no "AfD" or "CfD" page, and I was given the impression that all I needed to do was place the templates on the categories and someone would get around to it. I do apologize for not being familiar with normal Commons procedure. Educate me? LordAmeth 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I'd be happy to provide a list here, or somewhere else, of exactly which changes need to be made. Just ask. Thank you. LordAmeth 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Please make category "rename"/"move" requests at User:Orgullobot/commands. This is done by bot. Sorry for the delay in reply. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Being an admin, you must've forgotten that the page is protected and only admins can edit it so someone's gonna have to help him out by adding them to the page. Yonatanh 12:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins and candidates for adminship should accept emails from others

Should we require candidates for adminship to accept emails from others? Even if we do not require, we should still suggest it so blocked users can still contact the blocking admins. I consider accepting emails from others an important factor when I vote for or against candidates.--Jusjih 16:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this view - admins should be open to communications and "disposable" email addresses are so easy --Herby talk thyme 16:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
And then realised I had voted for one who hasn't - hum, thinking <g> --Herby talk thyme 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. Admins should have a working mail. Yann 16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I suggest Commons:Administrators#What_is_expected_from_an_administrator? be edited to include this. Maybe I will in a few days if no one else beats me to it or points out why not. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea. While opposing our ideas to expect admins and candidates for adminship to accept emails seems unlikely, I support waiting for a few days and it can become a written expectation. As I administer eight Wiki sites, some have this expectation, like Chinese Wiktionary and Wikisource, but others do not, so voters may forget the importance that admins and candidates for adminship should accept emails. Occasionally some admins just write their emails in their userpages without allowing emails through Wiki sites.--Jusjih 18:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For Blocking admins I think it should be essential to provide a channel for appeal (as on-wiki methods don't work, when you're blocked)--Bdamokos 00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I do believe admins should accept emails anyway. However it is still possible for a blocked user to edit on their talk page and appeal (there is a template for that purpose) --Herby talk thyme 10:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know this was enabled on Commons... It isn't on every project. --Bdamokos 14:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I confess I only know as there was an appeal on this wiki (& another I am involved with) last week so it looks like it works ok. However I still agree completely that admins should be open to mail for a number of reasons --Herby talk thyme 14:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Which template may appeal blockade? Commons:Blocking policy: "Blocked users can edit their own talk page, as well as email the blocking administrator via Special:Emailuser." If the blocking administrator does not enable email acceptance, Special:Emailuser does not work, so ideally enabling email acceptance should be a written requirement for adminship at all Wiki sites, but applying this to existing admins can be more tricky. (Chinese Wikipedia is an example not having enforced this.)--Jusjih 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

The template is {{Unblock}} tho not sure where to "find" it! To make email enabled a requirement might take some work I guess, however not voting for candidates who don't have email opened would work quite well in the short term (I certainly won't and it looks like quite a few others see things the same) --Herby talk thyme 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

deletion

hi guys.. can you please delete my user and discu.. all versions (history).. someone is stalking me.. so i must delete my infos in www... thanks --Gunblade 15:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We tend not to do this to the extent of complete removal except in extreme circumstances, as under the GFDL there is a requirement to keep user information associated with contributions for proper attribution reasons. But I see that Bryan (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) has deleted the pages so they are only visible to admins, which should suit. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I deleted it. The only contributor to the page was Gunblade himself, so I saw no problems whatsoever. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. No problems whatsoever. The info is still there in the history should there ever be a legal issue, but invisible to non admins (in particular, bots that index things for search sites) We do that as a courtesy on request. What we do not do is remove all contributions, or oversight things, unless there is a strong need. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion list:Superseded

Could an admin please clear up this Commons:Deletion_requests/Superseded list, the most picture have votes, so they simply have to be deleted (or kept) --DieBuche 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrator selection policies

Timeframes

There should really be explicit adherence to the seven day time frame. Had the admins closed a recent RfA at seven days the candidate would have had seventy five percent. As it is, after two weeks, the candidate achieved 72 %. The admins should be ashamed at the way they abused the process. --South Philly 14:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the word "usually". It is not a rule but a guideline --Herby talk thyme 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think I missed the point. If there is a stated policy, it should be adhered to so that there is no abuse, gaming of the system, or an appearance of impropriety. In this cae, the candidate had 75%, and should have been selected. --South Philly 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote counting

