Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 3

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

RFA pending closure

Hey!

NawlinWiki's RFA is pending to close, user has withdrawn.

Thanks, --Alan (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done (as a non 'crat closure). Trijnsteltalk 15:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please give Yann (talk · contributions · user rights management) an OTRS flag. He regained access, also to the permissions queues. Trijnsteltalk 15:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done odder (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for user rights GWtoolset

I have attended the same GW-toolset workshop by Dan-nl mentioned below. I am currently a GLAM-wiki coordinator at the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision. In the next few weeks we will test in the Beta-cluster but we expect to be ready to donate within a few weeks. I already have permission to test in Beta, but could you please provide me with user rights for the GWToolset usergroup in the production environment? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GWToolset. Thanks in advance. 85jesse (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks for your involvement and good luck with your work! odder (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for GWToolset right

Dear bureaucrats,

I'm Sebastiaan ter Burg, project leader cultural cooperation at Wikimedia Nederland. I would like to be able to use the GWToolset to help GLAMs and to finish the manual. 07:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sebastiaan: If you need the rights to test things, wouldn't it be better for you to do so on the Beta cluster? GWToolset version used there is exactly the same as here, and I can give you the rights there. If you need the rights to actually upload files here, please state so, and I'd be happy to grant them to you :-) Thanks, odder (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

New RFC on the URAA problem awaits your opinion

I have opened a RFC at Commons:Review of Precautionary principle, including a poll. Contributions from crats are more than welcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nard the Bard

This user has resigned from OTRS. Will a Bureaucrat please remove their OTRS-flag? Thank you, Tiptoety talk 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done odder (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS flag

Please set OTRS flag for Ankry (talk · contributions · user rights management) per OTRS wiki. odder (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Yes. odder (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Replying to your own posts? --Dschwen (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Yes. odder (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Second bot inactivity run

I have now started an inactivity run for all bot accounts that have been inactive for more than two years. Comments and involvement, as always, welcome. odder (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of user rights from the account of Cindamuse (talk · contribs)

Cindamuse (talk · contribs) (Cynthia Ashley-Nelson) has passed away yesterday, April 11, during the 2014 Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. I have already protected her user page and her user talk page here on Commons, and removed her from the filemover and OTRS member user groups. Condolences may be added on her English Wikipedia talk page. odder (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS flag

Please set OTRS flag for 분당선M (talk · contributions · user rights management) per OTRS wiki. odder (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Yes. odder (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GWToolset request

Dear Bureaucrats,

This year i am with my colleague Theobald Tiger Dutch Wikipedian in special residence at 6 Dutch scientific libraries, see w:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedians in Special Residence in the Netherlands 2013-2014. The Peace Palace Library at The Hague donates about 4450 images of prints from their old book collection, too many to upload to Wikimedia Commons with the good old Upload Wizard. That's why i would like to request access to the GLAMwiki Toolset to start exercising in the Beta-environment and then automate my uploads to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done; good luck with your work! odder (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps i am dumb, but i still can't log in as GWToolset user - i am not on the list at http://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/gwtoolset . Can you help me out? Kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Hansmuller: That's the beta cluster, and I gave your the rights on the production Commons (ie. on this wiki), but you don't seem to have an account there. odder (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Request access GWToolset Beta cluster

Dear Bureaucrats,

odder was right: i first needs permission to access the test environment on the beta cluster: http://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&action=submitlogin&type=login&returnto=Special:GWToolset http://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Main+Page . Can someone grant me this permission, please? Thanks a lot, Hansmuller (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hansmuller: You first need to create a local account there. I'm also a bureaucrat on the beta cluster, and I can grant you this permission once you created a local account. odder (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, i thought i was Hansmuller also on fmlabs, see http://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/User_talk:Hansmuller, is this OK? Txs kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Hansmuller: This is now ✓ done. odder (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrator rights

Hi there. I used to be an admin on Commons (+ OTRS and CU), I resigned in good standing in december 2010. Is it still possible to get the rights back, or has it been too long? I still have limited time for Commons, but my plan is to spend time from time to time working on the backlog or the recent edits (while having a look at what has changed in terms of policies and sysop best practices). Thanks in advance. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Found the links to my resignation: on COM:AN, on Meta (second reference, first one is for my CU rights). --Eusebius (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Eusebius: Personally, and given some recent controversy in how adminship was returned to some users, I suggest that you go through another RfA is you want your tools back. odder (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Will be also good idea to perform some Commons maintenance too. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree Eusebius going through a reconfirmation RfA would be best, but it's not strictly necessary, we have had retired users returning and being given their permissions back on request. There's absolutely nothing in policy that prohibits this and until someone bothers to write a new policy, it seems unfair for people like MichaelMaggs, who left in similar circumstances to be able to gain his tools back without RfA whilst asking Eusebius to go through RfA.
There's no risk to the project if Eusebius is granted this tools back, after all. Nick (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Why not we can create a new precedent as Odder suggested instead of bringing the old story again and again. BTW, Michael get his admin bits back before this discussion/protest starts. Jee 15:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
We both wrote it down at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, I was told to change it back, and you were actually reverted and that was the end of that. Michael's position in January was it's unnecessary and he wanted to retain having the ability to give the tools back to users like Eusebius as his (as a bureaucrat's discretion). "I for one see no great merit in removing this minimal discretion from the crats and in forcing everyone to go through an RFA no matter how needless." I'd be interested to know what Michael would propose doing in this case, and whether he still feels his revert to the policy changes we both made should stand. Nick (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes; I remember, and I was among one who didn't support Michael on his RfB too. I don't care 'crats collectively using this special right after enough discussion; but don't like a single crat jump on such cases. Jee 15:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Grant OTRS member to User:NahidSultan

Hello fellow bureaucrats,

User NahidSultan has recently got OTRS access to the permissions queue but he does not have the OTRS member flag assigned here therefore his OTRS clarifications are now being judged wrongfully by the system. Could any of you please grant him the flag? His name on the OTRS-wiki account list can be found here. Thanks. — T. 09:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that NahidSultan has access to the permissions queues so you may give the OTRS flag to him. PS. Good to see you again, Tanvir! Trijnsteltalk 10:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Also: I found another user which could be granted the OTRS flag as they also got access to the permissions queues recently:

Thanks in advance. With regards, Trijnsteltalk 10:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitanvir, @Trijnstel: I just flagged both users; thanks for bringing this to our attention. odder (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Much obliged, everyone. — T. 10:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

GWToolset right for CH accounts

Note - these two requests were outstanding from Commons talk:GLAMwiki Toolset, I have moved them here for action. --Fæ (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Rromir

To be able to help Wikimedia CH in the frames of my internship for this chapter. Thank you. Rromir (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Rromir: Please be more specific. odder (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Chandres

I'm WMCH CSO in charge of over-sighting GLAM project and especially three large batch upload through the GWToolset Thank you. Chandres (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Chandres: Please be more specific. odder (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Odder for the question. First, we now have more than 80 000 pictures ready to be upload for the Neuchâtel Herbarium project. After that we will have around 30 000 pictures from a second herbarium and 20 000 other pictures of amoaba. The idea is that Rromir learn to use the GWToolset and develop a brochure or handbook for GLAMs that will use the GWToolset afterwards. He will use the three batch coming from "my" project as pilots. As CSO of WMCH I'm supervising Rromir who will do the "job" but I also need to understand better and deeply the GWToolset because I'm the one who "sell" it to the Swiss GLAM. We will work in collaboration with the WiR at the Swiss National Library, especially @Keslon. --Chandres (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Improving the manuals and guidance for the GWT sounds great. The on-wiki pages need a lot of love and attention based on real volunteer experience. :-) --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
@Chandres: Just to play the devil's advocate here, if you only require the permission to create a user manual, why not request it on the Beta cluster rather than in production environment (live wiki) here? odder (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the need to grant this right here on commons. Writing a Manual is not in scope. He can use the betacluster. On beta is a 1:1 copy of gwtoolset interface. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
we have more than 130 000 pictures to upload, isn't it enough ?--Chandres (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You are working as team? I guess one account is enough? --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Rromir is doing an internship and I'm supervising him, but remotely, it wouldn't be convenient to have only one account with the good rights. --Chandres (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)ps: we will request an account on the betacluster too for the test phase
@Beta: The rights should be added to [which] account? :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC) mine for now, I will ask Rromir to create his account, thanks a lot--Chandres (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, authorize these people. Both of them are working in WMCH GLAM core team and WMCH has granted this tool. Kelson (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is now ✓ done. I added @Rromir and @Chandres to the GWToolset user group here on Commons, and Steinsplitter gave the permission to Charles on the Beta cluster (thanks!). Thank you Charles for answering my questions so patiently, and good luck with the project. odder (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, it's always interesting and constructive to answer to this type of question! --Chandres (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This was an interesting example. I appreciate that the GWT right is powerful and Bureaucrats need to take care that new users can demonstrate a need for the right (potentially time-limited) and the community should stay aware of whether projects are active or not. The list of users with this right is a useful reference but provides no context. I have started a basic table at Commons:GWToolset users and I suggest that adding themselves and links to their projects/proposal pages is made a requirement for new users wanting to be given this right (if anyone wants to reformat or move the table elsewhere, feel free to improve it). --Fæ (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but if we want this tool to have chance to take off, we will probably need to have a less restrictive approach. What about authorizing this usage to everyone, but just limit the number of files per batch for non GWT users (to 5 or 10 for example). We might also add a few famous file hosters in the while list (like Dropbox & co)? Kelson (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
It was a design choice when we (Chapters/GLAMtool Steering Group) first started funding the development, that the target users were those supporting large GLAM related projects with something like 5,000 or more photos to upload. There are several other tools, plus the standard interface, that can help achieve smaller sets of uploads without needing to by-pass standard upload account limitations. There may be a need for other tools to take on the feature of user-friendly mapping of metadata, but for the vast majority of users, creating a separate data file for batch metadata would seem an excessively confusing step compared to doing it on-the-fly using the image itself. --Fæ (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I won't argue with you about the idea that we should be as open as possible, this is simply how it should be. Thus the discussion point is: do we have any serious concern about allowing every user to uploading up to 10 pictures with the GWT? Kelson (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Swiss National Library

The SNL wants to upload further collections of pictures to Commons using the GWT. May we please get the necessary authorization to use it. ^EE --Swiss National Library (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, if you do not have a local Wikimedian helping you, it would be an idea to contact Wikimedia CH as your first step (see the linked page for contacts). This is your local chapter and they are already helping with using the GWT. You can easily request an account on our fully functional "beta" version, if your folks want to test using the tool, before doing your the real upload. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Fae, as you can see on the UP of Swiss National Library, EE is Emmanuel Engelhart, Wikipedian in Residence... Pleclown (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL, sorry, as the sig was unlinked I assumed this was a new user. My mistake. --Fæ (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the bad signature. It's fixed. ^EE Swiss National Library (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This is now ✓ done; user Swiss National Library is now in the GWToolset user group. Happy uploading! odder (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you ^EE Swiss National Library (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS flag

Please set OTRS flag for Ibrahim.ID (talk · contributions · user rights management) per OTRS wiki. odder (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. odder (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

rm OTRS flag

✓ Done odder (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrator right

Hi. I resigned from all of my rights on Wikimedia projects less that half year ago (1) and now I'd like to have the sysop right back on Wikimedia Commons if is possible. Thank you :) −ebraminiotalk 15:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's OK to give right back. But I could recommend to show a little bit more activity here. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Ebraminio is a trusted and experienced user. I agree with Eugene, it's OK to give right back. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I too think it should be fine to give Ebraminio back the admin rights. Bar the break they took last year/this year, they have always been great in ridding this project of copyvios which come from Farsi editors...an area that isn't dealt with as well as it should be when editors such as Ebraminio are not able to deal with them. russavia (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that ebraminio has resiged their tools only five months ago, and given the apparently overwhelming support of other Commons contributors as demonstrated above, and in lack of any voices to the contrary, I decided to grant them their tools back. I wholeheartedly agree with Eugene that a little bit more activity won't come amiss — we are always short on admin power :-) Welcome back, ebraminio, and good luck! odder (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much guys! :) −ebraminiotalk 17:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back. Great to see you returning. -- Rillke(q?) 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Closure of second bot inactivity run

Earlier today, I closed the second bot inactivity run that I started a month ago. After being notified via talk page and e-mail, two bot owners asked for their bots to remain flagged; seven bot owners agreed that their bots be de-flagged; and twenty-one (21) bot owners did not respond which resulted in their bots losing their flags. All the details can be found at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag 2. Yours sincerely, odder (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

rm ORTS flag

No longer active on OTRS:

Thx. --Krd 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

All ✓ done. odder (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Request GWToolset access for National Library of Scotland uploads

Hello - I've been experimenting with the GWToolset on the beta cluster for the past couple of weeks while preparing to begin uploading content from the National Library of Scotland as part of an ongoing Wikimedian in Residence programme there. After successfully uploading a sample of about 40 images to the beta cluster, I would like to request access to begin uploading content to Commons. The initial batch of images will contain only 90 files, and is from the same collection used to successfully upload content to the beta cluster. I would ideally like to upload this batch once our metadata has been appropriately formatted for the whole collection.