The guidelines might note how votes are counted - in my view, "Neutral" should be counted as a vote, not an abstention (since the person took the time to cast it), in which case the final tally was 62%, not 72%. Wouldn't change this case of course, but could be an issue another time. --Davepape 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a worthwhile question - certainly to me "neutral" is a positive thought out action - maybe they should be counted? --Herby talk thyme 18:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't count neutrals. If people want their votes counted against, then they should vote against. Samulili 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that view, as counting them would make neutral no different from oppose for the tally. On the other hand, it could communicate a standard that candidates must positively convince 75% of the people who express an opinion, and not just win acquiescence. In any event, either way is fine - the important point is that it should be spelled out, so that people know what their vote means. --Davepape 01:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
My views on counting Neutral are not strong however, thinking it through, I have used Neutral as my vote on a number of Wikis. But many times I read the topic being voted on and said nothing - as such (in my case) Neutral is a "positive" comment in a sense. It would be good to get other peoples views I guess --Herby talk thyme 13:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Neutrals should be counted, in fact I think the best solution would be to not allow neutral at all, but only support, oppose, and comment. This would make it much clearer IMO. RoscoHead 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

75% is the pass/fail guideline. The recent election at required a bureaucrat making a decision about the candidate based on the comments. Neutral comments are not counted toward the tally, but go a long way toward close decisions such as these. Were I forced to make a decision on the candidate at seven days 75%, I would have closed it as a fail based on the comments, weight of the contributions of the users who voted support versus oppose and circumstances. That would not have been a popular decision among his supporters. Instead, I left an opportunity to allow the election to pass. This happens from time to time. As it was, the support was not there, and the election failed regardless. Cary Bass demandez 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, counting neutrals, effectively turns them into opposes (so 1 neutral, 1 oppose, 4 support would fail), and opposing was not the intention of the caster (since he did neutral, not oppose). So it's not ethical to treat them as opposes. Likewise, it wouldnt be good to count them as support. So they're not "counted", but their comments and feedback are taken into consideration. But the important point being made here, is that here we gather consensus (75% being a guideline) it's nto a hard numeric voting. -- Drini 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Cary, I think you had a difficult decision, and you acted wisely, and I believe correctly. This is the sort of thing we choose our bureaucrats to do for us and you are to be commended. I agree that 75% is a guideline for adminship here, not a hard and fast requirement, and that exact ending times are a guideline as well. As for neutrals, my view is that they should count neither for nor against and do not count in the total when calculating the percentage. They rather express views to be taken into account. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to stress I have no problem with the decision or the time to close. Guidelines I am happy with, rules I am not! And that "neutral" is just that but may be influential is fine with me --Herby talk thyme 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to what Cary Bass said, the guidelines say, "Nominations usually remain for seven days, for votes and comments. Admin status will be granted by a majority of at least 75% and a minimum of 4 support votes. In this case, the request should be referred to a bureaucrat such that it can be made to happen." There is nothing said about discretion or the nature of the comments left. Also, when a candidate is passed, the following text is placed, "This vote meets the 75% requirement and therefore passes." Clearly, there is a good deal of sophistry going on here - and a general lack of honesty. --South Philly 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I created that template myself--and it seems to be in error. Cary Bass demandez 14:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but what does that mean? To me, and I seem to be in the minority here, it seems to represent what the policy was as it was stated on the Admin page. Where was the error? --South Philly 16:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Strengthening of the policies and their administration

I really don't feel that my concerns have been addressed, and in fact I feel like I'm being blown off. I feel that until such time that they are not addressed, I will be unhappy. --South Philly 12:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I may not be completely clear on what your concerns are... could you recap them? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


I would like to make two points.

One: Our bureaucrats routinely leave nominations open for longer than the time period stated when consensus is not clear. If you check the archives, and look at some of the failed nominations, you will notice this. Whether or not it's written into our policy pages, it's a fact of how RFAs are conducted here. Bureaucrats leave nominations open longer to allow consensus to develop. Consensus is not clear when (A) there is not a clear majority and/or (B) there is not a large number of voters who are regular Commons users.