Once the process has been successfully undertaken on Commons, the National Library of Scotland has identified approximately 12 additional collections varying in size from 100 - 1,000 images which will be uploaded throughout the duration of the residency. The process is being documented as well to allow the uploads to continue by members of the digital access team after the residency has concluded. Thanks! ACrockford (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi @ACrockford — you are now a member of the gwtoolset user group. Good luck with your project :-) odder (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS agent

Hebrew user with also access to the permissions queues, see the admin log on the OTRS wiki. Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Requests for translation adminship

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

I help other Wikimedians via IRC that seek help for translation and that doesn't understand how the Translate extension works. I hope to help even more being a Tranlation administrator. Thank you. -- ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 21:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Leitoxx: Sure, ✓ done! You are now a translation administrator here on Commons. Thank you for volunteering to help, and good luck with your work. odder (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Odder: thanks you very much! ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 23:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

OTRS user flag

Hi there; could you assign my account the OTRS volunteer flag? I recently gained access to the permission queues (verify). Thanks, Microchip08 (talk · contributions · user rights management) 01:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Also for FDMS4 (talk · contributions · user rights management) per otrs list of accounts. FDMS4 has recently got access to the Permissions and photosubmissions queues. Regards. ~ Nahid Talk 07:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Both ✓ done, and I also added Yunshui to the OTRS group as they have recently gained access to the permissions queues as well. odder (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

rm OTRS flag

No longer active on OTRS:

--Krd 08:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A request for translation

I've translate much stuff (from English to Chinese) on MediaWiki, commons and meta. I understand of Wikimedia projects licenses and how these affect translations on other languages projects. I also know how the Translate extension works.

The good and the bad are intermingled in Chinese contents, so I want to use glossaries to keep the consistency and make a better translation. (See Project:Translation administrators and mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Translation best practices#Consistency) Actually, it can speed the translation.

Fix some namespaces in Chinese to fit the convention in Project:Language policy#Old system. Those namespaces were translated into Chinese other than using the language code in the subpages.

I am willing to do more things for translation. Thank you. --Rhong Fu Talk 15:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen you involved in TA tasks. Can you pleas tag a commons pages for translation first. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think what you talk about is Preparing translations. Well, I havn't seen those pages which need be translated and haven't been prepared for translation in commons yet.--Rhong Fu Talk 09:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrator rights (2)

Hi everybody! A while ago (4 months) I requested the removal of my admin rights because of lack of time. But, as I'm back now, restoring my admin right would be great. Thanks in advance. Érico Wouters msg 00:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: I'm putting this request on hold for 48 hours per standard practice, though after reviewing Érico's edits & logs from February, I don't think his resignation was done under the clouds. Glad to know you're planning on actively contributing to Commons again, @Érico. odder (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it's OK to restore status, but will be good idea to be more active in Commons maintenance. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This is now ✓ done; welcome back, @Érico! odder (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS flag

Please set OTRS flag for Itti (talk · contributions · user rights management) per OTRS wiki --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. odder (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Resigning as a bureaucrat

Hi all,

I just wanted to let the community know that I've placed a request to resign my bureaucrat rights on this project. I've obviously not been very active over the past couple years, and while I intend to continue contributing and helping out with administrative jobs as time allows, I feel that my status as a bureaucrat has become confusing to those looking for help, as well as potentially suspicious to my more active peers. I don't foresee this being a major disruption in the project, as the few bureaucrat-exclusive noticeboards seem to be well under control.

Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your services over years! --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks indeed! Didn't see this one coming right now... Trijnsteltalk 21:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll add my thanks for your service. Best wishes whereever you shift your focus. --99of9 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go, especially after such a long time. Many thanks for all you have done, and all the very best. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your invaluable service to the community over so many years, @Julian, and good luck with your future work here on Commons and elsewhere. odder (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Life is life... Thank you! --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS flag

Hi there; could you assign my account the OTRS volunteer flag? I recently gained access to the permission queues OTRS wiki. Thanks in advanced Leitoxx (talk · contributions · user rights management)

@Leitoxx: This is now ✓ done; thanks for volunteering, and good luck with your work on OTRS. odder (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Pleas remove Leitoxx OTRS flag (OTRS access was removed, see adminlog@otrswiki). --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. odder (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Global renaming

On 1 July 2014, it will be possible to rename a global account from meta. The current plan is as follows:

  • Stewards will handle global renaming of accounts with a standard unified login from meta.
  • Local bureaucrats will retain the renameuser right, and will handle renames for users without an SUL and usurpations.

This is essentially a transition period, in which stewards can globally rename users but local bureaucrats retain their local renameuser right. This will change with SUL finalization, when that right will be removed from the bureaucrat group. The WMF sees this as a community issue (despite it really being a technical one surrounding global accounts), and as such, this project is under no obligation to follow this plan. However, for the sake of the people requesting renames and to prevent the SUL system from becoming even more mangled, it would seem to make sense.

Notes:

  • There is no global username policy, but there is a global rename policy, which will attempt to incorporate common rules among local username policies in terms of usernames to avoid.
  • There is the potential for a "global renamers" group to be created for bureaucrats to be involved with the global renaming process, especially handling requests from their home projects to ensure they comply with the local username policies.
  • See mw:Help:Extension:CentralAuth/Global rename for technical information on global renaming.

If the bureaucrats/community here are OK with this plan, then the best way to implement it would be to direct all requests for renaming to m:SRUC starting on 1 July. Like I said above, usurpations and renaming of accounts without an SUL would still need to be done here.

Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS flag

Please set OTRS flag for Patchfinder (talk · contributions · user rights management) per OTRS wiki. odder (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Yes. odder (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Please also add Peripitus (talk · contributions · user rights management). Thx. --Krd 11:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done; welcome back, @Peripitus. odder (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

SUL global name changes possible from 1st July

From tomorrow, 1st July, the GlobalRenameUser tool will be available to Stewards, allowing them to make SUL global name changes without reference to local crats here or on other projects. Presumably, Stewards will be following this (draft) policy on meta. I am noting this here as we may want to consider making a few changes to our existing procedures for user name changes. I have also posted a note on the relevant talk page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, stewards will most definitely working to that (developing) policy, and we would really appreciate any improvements that Commons considers worthwhile, naming patterns, etc. As a comment. The way that the developers have done their work, stewards will only be able to move accounts to a completely clean/unused SUL, so if local 'crats move locl accounts, then that will no longer be a clean account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Sooo... crats should not process rename request anymore? What about moving usurped accounts out of the way? --Dschwen (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
That's delayed by yet another week; currently scheduled for July 89. odder (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

GW Toolset access

Hello,

I'd like to have access to GW Toolset in order to manage metadata for a GLAM collaboration with w:en:Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec. Thank you. Best regards. Benoit Rochon (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Thank you for your work on translating the GWToolset page into French, and good luck with the GLAM collaboration. odder (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to have access to GW Toolset for use on my own wiki. An example of a failed attempt is here. I don't know if this will help or if I can figure out the information I need hidden in the jargon, but I'm here to try. Trackinfo (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You can get the extension from Extension:GWToolset. odder (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And another request

In the interest of avoiding a redundant section header: I too would like to use the GW toolset, for the Summer of Monuments project. User:Harej has encouraged my request. Happy July, Monumenteer2014 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Monumenteer2014: I suggest that you first try using GWToolset on the Beta cluster, and proceed to running it on the real Commons when you're used to the tool. How does that sound? odder (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS flag

Syrio has access to permission queue. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Flag is added. --Dschwen (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting access to GLAMwiki Toolset Project

Hi! I want to deploy this tool on Museo Soumaya residence project. Regards, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoplasmaKid: Please clarify what you mean. Thank you! odder (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@ProtoplasmaKid: Please don't just shoot and run… odder (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@odder I left a message in your discussion. Regards, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This is now ✓ taken care of. odder (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS-flag

Please grant OlEnglish (talk · contributions · user rights management) the OTRS-flag. He has access to the permsission-queue's. Natuur12 (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

+ O.Koslowski (talk · contributions · user rights management) --Krd 11:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done for both users. odder (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS flag

For HaeB (talk · contribs). I've been an OTRS member for a while (see e.g. [1]), but currently still get the "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member" edit tag (e.g .[2] [3]). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm this. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. odder (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting access to GLAMwiki Toolset Project

I'd like to have access to the GLAMwiki Toolset to help Dutch GLAMs with uploading their content and to make screenshots for the manual. Ter-burg (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Which project? You can use beta for screenshots. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm hosting a workshop right now with the Amsterdam Museum, Rijksmuseum, Universiteitsmuseum Utrecht, Koninklijke Bibliotheek and The Netherlands Institute for Sound and Images (that's why these other requests were made). I'll be working with the Bonnefanten Museum and Naturalis later this year. Screenshots from beta will not be sufficient because these would have a different logo and url. Ter-burg (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ter-burg: Thank you for the explanation, you are now a member of the gwtoolset user group. Good luck with your project(s), and thank you for your contributions to Commons! odder (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please could you give me account rights to GWToolset? Rijksmuseum Collection Information (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rijksmuseum Collection Information: You are now a member of the gwtoolset user group. Good luck with your project, and happy editing! odder (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion when attempting to use the tool, please note that until bugzilla:68506 is resolved, the GWToolset is unable to upload more than 20 images at a time. Check with the bugzilla page for the latest status. --Fæ (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Doncsecz's lost password

Hello, I am writing on behalf of user Doncsecz who asked me to help him get his account back. Though he actually logged in his account a month ago, he told me that for some reason he had had to change his password on Commons which he forgot. Unfortunately there is no email connected to the account. He tried to seek help at the Help Desk first, and he was directed to meta's stewards and to SUL. Trying to help him I went through the same procedure to no avail. As an administrator on huwiki I can assure you the user behind the IP is the same person as user:Doncsecz on Commons and also on huwiki. Can this problem be solved as a simple usurpation of the name? It would only be a technical usurpation not a real one since the person behind the user names would be the same. At the same time, I guess, the accounts have to be unified. Please advise what steps Doncsecz has to do. Thanks in advance. Csigabi (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Csigabi: User name usurpations are possible, but require proof from the user requesting usurpation. Please note that all Commons edits made by Doncsecz (currently 5,655) will be lost (that is, assigned to user Doncsecz (usurped)) and Doncsecz will have to start with zero edits all over again.

Before he does that, I suggest that Doncsecz create a global account through Special:MergeAccount — if they assign an e-mail address to the global account, it might be possible to get his local Commons account back if Wikimedia Foundation engineers allow that — without having to lose those 5,600+ edits. odder (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin request

I'd like to see about getting my adminship back. I resigned it only a few months ago, primarily for health/overwork reasons. In future, I would just take short breaks from editing if needed for health issues, rather than resigning the bit, which I regret doing. I would of course help mostly with closing deletion requests and doing other deletions, blocks, giving user rights, etc. The added burden of CU, especially dealing with spambots, was too much for me back when I resigned. I think I can handle admin stuff fine now that I wouldn't have to worry about CU work. Sorry to be a pain in the ass... Thanks for your consideration. INeverCry 23:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see you back, and I see nothing wrong in giving back you the tools. But I concerned about the way you handle yourself. You resigned two times when you were very active. Recently you came back again and announced another retirement soon. I appreciate your passion to this project; but you must control your emotions so that it will not ruin your health. I wish and hope you will be a stable; but not "too active to go out of control" admin this time. Best wishes. ;) Jee 02:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Both times I should've just taken breaks without giving up the bit. I don't regret giving up CU, though. I overworked myself as a CU. If I get the bit back now, I'm going to take things a bit easier, relax and be more mellow. INeverCry 03:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to support this application, and will enact it unless others express concerns in the next couple of days. --99of9 (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 Support No problem giving INC the bit back. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 Support Agreed. Glad to see you are feeling better. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 Neutral I am very concerned to see this request just three days after @INeverCry came back to Commons. I would much, much prefer that you waited at least a week (or two) before requesting restoration of your admin privileges to see if you really do feel okay being back, especially as you have made more than 500 edits in the past three days. odder (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
500 edit in three days! @INC, you need to slow down and involve only in serious matters for a while, at least. (I see nothing wrong in giving back the tools. Otherwise she may burnout again in the hustle to prove fit.) Jee 11:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 Comment @INeverCry: whilst I absolutely support you getting the bits back, now that I have read Odder's comments, perhaps it might be a nice idea for yourself just to take a week or two to ease back into editing mode first, then if all is good with you after that, then get the bit back. Your health comes first, and everything else second; I would hate to see you "burnout" quickly; if there's a possibility of that happening? Best, russavia (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
This is very very reasonable suggestion for such circumstances. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Jee, Odder et al. I'd love to have you back as admin again ( Support), but please start slowly and stay healthy... Trijnsteltalk 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the support and concerns. My health issues are unfortunately long-term. The easiest, and most interesting things here on Commons for me are closing simple DRs, doing speedy deletions, doing blocks, and finding users who deserve autopatrol. As I say in my request above, I would take breaks as needed, (and I will need to take breaks from time to time, which is what I should've been doing all along).