B is important because Commons has a large number of non-regular users, unlike most other Wikimedia projects. Whether these users constitute the Commons "community" or not is questionable. I doubt anyone would disagree that people in positions of power at Commons need the support of the Commons community.

A is important because our bureaucrats are not statistics machines and we don't appoint them to act this way. We appoint them to act with thoughtful discretion.

Commons does not have the regular type of RFA community of regular voters that English Wikipedia has (and especially the number of voters), so rigid policies like there are not appropriate here.

Two: a failed nomination does not bar anyone from running again in the future, especially if they allow some time to lapse and act to address the issues raised in the failed nomination. If this is done, failed nominations are not held against the user. Again, check the archives to see this.

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This goes against what en.wikipedia has in place. As pfctdayelise notes, en.wiki has a much larger community that participate in RfAs. However, hardly any RfA discussion there lasts 7 days exactly; most have a few hours to a few days over. If an important fact turns up in the closing minutes of the RfA, and it is might make a difference, the bureaucrats would be right keep it open for longer to see what results. RfA is a discussion. If an RfA fails in "overtime", then there are issues there for the candidate to address.--Nilfanion 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Nilf, it reads like you're agreeing with pfctdayelise. Am I right? ...well anyway I agree with her too, she hit the nail on the head. On the mechanical question of neutrals, as I said above, I'd not count them at all but rather just have them taken into account when gauging consensus. Actually banning them seems overkill for the informal way we do things here. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I agree too. There's nothing broken with our RfA. Personally, I'm a bit more concerned about how the bot requests are handled... but thats offtopic for this.--Nilfanion 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I do think there is something broken. If there is so much leeway in the way admins are selected, why doesn't it say so in the policies? My guess is because no one wants to admit that they are just ignoring the current stated guidelines and bending them to suit their needs. If your going to have a flexible system, fine - but then the stated policies should say so.
In this case, the admins abused their discretion and held out for their desired outcome. --South Philly 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So if the description of the process were changed to indicate that we do not always use strict dates, and that we depend on our bureaucrats to gauge consensus and use their judgement, rather than to hew to strict percentages, and in borderline cases, even keep things open some additional time in order to get a better consensus... if it were changed that way, would that satisfy your concerns? Because I am not seeing any signs at all that the bureaucrats abused their discretion, or that they held out for a particular outcome, instead they kept the request open to get a clearer understanding of consensus, and nothing more. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, policies are supposed to be followed explicitly, but can be modified slightly for reasonable exceptions, such as bureaucrats gaining consensus. I would agree with Lar, in this case, as Commons is not Wikipedia.  V60 VCTalk · VContribs 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't it say so in the policies? Because we haven't yet bothered to update the page to reflect reality. You are at a project which, until 7 months ago, didn't have a Blocking policy. AFAIK we still don't have a policy against inappropriate usernames. Does that mean that until 7 months ago, we never blocked anyone? Does that mean that we never block anyone because of inappropriate usernames? Hardly. Don't assume malice ("admins [sic] abused their discretion") where disinterest (no one has bothered to update the policy page to reflect current practice) will suffice. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
From a practical point of view, leaving open longer is just as likely to garner more yes votes as no votes, and it gives more opportunity for soliciting support, so it's kind of silly to argue that leaving a vote open longer is somehow prejudicial. Stan Shebs 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser and dealing with users who violate policies

There is some discussion on this around talk pages etc but I thought I would bring my comments here in the hope of more discussion and with a wider audience.

I am a new admin on here however I do have some experience on Wikibooks of dealing with named users who have a complete disregard for rules and policy (my day started with one on WB!). While real vandalism is rare on Commons there are users that repeatedly upload copyvios or porn and are blocked indefinitely. I am a watcher of logs and changes and so I often see an autoblock kick in after such a block. I may be unduly suspicious but it seems quite likely to me that the user is attempting to create another account for themselves (and again maybe I am cynical) to do the same thing.

I have CU rights on Wikibooks and I have often found that an IP has edits of more that one vandal account. <slight ramble>I am not referring to the use of CU as far as sockpuppetry is concerned, neither here nor on Wikibooks as neither are like Wikipedia - thankfully</slight ramble>. To me CU rights are a very valid way for the community to deal with persistent offenders who attempt to hide behind user names. However they are rights to be used by active sysops and that does not happen here on Commons. I do realise that the subject of CU rights arouses considerable heat however (and again away from WP) I fail to see why this is not part of the toolkit of some active and trusted sysops within the community and for the community.