I'd really rather not pile up DRs or find busy-work for the next 2 weeks when I can do good admin work now. With that said, I'll go with whatever's decided to be best. Thanks again. INeverCry 21:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully  Support restoring INeverCry's admin bit. While I hope that health issues will not be caused by active admin work, I don't think we have anything to loose here. Even if INC were to resign in two weeks, we'd still get a lot of admin work out of it :-). --Dschwen (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 Support restoring INeverCry's administrative rights. I don't think that setting them aside voluntarily and asking for them back later is a problem. Live and learn, eh? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: No problem mate, please just don't burn yourself out, take breaks as needed.  Support giving back now given INeverCry's comments above. russavia (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 Support --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tools back, and thanks again everyone for all the support and concern. INeverCry 03:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

new OTRS flag

Thx. --Krd 09:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! DMacks (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS flag

Please add OTRS flag to User:Timk70 (access to premission queues), Thank you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done odder (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

OTRS Userflag

My OTRS agent account has been closed (upon my request). Please remove my Agent status. Thank you. — Revicomplaint? 16:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Revi: This is now done. Thank you for your service as an OTRS agent. odder (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
… and given that @Revi has reconsidered their decision, they are, again, a member of the OTRS-member user group. This taught me a great lesson not to change user's privileges without a cool-down period of at least 24 hours. odder (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
A cool down period of one week is not bad considering the friction between the community and organisation, nowadays. :) Jee 03:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. :P — Revicomplaint? 12:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please also remove Sicherlich (talk · contributions · user rights management). Thx. --Krd 07:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done odder (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

GWToolset rights

Please grant me rights to use the GWToolset. InfocollectieAM (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to add more information to your userpage before I add you to that user group, please. Please include at least the name of the person operating the account, and the collection(s) you are going to upload. Thank you! odder (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I've included the name. InfocollectieAM (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@InfocollectieAM: Thank you! The request is now ✓ fulfilled. Good luck with your project, and thank you for your contributions to Commons! odder (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you pls give me access rights to the GWtoolset as well. I'm in the same workshop as the Rijksmuseu, Beeld en Geluid and ter-burg. Thanks! - --OlafJanssen (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@OlafJanssen: This is now ✓ Done. Thank you for volunteering, and good luck with your work! odder (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks user:odder! I appreciate that

I have another request for access right to the GWtoolset. I was at the same workshop and we discussed using personal-accounts vs. institution-accounts. So far I have been using my personal account (user:85jesse) for uploads, but since I will in time hand over some of my activities to colleagues I would rather start using this (user:Openbeelden)) instead. Could you grant rights to this account as well? Thanks. Openbeelden (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Openbeelden: Sure. This is now ✓ Done. Good luck with your work, and thank you for your contributions to Commons! odder (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
@odder: much appreciated! Openbeelden (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

please grant access to GLAMwiki Toolset. will email odder name. thanks. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 18:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, this request aims to support the GLAM cooperation of Wikimedia DC, as Slowking4 volunteers with that organization. @ Slowking4: You are now a member of the gwtoolset user group. Thank you for your work so far, and good luck with your projects in the future. odder (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please grant me rights to use GLAMwiki Toolset? I would like to test this as I have several photos of inscriptions of the EAGLE Europeana project to upload. Pietromarialiuzzo (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pietromarialiuzzo: GWToolset tests can be performed on the Beta cluster. If you'd like to test the tool there, I believe that @Steinsplitter holds bureaucrat privileges there and can grant you the necessary user rights on that wiki. After your test is finished, please come back here and file your request again. Thanks! odder (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty please can I get GW-toolset user rights? I have previously used my own python scripts to upload. Profoss (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Profoss: Can you shortly describe the project for which you are planning to use GWToolset? If you want to use it for Nasjonalbiblioteket-bot, then perhaps we can add the bot to the gwtoolset user group instead? Thanks, odder (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to have GWToolset rights as I'm cooperating with a bunch of GLAMs in Sweden that are interested in contributing material using GWToolset. Thanks in advance. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Axel Pettersson (WMSE): This is now ✓ Done. odder (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We got a donation of about 40.000 sealing stamps from veikkos.com. Therefore we would like to use the tool. Can i please get the rights for it? Regards --Nicolas Rück (WMDE) (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi odder, we'd like to use the tool soon. So would be great if i could get the right for my work account soon. --Nicolas Rück (WMDE) (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nicolas Rück (WMDE): Sorry about the delay. You are now member of the gwtoolset user group. Good luck with your upload project, and thank you for your contributions to Commons. odder (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Nicolas Rück (WMDE) (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Could I be granted the GWToolset right for my work account. Preparing a test batch for the National Library of Sweden and would rather not do that from my private account (and granting myself the right doesn't seem kosher). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@André Costa (WMSE): This is now ✓ Done. odder (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like GWToolset in order to upload from various sites and repair some damage made by others more easily. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: GWToolset can only be used to perform mass uploads of content that has at least some XLM metadata (see help page). It cannot be used to repair anything that might have been done by other users—what kind of damage are we talking about, precisely? odder (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Two examples:
Uploads: There are several GLAMs where I could gather files and upload them. I like being an admin here, but uploading media is better than deleting. :) I might be able to jump start the WA-State project, as there's no coordination so far. UW Seattle has a nice online collection I'd love to share on Commons. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the 'damage' examples, I suggest keep on plugging the idea with all mass uploaders that our best practice for large uploads (like more than 5,000 images) is to set up a project page at COM:BATCH where other volunteers can raise questions both before and after the mass upload. If something has gone wrong, there is then an obvious place to go and discuss corrections, even if the mass uploader is not about. Secondly, if making corrections is complicated or annoying, don't rush to do it, raise a request with the uploader and give them time to get around to it, they never intended to introduce problems. My talk page has several rather good suggested improvements to the HABS uploads which I remain grateful that other volunteers have taken the time to raise, and when you are dealing with more than 100,000 images there are always going to be improvements, corrections and some on-going maintenance to discuss. --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
True that. Thanks Fae. Sure, where peeps work, mistakes happen. Even our bots don't always obey. :-) I really would like to try to upload some more images. To get started I'll try to hookup with an experienced GLAMmer and get my feet wet and help out. After that I'd really want to get the University of Seattle Photo Collection rolling towards Commons. If approved, may I bother you for a little advice? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Surely, if you are working on a grand upload idea, there is no harm in openly drafting out the COM:BATCH project page early as a reference to discuss with your GLAM/Uni contacts as well as volunteers here. Don't forget you can play around with the tool and test out an early batch to discuss on the beta cluster, without having to worry about rights on production or the risk of making a mess to clean up. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Much appreciated! Let's see what the bureaucrats say abd I'll go from there. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Well, as you are an admin and a bot operator, I see no reason not to grant you access to the toolset; indeed, you are now a member of the gwtoolset user group. Thanks for volunteering, and best of luck with your projects in the future. odder (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation administrators & GW Toolset users

I found here to ask here the rights. I am a longtime Commonist and I operate within Wikimedia CH in the organization of several photo events. I need mainly the translation administrative rights to manage some pages like Commons:Wikimedia_CH. May you help me? --Ilario (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the Documentation firs. This is NOT OKAY and you can't mark it for translation. I suggest non granting TA right to this user, he don't know how the system works. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Honestly I started to work in the page but it was impossible to continue so I stopped until the possibility to manage it. I didn't suppose being evaluated by my few edits here (if I had supposed to be valued for my skills, I would do a more valuable test to show my skills) but for my 9 years of edits in every projects (including the translations in Meta). I reverted back my modifications keeping only the corrections i tried to correct cause the replication of the variables (another one is here). The page has some mistakes since 2013 and I trying to help at least to have an updated page. Regards. --Ilario (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Impossible to continue? This is not true. Please read the documentation on mw. Feel free to ping me if you need a page marked for translation. Thank you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I support this demand. Ilario is a trusted user, and translation right is not a weapon of mass destruction...
@Steinsplitter: Please try to stay mellow with other contributors.
Pleclown (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose. @Pleclown: The user don't know how to use it. There is no need to grant this right to this user. TA is verry powerful and you can break a lot. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, he can learn, like anybody else. Do you always do things right the first time ? I don't, but I learn from my errors.
Secondly, regarding the need, isn't the user the best judge of that ? Ilario is working in a multilingual organisation (there are 4 national languages in Switzerland + English as lingua franca of Commons and the chapter), he will have to work in a "translated world". It will be easier for everybody if he can do the work by himself.
Thirdly, this is a wiki. You can break things, yes, but there also are methods to get things back quicly (reverts, revoke, etc.)
To the bureaucrats: I advocate for a liberal acces-to-rights grant. There are several bottlenecks in the community, and we should keep the wiki way, by liberalizing those rights. Is it a trusted user ? Will he use the right ? Yes and yes ? Give him the right. We can always take it back later if he misuse it or doesn't need it anymore.
Pleclown (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You can break a lot and you can't simple rollback it. Pleclown, we grant this right to users because they are familiar with the tool and not because they are trusted WMCH member or something else. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Ilario is well respected for good reasons, beyond chapter affiliations. If he is not familiar enough with the tools to be granted this right at the moment, perhaps you could suggest how he can demonstrate a better understanding in the near future? I am not familiar with TA myself, so I have no idea if, for example, one could experiment on the beta cluster first and demonstrate you know what you are doing before getting the right granted in production. --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The user should tag first some pages for translation, if tagging is okay the right should be granted (imho). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I am just going to be bold and assume good faith here. Ilario has a proven track record, and is a passionate Wikimedian who deeply cares about our projects, so I really see no reason not to grant him the tools if he's willing to help. @Ilario: Thank you for volunteering, and the best of luck. Feel free to consult the manual and ask other users if you'll find yourself needing advice in future. odder (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all. --Ilario (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please grant me rights to use GLAMwiki Toolset?

I'm interested in using the GLAMwiki Toolset for our future uploads to Wikimedia Commons. So far has we've uploaded the following images: Images from The Royal Armoury, Skokloster Castle and the Hallwyl Museum . Please grant me rights to use the Toolset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred ande (talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fred ande: I think it is still a little bit early for you to be given access to the toolset (you only have < 500 edits here on Commons), but I can be convinced otherwise if people with whom you collaborate can vouch for you :-) Ping @André Costa (WMSE), @Jan Ainali (WMSE), @Jean-Frédéric, @Multichill… odder (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I can vouch for Fred ande who is/was the technical liason at the GLAM during the last batch upload. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, @André Costa (WMSE). @Fred ande: You are now a member of the gwtoolset user group. Thank you for your contributions to Commons, and good luck with your future projects! odder (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Requests for translation administrator right

This would be a very useful new user right for me. For example, with this right I could mark such small edits for translation, so that Special:PageTranslation can be kept up to date. Kind regards, --Brackenheim (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Trusted user & familiar with the tool. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. odder (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! --Brackenheim (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that possible to get my flags back?

Hi there, my name's Discasto. For almost six years I was an admin under the name of User:Ecemaml (see here to verify I'm the same person and here to verify I was an admin). More that a year ago I decided to resign and leave the project. Fortunately I'm back again and I'd like, if possible, to get my flags back. As I assume that the admin flag would require a vote again and I don't really want to go through such a process (as my resignation involved some nasty episodes of outing I don't want to suffer again, I'd like to get, at least, the remaining flags (at least file mover and image reviewer). Sorry if this is not the right place and COM:RFR should be used instead. Best regards and thanks for your understanding --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 18:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Discasto: We can easily transfer all flags from your former account to your current one, but to get your admin back flag again, you'd need to go through the usual process of an RfA. odder (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine, as mentioned, I supposed such a process would be required and, to be honest, I'd prefer not to go through it :-) Let me know when the remaining flags are available. Best regards and many thanks --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 19:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Discasto: This has now been done by Didym. odder (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you!!! --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Stale bot request

Hi all,

Not sure if this is the correct place to ask, but I'll give it a shot anyway. I have submitted a bot request, that has been stale for over a month and a half (Mdann52 bot). Approval over at en appears to be waiting for action here, so if someone can help move this along, that would be appreciated. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 11:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just pinging @EugeneZelenko with the hope of moving this forward. odder (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hello, please add the OTRS flag to my account because I was accepted on 4 September. Thank you in advance. Green Giant (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant: This is now ✓ done; thanks for volunteering! odder (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) Green Giant (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for GWtoolset access

Hi, I'm a project assistant at Wikimedia Finland and we will promote GLAMWikiToolset in Finland this Autumn. That's why I request the access to use this tool. --Vimpo (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please grant me rights to use GLAMwiki Toolset?