I am delighted to see Gmaxwell self nom for these rights however I would like to think that we might find consensus that at least two more regularly active sysops would gain these rights and use them to keep the frequent offenders at bay. I think it may be worth consulting Admin activity with this in mind as folk do need to be here to use the rights - a shade of green through would be good to me (Greg just about makes it!) - there are quite a few to choose from. --Herby talk thyme 12:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we could use more CUs, and that there are good potential candidates. Activity is not the only criteria to use of course... I am not totally sure that a discussion of who the best candidates is the way to go, though. It might be an interesting exercise. Our ad hoc method (Pfctdayelise (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) was recently buttonholed and declined... I expect she would have passed easily, and I am absolutely certain that whatever activities she had time for would have been carried out in a thoughtful and workmanlike manner, but she demurred due to time pressures, which itself shows thoughtfulness) does not always work well. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Extending the CU to fight vandalism sounds like a good idea. And there is a large bunch of well trusted admins available for that task. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from my own experience (I have CU on en.Wikibooks as well, but don't often use it), CU isn't usually all that helpful with serial vandals, as the more sophisticated ones tend to use a new IP every time. It is considerably better for spammers and sockpuppets of course, but even then it provides only additional evidence, rather than being a case closer. I don't think there's anything wrong with running it on blatant vandals (in my book, we don't have any reason to respect their privacy if they see no need to respect our efforts), but it's generally a waste of time unless it can somehow be tied to meta:WM:OP.
As far as nominating more users, I'd think Herbythyme would actually be the right user for the job, since he's one of those rare administrators who is keenly interested in gatekeeping (vandals, spammers, serial copyright violators, etc.), and already has the tools on another project where he has used them fruitfully and discretely. On the other hand, if the concern about only having one active checkuser (and hence no-one else available to see his logs), that's really not a problem: any checkuser on any project (including Herby and myself) can see the logs of any CU action here on commons.--SB_Johnny|talk|books 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Herbythyme is indeed one of the few active vandal fighters and could be trusted with the CU rights. Looking at the recent deletion log, Yann (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is one of the largest deleters. He already has access to the CU tools being a steward. Maybe we should have him have permanent CU rights on Commons? -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would support Herbythyme as well as Yann. Herbythyme actually suggested me as a possibility as well. I'd be willing to serve, especially to act as a check (not that I really feel one is needed), but for time reasons I don't think I'd be the most active CU. Herby and Yann might be enough (with Greg who I think is almost sure to pass if he didn't already). ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite see the point... if users vandalise, block'em, what's the need for CheckUser? Why do you need the CheckUserthingy? Just block on sight, and be off with' em. CheckUser is in my opinion far to heavy a tool to use against blatant vandals (I read the above statements as such, using CU against blatant repetitive vandals) NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 04:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
But seriously, CU is a matter not to be taken lightly, see meta:Privacy policy#Policy on release of data derived from page logs, I wonder why 7 people on the Commons should have the checkuser ability, which is why I voted against all candidates. If all existing CheckUsers don't contribute anymore, just make them ex-CU. Vandalfighting is not an excuse to have CU-"powers". For the record, not showing distrust in anyone, but why do we need more CU's? NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the inactivity bits has been addressed so I will address the CU bit. As a CU on Wikibooks I have been able to establish that an IP addresses has been used by three vandal accounts and has no otherwise valid edits. This enabled me to block the IP for a period rather than merely chase vandals (it was the reason I originally sought the rights on Books - I was fed up with chasing vandals with one hand tied behind my back!). Here vandalism is much less the issue than copyvio uploaders for example - I really do not believe folks will give up because they have been blocked once. I can think of three separate instances in the past two weeks where I would have used CU to check whether there was an association between an IP and one or more users - it would save time, guessing, getting things wrong or having to chase abusers of policy needlessly. CU is usually stated as not being "magic pixie dust", it ain't but it can help confirm or remove suspicion. It is a tool that can reasonably be granted to a number of active admins to be used --Herby talk thyme 10:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity

Users in positions of power who may soon be inactive enough to be de-powered. "Inactive enough" = no edits in past 6 months, <50 edits in past 12 months. CU: Alphax, Arnomane, Ausir, Dbenbenn

  • Alphax: if no more edits until 16 Debember 2007
  • Arnomane: if no more edits until 23 November 2007
  • Ausir: if no more edits until 28 June 2007
  • Dbenbenn: if no more edits until 17 June 2007

Bcrat: Andre Engels

  • still active, although doesn't use bcrat tools (promoting admins, changing username) that much.