I just started to work as an tech assistant in Wikimedia Finland and part of my job is to help Finnish GLAMs to use GWToolset. I have rights on Beta (and done my homework) but I would need a rights also for the production server. --Artturimatias (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Urjanhai request for glamwiki access

The same as above: I am Iam currently in a GLW toolset training arranged by Wikimedia Finland and the participants were asked to leave a message here to get the user rights.

As I am currently not representing any particular organisation that would have material of its own to be uploaded just now, I am not sure If I will need the Commons Production toolset or only the beta.

In any case I have thought that I could as a private person and wikimedian use some free GLAM data in the internet (for example from the digital archive of Finish National archives) that is licenced so that it can be uploaded in commons in order to practice with glam wiki toolset. --Urjanhai (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for GWToolset access

Hi! I started as a project assistant at Wikimedia Finland this Autumn. We are promoting GWToolSet to GLAMs in Finland, and an access to using the tool would be very helpful in the process.--Arkkipuudeli (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

New OTRS agent

Hedwig in Washington (talk · contributions · user rights management) is now an OTRS agent, so please add him an OTRS User flag. Thanks, — Revicomplaint? 17:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. odder (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

OTRS

Plese add otrs flag to my bot i plan a clean up run (defacto i can also whiteliste it self in abf, but it is a bad hack). --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: This is now ✓ done. Please let us know when the task is over so we can remove the flag from the bot; thanks! odder (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, If it is okay i like to keep it for a bit (like Faebot and JarektBot). --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: You wrote that you want the flag to do a clean up, and now you're saying you want to keep it long-term… Please don't do that again. odder (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL russavia (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a one time cleanup... Because of your reply i do nothing now. No appreciation of my work here :(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Already intimidated by odder's stern response? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

New userpage for the User:Doncsecz

Hello! I'am User:Doncsecz and has long been lost the password of my userpage. I would like therefore a new userpage DoncseczII. I do not want an Sockpuppet-incident! – this is my notice. 145.236.150.214 10:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Now this is my new userpage. Dear Wiki, this is not sock-puppet, please take this into consideration! DoncseczII (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@DoncseczII: Have you tried to use Special:PasswordReset? Cheers, Alan (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

One problem: the old User:Doncsecz does not have email. DoncseczII (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the old account for now (since tehre is no legitimate use for it), and placed messages on both user pages. --Dschwen (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed old account's autopatrol and grated to new account. — revi^ 15:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and understanding! DoncseczII (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Resigning as a Administrator

I'm resigning my Administrator rights (privileges), after eight years (five years as an Admin) as a Commons contributor, I no longer have the motivation that I once had. After some soul searching, have felt that it was time for me to move on and take a break from the project (for how long, I don't know).

If I do return and want my privileges (I just think it's wrong to call them rights) back, I would follow the COM:RfA process due to the view the community had back in 2013. Life has become rather complicated and I'll be moving on to other things which gives me the motivation though the passion, positive and collaborative atmosphere, which is something that Commons has lost over the past few years. Also remove the OTRS flag, as I'll be also resigning from OTRS. Bidgee (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work! I filed a request on meta. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Bidgee: Thanks for your hard work. It is sad to hear you feel Commons has lost the positive and collaborative atmosphere it previously had. I have had the same feeling from time to time and had my wikibreaks accordingly. For me, I actually think Commons has become a nicer place again recently. Take care with your other endevours. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks also for your mass of Australian content. I hope you can continue the stream whenever your interest picks up again. --99of9 (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
As a fellow Australian (and admirer of your work), sorry to see you go. Orderinchaos (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hope you will be back soon, in full rhythm. Jee 14:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Always sad to see another Australian contributor go. I have handled the OTRS side of things (except for the Commons OTRS flag, which will still need to be removed by someone else). Thanks for everything Bidgee, and best of luck, Daniel (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for everything, Bidgee, and hope to see you back soon. Trijnsteltalk 14:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Change in renaming process

I have noticed that local bureaucrats are no longer able to rename users. I changed the page a bit, feel free to change the page or revert. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a mental note to do the same. --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I did acquire the global rename bit. Waiting for an opportunity to give it a go. --Dschwen (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

toomasb (Wikimedia Estonia) glamwiki access

I request access to the glamwiki toolset for the purposes of the schooling in Helsinki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? (talk • contribs) --Signature to allow archiving 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


GWToolset access

I am Leena Sipponen, curator at The Finnish Museum of Photography. I would like to have an access to the GWToolset in order to upload museum's images into Wikimedia Commons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? (talk • contribs) --Signature to allow archiving 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


GW-Toolset access

We are the Society of Swedish Literature in Finland (SLS), a scholarly organisation that preserves, develops and mediates the Swedish cultural heritage in Finland.

We would like an account to upload archival photographs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? (talk • contribs) --Signature to allow archiving 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


Request for GWtoolset access

Hi, I'm Pirje Mykkänen from Finnish National Gallery and attending a workshop in GLAM in Helsinki. I'm looking for GLAMwikitoolset for our future uploads. There will be several users uploading material from our archives. Pirje Mykkänen, photographer, Finnish National Gallery www.fng.fi— Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? (talk • contribs) --Signature to allow archiving 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


New GT-Toolset request

We are the Society of Swedish Literature in Finland (SLS), a scholarly organisation that preserves, develops and mediates the Swedish cultural heritage in Finland.

We would like an account to upload archival photographs. Forget our resent request please.

www.sls.fi --Signature to allow archiving 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

add OTRS flag

Thx. --Krd 11:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

GWToolset

Hello, I am working as a Wikipedian in Residence at the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Trento and Rovereto. I would like to request access to GWToolset in order to upload 1000+ images of public domain artworks. Mushroom (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mushroom. Do you have the XML data prepared? I am giving you the flag and suggest that you start with a tiny test upload first. --Dschwen (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, why don't we hold off on that for now. Your contribution record is rather thin (on commons, but also on it.wp) so I'd like some other opinions here. In the mean time it would help if you expanded your userpage a little. --Dschwen (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dschwen. I understand your concerns, I have never been very active here on Commons. However, please have a look at my contribution record on the English Wikipedia, where I am an administrator, and also on Wikidata. I have also requested the flag on Beta and I will make tests there first. Mushroom (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds reasonable. Right now we don't have a policy for handing out the GWTooset right and it is something we have to discuss. I'd be very happy giving you the flag after you performed the test uploads on beta. We currently do a similar thing with the bot requests, where we require test runs as well. I'm not opposed to giving you the flag right now either based on trusting you that you will indeed perform the test uploads first (and I have no reason to doubt that). Let's take this opportunity to allow for a short discussion on how we should proceed in cases like this, as there already is the next request popping up below this one :-). I'll try to be responsive and not to drag this out or hold up your work. --Dschwen (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

OTRS-member flag and gloablization

Hello all, Give you are the users who would be effected by this change (should you choose to opt Commons in) I thought I would mention it here. Pending the outcome, you will no longer need to maintain the OTRS-member flags! It would be a global group thus handled on Meta by Stewards. You are welcome to review and/or comment on the RFC at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

GWToolset

Hi everyone :) I'm a member of Wikimedia France very involved with glams and I'm currently working with the Archives of Toulouse for the upload of more than 2300 pictures from World War I. XML data is available, but work still need to be done for translation / alignment. Léna (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Léna, could you please request the right on beta first (for upload testing). Let us know when that is done. --Dschwen (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi ! This is done, I'll come back with proof that the upload works nicely on Beta :) Léna (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for return of Checkuser right

I would like to request the return of my CU flag, which I relinquished along with sysop due to health concerns about 3 months ago. I came here nearly 2 months ago to get my sysop flag back, and since then I've been highly active, with none of my earlier health-related issues. I'm receiving medical treatment and am in much better condition.

Now to my reasons for requesting my CU flag back. I regularly spot sockpuppets, and sockmasters that are either new to me, or who I'm familiar with (like Jermboy27 and David Beals). I've had to go to Trijnstel and Tiptoety, etc, quite a few times in the past 2 months, when I could have easily and much more efficiently dealt with these socking problems as a CU. I also need to be able to check spambot IPs/ranges and do rangeblocks on both spam and sock ranges (where possible).

I believe that my health is more than sufficient for me to resume CU activity. As with my request for my sysop flag back in early August, I would agree fully that if I were to lay the CU tool down again after this, I would have to thereafter submit to a new CU/R to get it back. I wouldn't make this request if I didn't have a real need for the CU tool, or if I didnt' think I was healthy enough to handle it again. Thank you for your consideration. INeverCry 23:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Dschwen (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
OK for me --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Why not? Alan (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dschwen: /@EugeneZelenko: Can you confirm your approval of my request at meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#INeverCry@Commons? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 22:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
OK for me. --Geagea (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I appreciate the support from all above, but Snowolf, a steward, has voiced some objections on Meta, saying that local 'crats on Commons shouldn't be the ones to decide this. I've posted at m:Stewards'_noticeboard#Request_for_return_of_Checkuser_right_after_period_of_poor_health to get other steward opinions. INeverCry 02:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I've withdrawn my request at Meta and of course also withdraw it here. Thanks again for the support, but it looks like I'm going to have to remain a lowly admin. INeverCry 02:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dcoetzee OTRS-flag

Please remove Dcoetzee (talk · contribs)'s OTRS-member flag as he is no longer an agent. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 23:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please also remove:

Thx. --Krd 05:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Another OTRS flag

I was hoping I could get the OTRS flag so I don't have to be bothered by MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-otrs and create more work for tagged-edit reviewers. You can confirm membership on Meta or (for others who are also in OTRS) just note that the tickets I place are valid. Thanks. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 13:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access confirm? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed. --Krd 14:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hi, I was wondering if you could give me the OTRS flag. I don't want to make more AbuseFilter log entries then there needs to be. My membership is listed on Meta. I don't want any permission I confirm to be dubious. Mikemoral♪♫ 04:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed. --Krd 05:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

GWToolset key

Hi, I would like a GWToolset key for uploading maps. The first batch will be 31 files (90-190MB) from Oslo, called Christiania on these maps, supplied by Oslo byarkiv. Jeblad (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tried to upload a few of the maps, but it seems like Commons can't digest even some of the smaller ones. This one (map tile) keeps crashing during thumbnailing. This one is 39.01 MB, while other is much larger so I guess this problem must be figured out first. Jeblad (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Maximum file size. Perphaps converting to PNG is an option? --99of9 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The files are TIFF-files I would really like it if we can keep them as they are. Some of the files will be to big unless they are downsampled or run through lossy compression. Those that do pass the size limit fail during thumbnailing. One file that fails is 40.8MP, but files up to 50MP should pass. There are some patches in progress (VIPS-scaler), I'll wait and see if the files passes after they are merged and in production. Jeblad (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
For uploading images from [DigitaltMuseum, should I ask for another key or use the same key? Jeblad (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
We don't have key's. GWT is a right to access a special page. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Then consider updating Commons:GLAMwiki_Toolset#Instructions. If there is a right instead of a key, I still request it. Jeblad (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Jeblad: I have updated the instructions. Could you please request the right on beta first and do a few test uploads to see if this solves your problem? --Dschwen (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Domains are still not whitelisted, so can't proceed. (Bug 71195 - Add new .no domains to the wgCopyUploadsDomains whitelist) Jeblad (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

GWToolset access

Hello, i would like to request the GWToolset flag. I'm a Wikipedian in Residence for the National Library and Archive of the Netherlands and so i'll probably upload stuff from those archives. I'm a regular Commons user, and already did some 3000 uploads using a bot. Using the GWToolset would be beneficial because both institutions provide an API with XML output.

I've already done some test uploads on Beta.

Cheers. Husky (talk to me) 09:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Husky, I'm looking at some of your uploads on beta. There is one apparent issue, which is the wrong use of the other_fields parameter. You need to use an {{Information field}} type template in there, otherwise it looks broken, with the data being spilled outside the infobox. --Dschwen (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions Dschwen. I've created a tool to transform the XML to a nicer format that fits better with the fields for the different templates and did a new test upload on Commons Beta. Unfortunately the Photograph template doesn't work on Beta, so i've used the Artwork template. I'll use the Photograph template when i upload here. Husky (talk to me) 18:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Looks pretty good now. I went ahead and gave you the bit. Good luck! --Dschwen (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks! Husky (talk to me) 08:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

TBloemink and JurgenNL

Please remove TBloemink (talk · contribs) and JurgenNL (talk · contribs)'s OTRS-member flags. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 06:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is now done. odder (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

GWToolset access

Hi, I would like to get the possibility to use the GWToolset. I'm planning on uploading some open file sets (from http://www.opencultuurdata.nl/ for example). Currently I plan to upload 1100 files from the Nijmeegse Vierdaagse, I've allready created a cleaned-up, ready to use XML-file, I still have to do some testing on beta first.