Admins

  • Anathema: very inactive. could be asked to step down.
  • Aoineko - now inactive. Last edit 11 July 06, only 7 edits in last 12 months.
  • Brion VIBBER: will meet inactivity threshold on 20 June 07.
  • Diego UFCG: will meet inactivity threshold on '22 April 07
  • Gdr: will meet inactivity threshold on 4 April 07
  • Greatpatton: inactive now
  • Grön: will meet inactivity threshold on 27 June 07.
  • Joolz: 25 April 07
  • Ran: 22 June 07
  • Saperaud: 26 April 07
  • Silsor: 6 June 07
  • Vipuser: 16 April 07
  • Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: inactive now

Admins who could be asked to resign based on extreme lack of use of the admin tools: Anthere, Conti, Evil Monkey, GerardM, Greatpatton, Greudin, Grm wnr, Jossifresco, Neutrality, OldakQuill, Piom, Plugwash, Red devil 666, Reytan, Solipsist, Taw, Väsk, W.wolny.

I want to stress that removing someone's sysop flag is not a negative thing about that person. It is just about having an accurate reflection that admins are active in the community. Having people with sysop flags who either (a) don't use admin tools or (b) don't edit at all is harmful because it artificially boosts the pool of admins, making it seem that "we must have enough" while increasing the workload on the smaller pool of active admins. We can't build up the community with people who aren't actually here. It also makes it harder to find an active admin. And anyone whose sysop flag is removed because of inactivity is more than welcome to apply again if they return to the community and want to apply. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also as the above dates pass please check the user's contribs again, they may become active again in the meantime! --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, users who have retired from Wikimedia. Even if they don't explicitly request to be de-adminned, I feel it may be appropriate if they appear to have left the project permanently:

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Danny actually requested to be deadminned himself but he and bastique talked afterwards I think so you might wanna talk to bastique. Yonatan talk 10:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Be warned I have strong views on inactive admins! This is in no way disrespectful of the work that folk have put in in the past however admin tools are for those who use them and (IMO) only those. In my requests for rights on Wikibooks I stated that I would request removal of the rights if I was inactive for any real period of time (I would do exactly the same here). I think that virtually all the above should have the rights removed by meta - they would probably get them back happily if they returned, actively, to the project --Herby talk thyme 10:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Herby. Pfctday: I hardly use the b'crat tools either. It's just that the other b'crats are doing a very fine job, and there is actually no need for more than 2 active b'crats. / Fred Chess 11:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think current Commons policy on this issue is reasonable. There are good reasons for temporary inactivity and we should be tolerant of it for a while. At the same time "once a sysop, always a sysop" is silly. Regarding Danny, he has not ceased to be a Wikimedian, he has ceased to be in the employment of the foundation - hes just the same as the rest of us now ;)--Nilfanion 11:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If I came over a little harsh I'm sorry. Sure there are plenty of reasons for temporary inactivity, I have no problem with that but some here are really inactive (Fred is not inactive IMO, only so much actual 'crat work to do) --Herby talk thyme 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Herby, no problem. I would, incidentally, accept if someone wanted to strip me off my b'cracy; but I became a 'crat because those we had were completely inactive so it is probably better to have too many than too few. / Fred Chess 11:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, personally I think the 6 month inactivity clause is reasonable. I'm not so sure about the 12 month low activity though, imo long-term low activity is a precursor to permanent departure not a break. I think 6 months with no edits, and no edits in the 6 months previous to that saying "I'm will be back after a long break" are more appropriate.--Nilfanion 11:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess (while I have views on admin activity) I'm as much interested in CU inactivity. I do have the rights on books and use them. We now have some CU's going through but I do think we could have one or two more (yes I know I've seem my name mentioned!). On "breaks" I guess I just think it would be good if folk said "I'm off for a bit", it would help and I've done that with things I've been involved with in the past --Herby talk thyme 11:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on both points, that noting you're on break is useful, and that CU and crat ought to be removed for inactivity. ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Good analysis, thanks! I would support removing for inactivity, with a few exceptions. As I've said on Meta when this came up, there are a few folks I would exempt, as when they need access, they really need it in a hurry, even if it is very very rare. One such person, for example, would be BRION. I think the list is pretty short but I do think some exceptions are worth making. ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with pfctdayelise (and http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gunther/adminaktivitaet.php?dbname=commonswiki_p shows similar things), that inactive admins/bureaucrats/CU should give up their status. However will be good idea to ask them first (if possible). --EugeneZelenko 15:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
From VP - see meta:CheckUser_policy#Removal_of_access, rights should be removed after a year of inactivity --Herby talk thyme 16:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
So how is inactivity for CU and 'crat counted? No use of tools, no use of admin tools or just no edits? -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
My query exactly (Commons:Village_pump#Checkuser). Left to me, not using the tools but I have read somewhere that even the admin activity tool does not count all admin activity. As far as CU is concerned I guess we should check with meta - for the rest it would be policy here --Herby talk thyme 16:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unfair to change our policy on de-adminship and apply it to existing admins. We can apply it to new admins and ask older admins to conform with it, but I don't think we should retrospectively apply policy like that. But anyway, I would like to strengthen our adminship policy to specifying that the 50 edits should be 50 admin actions.