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Basvb, this sounds good. Please drop a quick note here when you have performed a test upload on beta. --Dschwen (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Will do, thanks, seems that I'll have to wait a few days until the domain is whitelisted. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The domain has been whitelisted, however the build on beta failed (see gerrit and GWToolset on Beta). Can I get access on commons to start with a test upload (3-10 images) here? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, please let us know when you did the test upload so we can help iron out any issues if necessary. --Dschwen (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do that, what's the best place for that? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I did a test upload (see my files). I forgot to add the categorisation on year, will do this for the full set. Maybe I should add Nijmegen to the categories for participants etc. as well in line with the main cat? Description in the titles are cut off a bit ugly, but my text editing skills didn't allow for cut offs at word endings (which still has problems, and I didn't want to dive into text understanding programming). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Basvb: this looks good. I'm not sure I understand your suggestion about adding the category Nijmegen. Our policy on commons is to not add top categories of already included categories. From looking at a few of your uploads I get the impression that the categorization is fine as it is. --Dschwen (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
That's about "Flag parade of the International Four Days Marches" versus "Flag parade of the International Four Days Marches Nijmegen". Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Just be as specific as possible with the categories. --Dschwen (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The upload is completed, I've done some categorisation and found a home for a few interesting images, now all that needs to be done is for people to stumble upon some nice images and use them in creative ways. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! Do you want to hang on to the flag for now? --Dschwen (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-sysopping of JurgenNL (talk · contribs)

You might be interested in a thread I just started at the Village Pump (permalink). odder (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Odder: On what grounds have you (re)sysopped JurgenNL? I think that you have taken action outside of the rights expressed at Commons:Bureaucrats, and to me it looks to be a personal decision, not one based on the community's request and definitely not one based on policy. If you had a concern about the action, then you know that there is a process that you can take to dispute that. Your personal acquaintance with the rights holder should have stayed checked any action by you, and you should have seen the conflict of your acquaintance with the actions that you took.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, the desysop was out of process. It is up to the community to decide. I can't see sysopabuse on commons by Jurgen. I trust odder, he is highly trusted here on commons, and i think that odder's action is in crat's scope. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Firstly, my comment to odder is about his actions of granting rights, and they need to be addressed for what they are. The circumstances may be used to explain part, but not the decision-making of a crat.

Secondly. How is the desysop out of process? Since when is that Odder's decision to make, rather than the community's? Since when does staff not determine a breach of Terms of Use? This is about an abuse of an advanced permission that has brought the removal of all advanced permissions. You cannot seriously believe that Commons can stand aside from that position taken on the evidence received. Commons does not standalone, we are part of the Foundation bound by the overarching rules.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

billinghurst, I am in full agreement with your statement that sysops/desysops are a community decision. When the community has made a decision in a desysop request then there might be a desysop. In the absence of a community decision, the logic must be that anyone going around desysopping admins on this project is acting out of process or policy. The WMF is free to block any account it finds necessary to comply with the law using its office action powers, if that is the case then I suggest an employee does precisely that, rather than playing around with account flags that policy states should be managed by the community. --Fæ (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: JurgenNL was elected an administrator by the Commons community (with a 100% support rate); the community has not yet made any decision regarding the removal of his admin privileges. It is therefore my obligation as a bureaucrat to uphold the decision of the community whatever my personal opinion.

The desysopping of Jurgen as performed on Meta today (twice at the last count) was clearly out of process. Commons policies define only three methods of de-sysopping an administrator: (1) removal as a result of inactivity; (2) removal as a result of a successful de-adminship request and (3) resignation. None of these situations have taken place with regards to JurgenNL; ergo, his de-sysopping was made out of process.

As for my arguments about the alleged breach of the Terms of Use and the non-jurisdiction of the Foundation, please see the thread I started at the Village Pump; to cut a long story short, I argue that the actions in question were performed outside of Wikimedia projects, which makes it impossible for them to breach the Terms of Use and result in them falling outside of the jurisdiction of the Foundation.

As an aside argument, I would like to mention that Wikimedia Commons is not part of the Wikimedia Foundation; I think the reasoning behind this should be quite obvious for us all. odder (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The WMF instructed for him to be desysop'd, so he was, and his period of administration came to an end. Where in the policy does it give you the right to add him again? Your reference to our local deadmin policy is how the community moves to remove rights, that it doesn't exclude the WMF's decision making process to remove rights, and if it missing that is our omission, not theirs. [None of our local policies override global policy.] Your interpretation of the situation is completely irrelevant, it is not your position or right to make any determination in that regard, and you get to argue your personal opinion, not for you to take action outside of policy. With regard to your claim about Commons not being part of the Foundation, I point you to the text "Wikimedia Commons is part of the non-profit, multilingual, free-content Wikimedia Foundation family" and the reference page being Main Page. If you have reasoning, then express it, not leave it lying unsaid.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: The WMF has no mandate to instruct anyone to desysop any Commons administrators; that mandate lies with the Commons community, and with it alone. The community entrusted JurgenNL with administrator privileges, and unless they decide otherwise, JurgenNL is and will remain an administrator on this wiki; whatever the Foundation might or might not have ordered. As for your last argument, Wikimedia Commons is not part of the Wikimedia Foundation because the Foundation is a non-profit corporation, and we are an internet community of volunteers and not a legal entity. If you can't see the difference, then that's a sad thing for you. odder (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Of couse, the WMF has the mandate, and you are only fooling yourself to think otherwise, what is your evidence base that the Commons community alone determines its actions. And to your absurdity about Commons not being part of the Foundation, really? That is the strength of your argument? Seems to be denying reality.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You do understand the difference between Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Commons… I hope? odder (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
What an idiotic question, nice try to divert. Main page for the evidence base, deny that if you choose, but that will be your own self-denial.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems a bit out of touch to ignore the fact that the WMF has domestic authority on these projects. They may vow to respect community decisions (and they should, in the spirit of a constructive collaboration), but they are not under any obligation to do so. Similarly I don't think that the confrontational approach of simply countering the bit removal is the productive response here. But these are just my 2 cents before reading up on the details of this decision. So take it with a pinch of salt ;-). I'll be back. --Dschwen (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: what personal acquaintance are you talking about above? You are basically stating that Odder has a COI here with JurgenNL, so we would expect you to back this assertion up with some actual evidence thanks. russavia (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I said nothing about a conflict of interest, it was conflict of acquaintance and that is clearly about maintaining a neutral position.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
LOLWUT. WTF is a "conflict of acquaintance". I have just literally pissed my pants. It's nice to see that in amongst all the drama we can rely on some to keep us all laughing. Nice one! russavia (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question 1) Were JurgenNL and the Commons community notified of the desysop? I only came to know about it from seeing the re-sysop. 2) Where was the desysop requested? Logs only mention a diff in a RfC, but no m:SRP entry with details etc. 3) The diff in question talks of many unrelated things and makes strange claims: for instance, since when WMF sets criteria for RfA? 4) Can't be JurgenNL resysopped by bureaucrats as customary for former sysops in good standing, and if not why? (I've only skimmed the titles of the Meta RfC so I don't know what the accusations are.) --Nemo 13:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    @Nemo bis: The removal was instructed by Philippe, and the desysop acts were wikilinked. There is not anything in m:SRP, the request was made by email from staff to stewards. JurgenNL and TBloemink are not considered to be in good standing by the broader community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    So, basically, you are telling us that the Foundation has secretly asked the stewards to de-sysop a Wikimedia Commons admin without prior knowledge or agreement from the Commons community, is that correct? odder (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? That is completely not correct. I have linked to Philippe's public statement, nothing secret. If you have concerns about Philippe's actions, notifications and how he acts, that is for you to take up with him. If you have a suggestion for improvements to processes, then please talk that through at m:Stewards' noticeboard. Stewards received a legitimate office action and undertook it; Philippe's notifying stewards about a required office action by email pointed us to his public post and notified all stewards there and then, whereas putting it to m:SRP would not. m:SRP is just one means to communicate to stewards, there are many, their use does not invalidate the communication, nor make it secret, nor an evil plan to conquer the world.

    P.S. Don't start getting pompous about notifications to communities about removals, as this community is the worst for it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    And here you are banging on about your beloved Wikisource not being notified about deletion of files when we're discussing the removal of admin privileges. Nice try, mixing up the two topics, but it won't work. odder (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    Banging on about? A single reflective comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    Which is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Why did you mention it at all, then? odder (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    P.S. So stewards perform office actions on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation now? That's good to know. odder (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    Stewards predominantly do the bulk of the removal of advanced rights works for community and staff, that is our role.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    You specifically wrote stewards received a legitimate office action and undertook it. I would've thought the meaning of the term office action should be clear by now, so if that's not what you had in mind, please use a different term next time. odder (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As a Wikimedia Commons administrator, I support the decision to dismiss the discretionary Wikimedia Foundation legal department community representative, not only not validated by the Wikimedia Commons community, nor by the global Wikimedia community on a proper meta consultation but furthermore not even taken not in due process but as a quick and dirty solution for such a complex issue. The act to restore in the pristine state any of such action is so from my point of view a regular, normal and welcome bureaucrat action. --Dereckson (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I've followed the meta. discussion. And when I read the conclusion there, where an action is taken only on allegations ('The allegations are troubling'). --Dereckson (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for proving me right. Natuur12 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The Natuur12 statement is really worrying. At worst, if he's saying meta. isn't enough to be informed about the situation, the statement tries to deem legitimate some actions having deep private/secret/not public actions and communications. And request Wikimedia Commons community bids to discretionary secret and confidential processes. --Dereckson (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Where are you possibly getting this from? What part of this was decided in secret? The RfC presented the case, and after a while the WMF decided to respond with an office action that enforces the TOU. The only part that occurred in private was one message from the WMF to the stewards requesting that we enforce their decision. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: The decision to desysop JurgenNL was made in secret, for one thing. You should have never enforced a Wikimedia Foundation office action; if it's a regular request, then sure, but let them enforce their office actions by themselves. odder (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The WMF/stewards have a long-standing relationship where they defer as many actions as possible to us (as elected people), and we fill their requests so long as they are justified. If we started to refuse to assist them, then they would simply do those actions themselves. It is of benefit to everyone for us to action their requests, instead of antagonizing them whenever possible as you are doing. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, so what you are saying is that the stewards will act in deference to the WMF so as to not antagonise them, but in doing so you antagonise the very communities whose members will be voting in February next year. Real smart. russavia (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: Stewards as elected people, but not as elected commons crats. It is up to the commons community to decide, and not the wmf or a steward. I have seen that a other steward reverted odder, it is absolutely not okay to revert a local, highly trusted, project bureaucrat. I'm disappointed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Commons:Administrators/Requests/JurgenNL (de-adminship) - Jcb (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest a speedy closing of this de-adminship requst considering voting pattern (only 4 "keep" so far) and the heated of-topic discussions. Jee 02:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flag

I've resumed to reply messages on OTRS system, including permissions-pt and permissions-commons queues (OTRSwiki:Admin log/2014/10). Could please someone add the OTRS flag to my account? Best Lugusto • ※ 06:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed. — revi^ 07:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Urgent action required

As JurgenNL has resigned by himself, could one of you please immediately close Commons:Administrators/Requests/JurgenNL (de-adminship), in order to avoid further smear attacks and non-productive dispute. --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Alan (diff). I protected the page per standard procedure. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying Steinsplitter :-) (I came to inform, i'm slow). I closed "De-RFA" as non-crat closure after JurgenNL's resignation. --Alan (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation Admin policy

Per COM:VPP#Translation administrators, Commons:Translation administrators/Policy has been created. — revi^ 10:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Please remove:

Thx. --Krd 06:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And add:

He now has access to permission-ko. — revi^ 08:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done for both. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting GWToolSet or Image Review right

Dear bureacrats, as you may know I am uploading mainly video to Commons. Most of them are > 100 MB. In the past I files many bug reports in order to have developers to cross-load my videos. In the meantime I have bought a bigger internet line at home and a NAS where I pre-upload my material to offer it under an URL. Meanwhile that URL has also been included in the GWToolSet trusted domains (80686.wikimedia.ch). In order to make use of these tools and the new way of directly uploading videos via URL (instead of bugging developers) I need the "upload_by_url" right, which I can get either by becoming an Image Reviewer or GWToolSet user. Therefore I am requesting to be assigned to one of these groups. Thanks, --Manuel Schneider(bla) 17:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. Manuel is certainly a trusted user and I know him personally. --Dschwen (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to change adding trusted server: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/116263/2/wmf-config/InitialiseSettings.php --Manuel Schneider(bla) 18:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Image reviewer assigned, trusted user. --Krd 18:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Manuel Schneider(bla) 18:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat)

Could some uninvolved 'crat please close this de-bureaucrat page as the voting period has passed? I've already protected the page. Thanks, --AFBorchert (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll close it. --Dschwen (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for users

I request a userright flag for the GWToolset for users Aubrey (talk · contribs) (president of Wikimedia Italia) and PLiuzzo (talk · contribs) (XML coordinator). We are working on an upload from "EAGLE", a major archaeology project in Europe with the partnership of WM-IT and Europeana. Wittylama (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be nice if User:PLiuzzo could have a user page. With the GWToolset right I may be necessary to contact her or him and a redlink is not instilling confidence. --Dschwen (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, there has been a mistake (mine). User:PLiuzzo is an old account, which is not used anymore. Its contributions should be attributed to the real username, which is {{User:Pietromarialiuzzo}}. Sorry for the mistake. --Aubrey (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that looks much better :-). @Aubrey and Pietromarialiuzzo: , do you have experience with the GWToolset? I have asked the previous three requesters to either first obtain the flag on beta or perform small sets of test uploads so that we are able to give feedback and help with suggestions to get the file pages in the best possible shape from the get go. --Dschwen (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
They do not (yet) have experience using the tool - I just made the request for the flag for them on both sites at the same. Certainly, they can make test uploads on Beta first and then return here (Ping: @Aubrey and Pietromarialiuzzo: ). Wittylama (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sounds like a plan. Once they return here we can assign the flag quickly. --Dschwen (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm here :-) Yesterday me and Pietro had access to the Beta Commons and made some tests. We have uploaded very few file, because Pietro is still working on the original XML to make a better mapping with the Commons template. I would say that we understood the hardest part of the tool, but you can wait for Pietro do make other tests. In fact, he's the one who will actually upload all the images. --Aubrey (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'll be watching this space and hope we can stick to this procedure without adding unnecessary delays for you (I won't have internet access from friday through sunday, so I hope one of my colleagues will be here). --Dschwen (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I think testing in beta went fine, and it was also useful to fix some problem in the source xml. Could I now use the tool here? thanks a lot to all of you! --Pietromarialiuzzo (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think we need a little more time to test on Beta first before going to Commons for the mass upload. The most recent test is coming along nicely (example) but there's still things we need to clean up before we have a 'perfect example'. So, no hurry if you're away over the weekend Dschwen :-) Wittylama (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I see an empty category tag in there. Otherwise it looks good. If you have a final example, I'll look a bit closer to see if I can spot any other issues. The AE 1949, 0266 1994, 1601 2005, 1404 is a catalog number? --Dschwen (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
HI! that sounds alright, it does look like there are a couple of open issues yet. Here a new sample so I might get your opinion too Dschwen: example. AE stands for Année épigraphique, and is a yearly pubblication in which each new inscription from the roman world which has been discussed or newly published is listed, organized by province. usually the AE reference tells the specialist both the latest publication, when was this text last studied and looking up in the printed volume also a lot of other information. I have now put it in the categories and in brackets after some more understandable descriptive information. hope this is fine! thanks a lot! --Pietromarialiuzzo (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The german descriptipn bislang nicht zugewiesen. means (not assigned yet.), it might be worthwhile to filter those out :-). Can/should the institution (EAGLE) be linked? Thanks for the explanation about the AE. This looks like a whole different world to me. I'm glad we have glam experts doing this stuff. --Dschwen (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear all, I have made all the improvements you suggested and it does really look much better now even on beta. thanks a lot! here are some samples of a drawing by Geza Alfoldy (the greatest epigrapher of the XX century) CIL III 000600 CIL VI 40354 CIL VI 40352CIL III 00600 and here are some samples of those not assigned/recognized CIL II 005113 EDH F010320 I have removed the note and instead put a category to state this stone does not have proper identification (sometimes CIL number is there but is yet not enough), to trigger users to look at it and assign it to the proper category. I have made into links all possible references and split up all info which I want to go to AE and CIL categories, givnig it also the format already in use in Commons. Please let me know if further improvement can be made or if I can go ahead and upload these files to Commons. Thanks a lot! --Pietromarialiuzzo (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I also have a question: isn't it better to put the Template:EAGLE_project rather than the Institution:EAGLE ? to get something like CIL II 14 000042? how to do that? thanks again --Pietromarialiuzzo (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

GWToolset

Hi there! I am requesting access to the GWToolset. I'm a long time Wikipedian in Residence (3 times) and highly active in the GLAM-Wiki and OpenGLAM communities. I also have another account, User:Missvain, which I use frequently here on Commons and as my primary account on Wikipedia. I'd like to request I am also given the same permissions for that account, but I understand if that might be of concern. Thank you so much for your consideration, I'm always appreciative of those who volunteer to do this type of work. Sarah (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I failed to mention my intentions - I'm going to be doing some updates to two case studies I have written, and we'll see what else. Sarah (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey Sarah, when you say case studies, where is the connection to bulk imports with metadata? Or do you need the right to check out the import process itself? --Dschwen (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Gah, sorry. I was thinking of something else while I was typing...the case studies (despite both involving bulk uploads in the past pre-toolset) have nothing to do with this. However, I am working on a near future bulk upload for a state park archive here in California that I serve on the board of, I also want to familiarize myself with the tool so that I can share it's existence and features with colleagues at professional conferences. I am working on some workshops with some fellow GLAM-Wiki folks (including Liam) and would like to at least have experience with the tool before I start touting it as something that is a "must" in making GLAM work easier. I also was a part of the original posse of people who decided something like this was necessary in order to implement future partnerships and program successes, so I would to also see what all that brainstorming and workshopping eventually evolved into. Thanks again. Missvain (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok,I suggest getting the flag on beta first. There you can perform as many test uploads as you like. This has been the route we've been following lately. Let me know if that works for you. --Dschwen (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I was already given them. In the instructions on the GW Toolset it states to ask for the here and there, so I did. Go figure! Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Oooookay, even better. If you have your flag on beta already (a bit of information that would have been useful in this discussion) go ahead and play with it. Once you've done a few test upload we'll hand you the flag here. --Dschwen (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
(as a side note, I think it's evident that I need to update the documentation to indicate that the request for the flags on the two wikis should not be simultaneous, but only here after a successful test on beta. Wittylama (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC) )
Yes I think that would be good. --99of9 (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

open bot flag requests

Dear crats. There are 12 open bot flag requests, oldest from April 2014. If you have a minute, could you please advise or close one or another request either way? Thank you. --Krd 16:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ping: @99of9: @Cecil: @Dschwen: @EugeneZelenko: @Jusjih: @Kanonkas: @Odder: --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Krd: Thank you for the reminder. I commented on a few requests — mostly the older ones — and I'm hopeful we'll be able to reduce the backlog over the coming days. Sorry about the delay! odder (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

inactivity run – CU right of Gmaxwell

Dear audience. Please see: meta:Steward requests/Permissions#Gmaxwell @ Wikimedia Commons. This was discussed before at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 49#Inactivity run for August-September 2014 has ended (archive link). How do we continue? --Krd 20:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is probably best to either a) start a RFC clarifying the local policy (long-term solution) and/or b) start a de-CU discussion for Gmaxwell (there were AN discussions in the past, so that requirement isn't an issue). While I am all for removing inactive CheckUsers globally, the way the CU policy is written, we can't do it unless there's absolutely no activity locally for an entire year, or unless local policy clearly allows us to. --Rschen7754 01:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It may be worth clarifying re-appointment requirements (in so much as we can do locally) for checkusers voluntarily spending some time off from using the tool (which, for the benefit of doubt, is something I believe to be a good idea, to avoid burnout) at the same time. Nick (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS user permission

I am working on adding {{PermissionOTRS}} to several files after verifying the tickets. The edit filter is doing it's thing to warn me, however I would like to request for the user permission flag to prevent additional warning dialogs from occurring in the future while working on tickets. Best, --///EuroCarGT 03:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirming he is a member. Not yet listed at meta:OTRS/Users, but he is listed on the internal OTRS wiki [4]. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This is now ✓ done. odder (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Request of GWToolset

Hi all, I wanted to follow up this request, which has been archived few days ago. Last uploads from @Pietromarialiuzzo: seem OK to me. There are just 2 things:

  • in the Permission field, there is the direct URL to the CC license on cc.org website. I think this is actually a GWToolset problem, because apparently it should swap the URL with the right template. That's what I understood.
  • Pietro asks and important question. Being a GLAM partnership, we would like to add this tempplate for every item uploaded: {{EAGLE project}}. Maybe it's our mistake, but it seems there is no way to add a template like that withing the metadata mapping, nor outside. This is something we would have to add via bot, later. It is kinda simple, so we can actually do like that (something like a replace.py with few line of code), but I wonder if it's not the main point of the GWToolset to avoid using bots :-) --Aubrey (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
on the template point I have been told by @Kippelboy: that it is a job that can be asked on a "bot request page"? perhaps we can take that path and only the license point remains to be sorted? @Dschwen: --Pietromarialiuzzo (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Pietromarialiuzzo: Yeah, using a bot to postprocess is totally fine. Sorry I was hoping one of the other GWToolset could chime in with their experiences here. So what is the license point then? --Dschwen (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Dschwen: ! I think as @Aubrey: that this might be something to do with the tool which perhaps @Wittylama: can help us to sort. I am not actually sure if this problem shows also in the normal Commons as it does in Beta. in the xml I put <licence>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</licence> , as suggested in the documentation. Also @Dan-nl: confirmed this is what I should do. but then it does not change it into the right template. Please do let me know if I can put something in the xml which would work instead of the url. I have tried to put {{Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0}} directly in my xml but I cannot see them uploaded yet to send you links to the samples, I suspect due to a very poor connection from the hotel where I am. Thanks a lot! --Pietromarialiuzzo (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Here the sample: CIL I 02997

@Pietromarialiuzzo: I went ahead and set the GWToolsert right on your account. It looks like doing a test upload on commons might be the best way forward. Let's see if the license appears correctly. --Dschwen (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, @Pietromarialiuzzo: try removing the Template: part. It is not needed when inserting a template with the curly brace syntax! I.e {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} instead of {{Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0}} --Dschwen (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear @Dschwen: THANKS A LOT!! will do! and I will post here some samples before going ahead with big numbers!--Pietromarialiuzzo (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Good luck. --Dschwen (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear all, here the first result CIL VI 01846 (but I have spotted one more problem in the while...) which looks like what it should. THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH TO ALL OF YOU!!--Pietromarialiuzzo (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

MoMu Fashion Museum Antwerp, request for using the GlamWikiToolset

Hi,

I hope I'm doing this the right way...

As an employee of the MoMu Fashion Museum I'm currently trying to upload a set of 340 drawings on Commons. I was told that the GlamWikiToolset would be the best way to go about this. I have all the metadata (a flat xml) prepared.

So if I could get access to the toolset or a helping hand to (batch)upload the files in another way, it would be nice. We would also be interested in sharing more and other content trough the GWToolset.

Thanks in advance,

--TobiasMoMu (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello TobiasMoMu, you did come to the right place. We do ask however that you obtain the GWToolset on the beta wiki first to perform a few test uploads. This gives us a chance to look over the generated file descriptions and offer feedback and suggestions. This can be quick process. --Dschwen (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Unused bot accounts

Tidying up my account reporting I have come across a number of apparently unused bot accounts, some possibly being abandoned since the old labs environment closed. My understanding of the Commons bot flag is that it is relevant for accounts which make significant numbers of edits on Commons. There may be exceptions but I'm unclear why not having the bot flag would stop whatever the operator wants to do with the account, especially if they are not going to use it from one year to the next. I suggest someone take a look, and make a decision on whether the bot flag might be usefully removed from these accounts. Perhaps mass notifying the operators and asking them to confirm their interest?