BTW I'm pretty sure the devs have all the access they need and don't actually need sysop bits to do dev-like things.

To Fred: as long as you're active in other ways, I don't think you have to be using bcrat tools every day. Better to have some spare people, rather than one person who goes missing and then we have a panic. :) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand why inactive users should be deadminned, but I'm not sure that I see the benefit of deadminning an active user that just doesn't use his tools that much (Note that I'm one of those, but I'm not saying this just to retain my adminship. Honestly. :)). As an active user, I might come across a situation where I could use my admin-tools to help out. I can't do that when I'm not an admin, obviously, and so another admin has to do the work. --Conti|✉ 03:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is User:Brion VIBBER still working as one of Wikimedia's tech employees? If so, I would not recommend desysoping him just because he is inactive here. He might need the sysop tools just in case something technical goes wrong here. Zzyzx11 05:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As a developer, Vibber is able to give himself sysop access wherever he wants, whenever he wants. Kjetil r 06:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually have any idea how much I use the "admin tools", even though I review latest images daily. Most of the time I just tag and notify - do you really want to incentivize me to delete summarily, so as to keep the admin action count up? 1/2 :-) That said, I can see the value of knowing how many active admins there are. Is there a regular report on who's doing what? Stan Shebs 12:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not aware of an actual report but this may give some indication [5]. As I deleted something by mistake first thing and restored it, that could be a tip to keep activity up <g> --Herby talk thyme 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Fifty un/deletions, un/protections, un/blocks or edits to protected pages, in a YEAR, is really not very much. If people think even that is onerous then let's say 20. But I think 50 is very low.
Secondly I am sure whoever is in charge of de-adminship (is that our bureaucrats? I assume so, although they can't do it themselves) will show the same sensible discretion they show in promoting admins. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious. Does anyone have the data on how many admins it would affect if we had the "50 admin actions in a year" rule? --Conti|✉ 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not answering the "50 admin actions in a year" rule but on Books it is a "no edits for a year policy" and one month on the RfA page (to allow appeals I guess) then request to meta. Currently done by a 'crat but I think that isn't necessary just a link to the local policy etc page. I'd be interested in how many a rule like that did affect ("50 admin actions in a year" rule) though --Herby talk thyme 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The 50 rule sounds fair to me. It means that maybe we will all lose our adminship at some time when real life gets the better of us, but I say: so be it...
I think adminship should be easy to attain and also easy to lose (unlike how it is on English Wikipedia, where it is very difficult to become admin but also very difficult to lose it). It just seems more fair to me, because it would level what is necessary to be voted admin and what is required of an admin once he gets the hat.
Fred Chess 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
'Easy to obtain, easy to lose' - I do like that a lot more than 'hard to obtain, hard to lose' or 'easy to obtain, hard to lose'. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm a bit leery about using 50 admin actions instead of 50 edits. An active contributor who is not particularly interested in "core" admin activity could use it only infrequently - that isn't necessarily a reason to strip them of the bit. Furthermore, not all admin actions are logged; Special:Undelete can be a useful tool. For example, I could use that to access deleted images for upload to en as fair use without having to poke for help. That kind of activity is hard to log. I'd modify 50 edits to "50 edits or other logged actions"; with a caveat about deleted edits. This would complete the object of the exercise making everything unambiguous about when desysopping can occur.--Nilfanion 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Updating the policy

I made a request on meta:requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access for removal of some access status. But I was told that Aoineko (talk · contribs) made one edit in April, so he is not to be considered inactive per our policy. Could I get some input on how our policy should be rewritten to reflect the opinions presented on this page? / Fred Chess 14:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A bit slowly but I am working on re-working the policy. I'll speed it up and get something on here as soon as I can --Herby talk thyme 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How about requiring 50 admin actions in one year, and at least one in the last 6 months? / Fred Chess 09:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Or 50 could be too much, but how about saying an admin is inactive as admin if he has less than 25 admin uses (including editing protected pages) in a year AND less than 5 in the last 6 months? / Fred Chess 09:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
OK as long as the intended targets are given plenty of warning so they can explain the situation and/or take action if need be. --MichaelMaggs 10:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin inactivity policy

Given the comments around I have started a proposal page here to amend our current policy. I have offered two options and tried to keep it as simple as possible. Please feel free to go and rework it as much as you like! --Herby talk thyme 11:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


What an incredibly stupid idea. If you want to encourage admins to do more admin-only work, encourage them. Be positive.

Instead, you take away their ability to do that work? So instead of one admin action per month, they do zero...

How does this policy benefit the project, again? — Omegatron 02:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics for RfA?

En.wikipedia RfA is continually analysed for long term trends and the like, w:Image:AverageEditCountatRfA-2006.png is typical of the sort of stuff produced. Given how we work here, I think it would be interesting exercise to see what the typical number of votes per RfA is - but I wouldn't begin such a time-consuming activity without someone else thinking it is interesting.--Nilfanion 11:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... English Wikipedia has , I'd guess, 10x more admin nomination than we have. And those who nominate themselves here can often account for edits on their native Wikipedia, while the opposite it rarely true. So I don't think such statistics would be useful here on Commons. But if you like statistics, Commons talk:Administrator permission for statistics hasn't been updated since November :-) / Fred Chess 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have the deletion stats right here, just need to filter the people out that are not on the list :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I wanna be #1 ;).. On a more serious note, what I'd like to know is what constitutes the level of support a typical candidate gets at RfA (I gained the bit with 6 supports here, but over 100 on en). This isn't like en we don't get spurious nominations. This data is all there in the archived RfAs just needs a bit of time for analysis. I have a feeling we have very few failed nominations, it would be interesting to see why they failed.--Nilfanion 12:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be easier to read the individual cases in the Commons:Administrators/Archive almost. :P --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Need for tools

I wrote a post about that at Commons_talk:Administrators/Requests_and_votes#Need_for_tools. Oleg Alexandrov 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Activity tool

I'm getting an error (403 Forbidden) when trying to use this for a couple of days or so. Anyone any ideas? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I also have been getting that Forbidden error for a while now. --Digon3 talk 14:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Bryan has one for Commons - check his page or Fred's I think. There is also this one BUT it is really slow when it works on Commons - cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting

I wanted to vote for a canidate for Administrator but found the page locked from editing. How can I register to vote?--Woogie10w 17:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I think there should be a "verify" link to verify administrator status, as there is one on the Wikipedia userbox. Here is the discussion, please add your opinions there. Blueag9 02:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rashi.jpg

This photo was tagged for having no source info on August 16 and was eligible for deletion after 7 days. It has been 10 days since then and the original uploader just now added a source (after I added a warning tag to his user page), but there is a problem. The supposed source for the photo does not provide any background info on the picture and the page's content is copyrighted, meaning having the photo here is a copyright violation. Although it is nice, it needs to go. Can an admin please delete this? --Ghostexorcist 09:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Administrators/Archive_2&oldid=708246493"