Here's the list of accounts with bot flags that have made no edits for the last 12 months as far as I can tell:

Old list
  1. Aibot (talk · contribs)
  2. Amolbot (talk · contribs)
  3. Andrebot (talk · contribs)
  4. ArthurBot (talk · contribs)
  5. AusTerrapinBotEdits (talk · contribs)
  6. AvicBot (talk · contribs)
  7. BotMultichillT (talk · contribs)
  8. Category-bot (talk · contribs)
  9. DerbethBot (talk · contribs)
  10. ElCarbot (talk · contribs)
  11. Emijrpbot (talk · contribs)
  12. File Upload Bot (Omnedon) (talk · contribs)
  13. File Upload Bot (Vonvikken) (talk · contribs)
  14. FotothekBot (talk · contribs)
  15. Gabrielchihonglee-Bot (talk · contribs)
  16. GeographBot (talk · contribs)
  17. Gikü's GÜT (talk · contribs)
  18. HersfoldOTRSBot (talk · contribs)
  19. Highway Route Marker Bot (talk · contribs)
  20. Innocent bot (talk · contribs)
  21. MarcBot (talk · contribs)
  22. MediaWiki default (talk · contribs)
  23. MenoBot (talk · contribs)
  24. MerlIwBot (talk · contribs)
  25. MultichillAWB (talk · contribs)
  26. Nikbot (talk · contribs)
  27. O (bot) (talk · contribs)
  28. Orbot1 (talk · contribs)
  29. OrophinBot (talk · contribs)
  30. Picasa Review Bot (talk · contribs)
  31. RileyBot (talk · contribs)
  32. Rybecbot (talk · contribs)
  33. SLQbot (talk · contribs)
  34. SlaungerBot (talk · contribs)
  35. Smallbot (talk · contribs)
  36. Stefan2bot (talk · contribs)
  37. Sz-iwbot (talk · contribs)
  38. TronaBot (talk · contribs)
  39. WillieBot (talk · contribs)
  40. Wizzo-Bot (talk · contribs)
  41. Xqbot (talk · contribs)
  42. YarluFileBot (talk · contribs)
  43. РобоСтася (talk · contribs)

--Fæ (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating review process! I think will be good idea to send notifications on owners talk page an e-mail. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
For reference: Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag and Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag_2. --Dschwen (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The threshold for the last inactivity run was 2 years. Given we do not have a policy on de-flagging, we should probably not tighten the requirement on a whim. @Fæ: , would you mind rerunning the query with a 24month threshold? --Dschwen (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Revised list follows. There are 22 bots with no edits for 730 days or longer. --Fæ (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. Amolbot (talk · contribs)
  2. Andrebot (talk · contribs)
  3. AusTerrapinBotEdits (talk · contribs)
  4. AvicBot (talk · contribs)
  5. DerbethBot (talk · contribs)
  6. ElCarbot (talk · contribs)
  7. Emijrpbot (talk · contribs)
  8. File Upload Bot (Omnedon) (talk · contribs)
  9. FotothekBot (talk · contribs)
  10. GeographBot (talk · contribs)
  11. HersfoldOTRSBot (talk · contribs)
  12. Highway Route Marker Bot (talk · contribs)
  13. Innocent bot (talk · contribs)
  14. MarcBot (talk · contribs)
  15. MediaWiki default (talk · contribs)
  16. MenoBot (talk · contribs)
  17. MultichillAWB (talk · contribs)
  18. OrophinBot (talk · contribs)
  19. Picasa Review Bot (talk · contribs)
  20. SlaungerBot (talk · contribs)
  21. YarluFileBot (talk · contribs)
  22. РобоСтася (talk · contribs)
Thanks, I'll use that to work on Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag_3. --Dschwen (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
User:MediaWiki default should not be on that list. --Dschwen (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

add OTRS flag:

Please add:

Thx. --Krd 17:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyone except Billinghurst already has the flag; check Special:ListUsers. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I request the flag too. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed. User has access to the permissions queues. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
And:
GuillaumeG (talk · contributions · user rights management)
M0tty (talk · contributions · user rights management)
Litlok (talk · contributions · user rights management)
--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
All ✓ done now. odder (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

GWToolset request

Please grant me rights to use GLAMwiki Toolset? I just started to work as an tech assistant in Wikimedia Finland and part of my job is to help Finnish GLAMs to use GWToolset. I have rights on Beta (and done my homework) but I would need a rights also for the production server. --Artturimatias (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived by me. Can someone help Artturimatias out ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the Beta is not working right now properly (no uploads possible). So I'cant make any test with our material. I planning to do only small (5-10) uploads in order to test that our tool produces a valid XML and everything is in its right place. The actual uploads are done with the GLAM accounts. Artturimatias (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason to make @Artturimatias wait any longer — especially as he is encountering a problem on the Wikimedia side of things and can't test anything on the Beta cluster — and have therefore granted him access to the GWToolset here on Commons. Best of luck, and thanks in advance for your work :-) odder (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll be careful! Artturimatias (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

removal of local OTRS-member user group

Hello. Per meta:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group a global OTRS-members group has been created to make the feature usable on all wikis. Having this, the local user group is deprecated and should be removed. I already modified the abuse filter 69 accordingly.

Please remove all users from the local group and please give "autopatroller" to any OTRS member who doesn't have this right per other user groups. (For the future I will take care that new permissions OTRS agents will get autopatrolled at Commons.) Thank you. --Krd 13:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Related discussions at COM:VP. — Revi 14:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#RfC: Removal of local OTRS-member user group --Krd 17:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I can do that. Note to self [5] 

$('a[title^="Special:Contributions"]').each(function(i,e) { e.href=e.href.replace('Special:Contributions','Special:UserRights'); $(e).text('rights') })

$(function(){
	t = "Special:UserRights";
	if(wgPageName.substr(0,t.length) == t && $('#wpGroup-OTRS-member').prop('checked')) {
		$('#wpGroup-autopatrolled').prop('checked', true);
		$('#wpGroup-OTRS-member').prop('checked', false);
		$('#wpReason').val('now global OTRS group member');
		$('input[name="saveusergroups"]').click();
	}
});

--Dschwen (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. The OTRS-members group is now empty and can be removed. It is going to get a whole lot less busy on this page now :-( --Dschwen (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Something has been missed. On Commons, OTRS users had OTRS rights to be able to check werther OTRS templates are added by users who actually have the rights for such and to prevent false/wrong OTRS templates to be added. There are also some bots with OTRS rights. They have OTRS rights, because they otherwise would flood OTRS logs and tools. How to handle those? Romaine (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Sysops, patrollers, image-reviewers shouldn't given autopatrol, so INeverCry and myself and some admins had to remove them again. :P — Revi 04:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Dschwen there isn't yet consensus on this project for the OTRS-members group to either be emptied nor removed. What are you doing? russavia (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This is housekeeping. --Dschwen (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not housekeeping at all. An RfC on Meta, whilst having "global" implications can not be implemented on Commons until such time as the Commons community itself approves such a move. You should know this. russavia (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
+1 This action was taken without any consensus on Commons. Commons bureaucrats must be able to show leadership when needed, but this is not carte blanche to ignore the community when they feel like recognizing a discussion on meta, instead of creating a valid one here. This is not why we have bureaucrats on this project, hang your heads in shame. --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Russavia: thanks for pushing the concept of a Commons alternative to OTRS, it looks like the actions here demonstrate that this is the path that would be best for the future of Commons. I believe we can create a method of recording permissions that would be more reliable than OTRS, puts volunteers at far less risk (the WMF having repeatedly refused to underwrite liability of unpaid volunteers), that does not claim to speak for the WMF and with no likelihood that the WMF would kick out all volunteers one day, because of some behind-closed-doors "legal reasons" or boy's-club politics, which is unfortunately the reality of how it works today. --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This flag only shows that someone has access to OTRS. It doesn't grant or remove any access anywhere. There is no reason to have any special flag for Commons, unless we have a special process for granting OTRS access, which cannot happen any time soon. Your complain is purely political, and won't help Commons in any way. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do not marginalize an issue of project governance as "politics", nobody is standing for election, nobody is lobbying. The issue here was whether it is appropriate for Commons bureaucrats to take action to change the way Commons works based solely on a discussion on another project with no consensus for action here. You need only take a look at Dschwen's user talk page to see how badly this has been handled. --Fæ (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I would have waited a bit before removing the flag, to be sure that every one is informed before, but that doesn't change the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

 Question Did anyone check whether the users with the OTRS member right on Commons actually have them globally too? Because some users were granted the OTRS member flag while they don't have access to the permissions or photosubmissions queues. This was for example the case for some Swedish users (they handle the permissions tickets in info-sv) and some Dutch users (wikiportret is part of info-nl and works the same as photosubmissions; access to the permissions queues isn't needed for that)... I doubt that was checked for the global group as the OTRS admins feel that all permissions tickets should be handled within the permissions queues, but imho you can't demand that from people. Trijnsteltalk 15:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Permission ticket should be in permission queues to allow verification. It is imho not okay to have permission tickets in info-queues. Imho wikiportret should move all tickets to a permission queue (or a wikiportrait queue should be crated with access for permission queue users). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
In addition, {{Wikiportrait}} is not listed in ABF, i added the template now. (diff) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Trijnstel. Good point about Wikiportret - I will address that issue. As for Swedish (or other teams) handling permissions tickets outside of the permissions queues: as we've previously discussed, that should not be happening. If a language does not have its own permissions queue the ticket should be in either the main permissions or permissions-commons queue. While I do understand that it might be beneficial to leave the ticket in the info-** queue until the ticket is resolved, it should ultimately be placed in a permissions queue for indefinite archival, so that all permissions users can still verify the permission. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rjd0060, maybe it shouldn't happen, but in fact, it does happen. And I don't blame them. What if a permissions ticket, in a language no one of the current OTRS members speaks very well, comes in in the main permissions queues? It's far easier to let a native speaker deal with such a ticket then keeping the ticket open for weeks or months and then having a non-native speaker answer it in another language (English usually). Maybe you should check how many Swedish users are active in the permissions queues and/or answer permissions tickets in info-sv (like Fluff did iirc) - it could be recommendable to create a special permissions-sv queue. Trijnsteltalk 18:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rjd0060, btw, in case you're thinking about moving the wikiportret queue from info-nl to permissions-nl (no idea if that's the case, but in case it its...), please first inform the Dutch OTRS agents via our mailing list (mail:contact-nl) as I fear not everyone would agree with such a move and OTRS admins obviously don't decide such things on their own. Trijnsteltalk 18:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not say move the queue. At all. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Trijnstel - as I stated, some agents may find it beneficial to leave the ticket in the localized queue (for reasons such as the one you explain). However once the ticket is resolved should be moved to permissions. I raised the issue with the local teams when this was brought up before and we will be sure to address it again.
If the Swedish users (or any users) are working on permissions tickets and do not have permissions access they should probably have it regardless of whether or not they are following protocols. So I see the solution to the issue you raise as to correct things internally (by ensuring agents working on permissions tickets have access to permissions queues and tickets are moved there for archiving at some point even post-resolution). I'll peek at the numbers and see if a dedicated queue is merited. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rjd0060: At the moment we're handling some permissions tickets in info-sv, I think it's me and one or two other Swedes working on info-sv and dealing with most of the stuff landing there. Sorry if that's not the standard protocol. Please advice. /Fluff (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fluff. No big deal. I'll send you an email. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rjd0060: Another example: User:Harold - he has access to info-cs, but not to the permissions queues yet he's adding permission tags on Commons; which is why he had an OTRS flag before. Can't you check all previous OTRS members on Commons with the global list maybe so that you at least know at which ones should be looked at? Trijnsteltalk 14:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Trijnstel; while this of course would be possible it would (again) not be in line with the internal process of how permissions agents are supposed to be handling tickets. Just as I suggested (and will be pursuing) those users in info-sv (and now The Herald and info-cs members) need to get on the same page and use the permissions queues as they are meant. As a result, they would be given access to the permissions queues and receive global group membership. I would ask that we take any further discussion related to the internal process to OTRS wiki or a better-suited forum. Thank you for the information! Rjd0060 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand why this is being done but it really doesn't seem like a good idea, the Commons community no longer has any control over the addition of permission templates, previously we could remove the OTRS flag and be alerted when someone we were concerned about (insufficient knowledge etc) was adding templates, now that option isn't open and it will be necessary to ask the Stewards and others on Meta to remove the OTRS flag, which they might not do. There ultimately needs to be control over the Permissions by Commons, so that we can remove editors with poor copyright knowledge and ensure we have our most capable editors on the Permissions team. Fae is right, there's a boys-club with OTRS at the moment and it's crippling our ability to deal with Permissions. This just makes it that little bit worse. Nick (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I won't comment on everything you said but I will say that if an OTRS agent is improperly adding permissions tickets, simply removing their local OTRS flag really isn't a good way to resolve the issue. We should (of course) resolve it directly with the agent and if there are repeated issues then maybe the particular user is not suited for permissions access. In which case the OTRS administrators should probably be made aware.
While the global group was created for specific reasons as discussed in the RFC, Commons is free to adopt (or not) any part(s) of the globalized setup. I still don't particulary understand or agree with the anti-OTRS sentiment however that's what makes our projects so great. We don't all always have to agree with each other. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please give an example: When has there an OTRS member been removed from the local group because of poor knowledge? Who has ever looked at the abuse filter log or was "alerted" and investigated non-member permission tag additions? --Krd 16:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nick, besides, don't forget I'm a steward too and could assist (and there are more stewards active on Commons). Trijnsteltalk 18:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, our usual process for a user that is acting detrimental to the project is taking to the user first, and if that does not work we block. I really don't see a scenario where we just remove the ORTS right of a user who chooses not to follow commons policy. --Dschwen (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-SUL members

I found User:Base is User:BaseSat on Commons, while he is Base on other wikis. He should have local rights until SUL finalisation is done. — Revi 14:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I added BaseSat to the AbuseFilter whitelist. @BaseSat: can you please solve this sul issues on meta (usurpation & renaming)? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It depends whether I'd be allowed to make the usurpation. Are local policies still applied? If yes then I couldn't 'cause user:Base has useful edits. If I'm allowed to have it usurped (perhaps with some changing links in his photos to a new name and leaving a notice on my userpage with info that all actions under the username before a date are not mine but that guy's if needed) then surely I'll finish my SUL by usurping the local Base. Just to make it clear I'm not going to rename my SUL with about 28000 edits to some other name just because some inactive guy has about 1.5 dozen edits. --BaseSat (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I talked on IRC with a Steward, it might be possible to request it on meta (it is a try wort). When sulfinalisations comes, the Base account will be renamed anyway. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Desysop and self block

Well, I made it to 200,000 deletions, and 10,000 blocks (#1 all-time). I think I did pretty good, and I made it longer this time than Dschwen predicted I would when I got my flag back. ;) This time I'm going to make it truly final and full block my account indef. I ask only two things: 1. that bureaucrats give me time to delete my pages (except the barnstars), set up the old retirement banners and a messages on my user page, and carry out the block, and 2. that no bureaucrat reverses my self-block or alters it unless some policy absolutely dictates it. (I'll ask fellow admins the same before I go). Once I've implemented the block, which shouldn't take long, please remove sysop from my account and leave it with no rights, just like it was when I started almost 6 years ago. Thanks. INeverCry 09:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done why? russavia (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
+1 Why? Jee 09:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing about it in Commons:Blocking policy :) . I can understant why you making this kind of decision. Being involved in non profit project can cause problems in the real life. From my experience, you have the same result if you take it much easier. I mean you can block yourself after 6 month also. and keep editing from time to time in a slow motion. -- Geagea (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, User:INeverCry! Just to clarify for the bystander that might not have read my original comment, it said "Even if INC were to resign in two weeks, we'd still get a lot of admin work out of it :-)." And I am glad it turned out to be substantially longer. At this point I suggest we respect INCs request. I think we owe it to INC. This is not really a vote anyways. What we can do is state that the door will always be open for INeverCry to return. People can change their minds sometimes, right? --Dschwen (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose INC, we respect most of your wishes but not this one. I vote to leave the lights on for you when you get back. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for GWtoolset access

Hi, I'm a curator at Finnish Museum of Photography and we would like to upload our images to Wikimedia Commons in the future. That's why I request the access to use this tool.

Finnish Museum of Photography
Hello! The first step would be to rename your account. We do not allow I strongly discourage institutional accounts on commons. Every account has to be tied to a specific person, and as such should be named accordingly. Next, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. That way in discussions it is clear who said what (without having to go through the history). Once we've renamed the account I ask that you get the GWToolset right on the beta wiki first, do some test uploads, and report back. Then we can look this over, make suggestions and help iron out any kinks. Then I'll be happy to set the flag for you here on commons. --Dschwen (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
@Finnish Museum of Photography: as you can see (it feels weird talking to a "museum"), the naming thing is a currently discussed issue (see also here). I'd be interested to hear your opinion as a contributing organization on this. Is creating a user account for each person that is tasked with uploading a barrier to contributing to commons? Do you even have multiple people at the Finnish Museum of Photography working on uploading content to commons? If not then an account rename (which would be done for you without any additional work on your side) would seem simple enough. --Dschwen (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction about the use of institutional accounts

Dschwen we do allow institutional accounts on Commons. There is no policy that forbids this. russavia (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
To clarify further Commons:Username policy is only a proposed policy. As such we should ignore institutional and corporation accounts. But we should also require them to verify to the Community. This is something that will need to be looked at in the future I think. But as it stands now there is no policy which forbids them. russavia (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
+1 I have given advice to several institutions and during editathons on this exact point. It's a key difference between en.wp policy and Commons norms. I'm rather surprised to see a Bureaucrat muddying the waters and appearing to give out non-policy advice on account renaming. --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, Fae, playing surprised again.. *roll eyes* --Dschwen (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
An institutional account is a bad idea. This promotes account sharing, which is not in our best interest. We want to make sure that we hand rights to a person that has shown the understanding and capabilities to properly use those rights. If the account is shared, we are giving arbitrary other people these rights without a proper review. I am "surprised" that experienced editors like you two think that could possibly be a good idea. Is there any good reason not to recommend the use of a username like Marie Curator (Finnish Museum of Photography)? --Dschwen (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
We differ in opinion there. I think having an institutional/company account is a great idea. German Wikipedia has them (i.e. de:Kategorie:Benutzer:Verifiziert) and it's going to be proposed here too. For those of us who are deal with outreach, the KISS principle really will work, so long as we have verify them. But, still, as it stands now there is no requirement for the rename in this instance. You need to RfC a policy amendment in this regard if you wish to see your opinion become codified. Feel free to ping me if you do this :) russavia (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I will probably do that. --Dschwen (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Dschwen, I'm in a bad place right now dealing with two close deaths in the family. It may be this that makes me really not appreciate your sarcasm which derides my experience over the last 4 years with a significant number of GLAM uploads and uploaders. Many of these projects have involved role accounts.
I expect much better of a Bureaucrat. At the moment your fat-headed sarcastic attitude, to the extent of replacing Commons policies with your personal opinion, makes you look unsuited to continue to wear this particular trusted hat. Grow up and consider treating those of us that volunteer a truck load of free time to this project as your equals rather than your opponents.
Consider me out of this thread, I have more important things to do than be your entertainment. --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
My condolences. Rest assured however that you are not my entertainment at all. I prefer my entertainment to be pleasurable. Your acerbic attacks, fake "surprises" and "disappointments" are nothing but rhetoric devices to berate and belittle other contributors. --Dschwen (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Dschwen just cut it out. There's acerbic notions in your comments too. If you can't handle being told that you don't know what the policies on this project are, then get your knowledge right before potentially creating problems for other editors. Also, Dschwen, as a bureaucrat, you are supposed to keep a level head. The Finnish Museum of Photography is probably thinking right now -- Perkele! What a bunch of asshats. russavia (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Russavia, you are very quick to blame others, but you should first look into your own behaviour. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Everybody on this project, indeed everybody on Wikimedia, needs to have a long, hard think about their actions this year and think about how they're going to conduct themselves in 2015. I hope that on 1 January, people realise that they don't need to make terse comments, have the last comment in a discussion, complain that people don't know what they're doing or just fight in general. That applies to everybody, myself included. I hope for a much more friendly, collegial, productive 2015. Now let's make it happen. Nick (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Alleycat80 - I'd like to request a GWToolset permission rights

Hey,

I am a user from WMIL, and involved in some of our local GLAM cooperations. We have been using manual tools and would like to make things more sophisticated, now that we've grown to a significant number of partnerships. Can I request a GWToolset user authorization? Cheers! Alleycat80 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Alleycat80, we ask that you get the GWToolset right on beta first, play a bit with the tools (there you can make as many mistakes as you want without interfering with commons). Then we gladly set the flag for you here on commons. --Dschwen (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Alleycat80: just a follow up, how is the testing on beta going? Are you making any progress. Do you need help? --Dschwen (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

MoMu Fashion Museum Antwerp Permission to use the GWtoolset (2nd Try)

Hi,

This is the 2nd attempt of getting permission to use the GWtoolset. You will find my 1st attempt here

Since then I've managed (with a little help from Romaine and others, Thx!) to have a successful test on the beta wiki. http://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TobiasMoMu

I've also started a (still very basic) project page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Europeana_Fashion_-_MoMu_-_Thesaurus_drawings

Any suggestions are welcome!

Best T

Hello TobiasMoMu, your test upload on beta looks good. I'm adding the right to your account. Please let us know if you want some more feed back on the first uploads you make here on commons. --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The museum gets support from me (Wikimedia Belgium) with this image donation. Romaine (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Permission for GLAMWikiToolset for Swiss Federal Achives

Dear bureaucrats. I need the permissions for the GWToolset. (Special:ListUsers/gwtoolset) This is urgent. Our plan is to upload 230 pictures > 100MB until monday. We have actually some experiences with the toolset already. Thank you very much. ^MLR --Swiss Federal Archives (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Micha and @Swiss Federal Archives: this is now done. Apologies for the lateness in replying, and I hope you will be able to perform the upload in time. Cheers, odder (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Many, many thanks. --Micha (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Propose to update CC license tags to comply with the new wordings in CC deeds

I think this RfC has run enough. :) Jee 15:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

MGalloway (WMF) had expressed her willingness. But there may be some cooperation needed from our side too who knows coding. I pinged early participants who developed the current design; but no response so far. Jee 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take a look on the weekend. --Dschwen (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Jee 03:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

After Odder's recent edit at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights; that page and Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review are conflicting each other. It will be nice if you can (the crats) update all related pages with a single opinion so that people can easily follow, and to make further steps. :) Jee 11:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Although Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review doesn't have any formal policy or guideline status, as a general advice page it ought at least to be consistent with policy. I would hope the crats will agree that the page should be updated to make it consistent with COM:L. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes; keeping same wording on all three pages (I don't know more pages exist; will let you know when found any) will be nice and professional. Jee 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have now amended my edit to Commons:URAA-restored copyrights to keep it in sync with Commons:Licensing as suggested by @Jkadavoor, but I believe that due to the controversies surrounding my involvement with this discussion, Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review should be updated by someone else. Perhaps @Michael or @Daniel could volunteer? Thanks! odder (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Odder what controversy is there exactly re: your "involvement"? russavia (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@russavia: Please refer to my talk page (permalink) for details on that, and as always, please feel free to join the discussion there. odder (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Odder I've seen the discussion there and quite frankly it is mind-numbingly boring. The only person claiming you are involved is Jkadavoor, and you can safely ignore it. Don't let him stop you from acting in your crat role here; you know what your role is, and what those limits are. Or the other solution is to get one of our disappeared crats to do the necessary work -- mind you, they are so far removed from this project that they really are at the point where they need to hand in those rights. russavia (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the above. The wording that has been added to policy, guideline and discussion pages is an accurate, truthful reflection of what previous discussions have said, what the WMF has said, and I believe also accurately reflects the way in which administrators feel most comfortable in dealing with URAA images/deletions. This is an issue that every administrator and bureaucrat is in some way involved, because it impacts on how they are expected to go about their administrative duties. It's also an issue where a claim of involvement could be made against every participant, including Jkadavoor who, I will add, has been incredibly unhelpful recently, accusing people of vandalism, involvement and doing things they simply never did. I would hope this issue can now be considered resolved. Nick (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok; everybody are involved. Anyway, I updated all pages as in Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act and added a note to refer the policy page for current status. Hope this will help admins to maintain a uniformity in the closing of future DRs and UNDRs. Jee 02:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. The advice pages look much better now that they follow the policy wording exactly (though I'm not sure we need the warning on the advice pages that they may be outdated).

On the issue of 'involvement', we all know that a cry of so-called 'involvement' is often used as part of a negotiating tactic, or sometimes as a bullying strategy, to try to get a crat to back off from some work that needs to be done or some statement that needs to be made to protect the site. While bureaucrats need to be sensitive to issues of true conflict or the appearance of conflict, they ought to make their own appraisal of the situation, to be robust, and to avoid backing off just because someone tells them to. I would find it hard to think of any situation where a claim of 'involvement' could make it improper for a bureaucrat (or indeed an admin or any editor whatsoever) to edit an out of date advice page purely to bring it into line with policy. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for translation admin rights

Hi! I prepare many pages to use the Translate extension and Jarekt suggested me to ask for translation admin rights. Can I get them? --Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The prepared pages are looking OK. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done. Thanks for helping out! --Dschwen (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Hazard-SJ has no TA action since one year. Please remove the flag. (Policy) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Also done. How did you find that case? Do we have a bot yet that checks activity for certain rights and there expiration time according to the respective policy? --Dschwen (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
No, but written now. All users with "null" in "taaction" don't have performed a TA action in the last year. Please note that admins need TA flag to delete stuff in TA namespace. The query also include Translation admins who have recently received the flag, but never used. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


sql query 
MariaDB [commonswiki_p]> SELECT
    ->  user_name,
    ->  REPLACE
    ->  (REPLACE
    ->  (REPLACE
    ->  (REPLACE
    ->  (REPLACE
    ->  (REPLACE
    ->  (REPLACE
    ->  (REPLACE
    ->  (REPLACE
    ->  (REPLACE (ugu.q1, '0', ''),
    ->  '1', ''),
    ->  '2', ''),
    ->  '3', ''),
    ->  '4', ''),
    ->  '5', ''),
    ->  '6', ''),
    ->  '7', ''),
    ->  '8', ''),
    ->  '9', '') AS taaction,
    ->  sysop.isadmin AS admin
    -> FROM user_groups
    -> INNER JOIN user
    -> ON ug_user=user_id
    -> LEFT JOIN
    ->   (
    ->    SELECT DISTINCT
    ->    log_user AS q1
    ->    FROM logging
    ->    WHERE log_type = "pagetranslation"
    ->    AND log_timestamp > DATE_FORMAT(DATE_ADD(NOW(), INTERVAL -365 DAY), '%Y%m%d%H%i%s')
    ->    ) AS ugu
    -> ON q1 = ug_user
    -> LEFT JOIN
    ->   (
    ->    SELECT
    ->    ug_user AS ugsysop,
    ->    ug_group AS isadmin
    ->    FROM user_groups
    ->    WHERE ug_group = "sysop"
    ->    ) AS sysop
    -> ON ugsysop = ug_user
    -> WHERE ug_group = "translationadmin";
+----------------------+----------+-------+
| user_name            | taaction | admin |
+----------------------+----------+-------+
| Yann                 | NULL     | sysop |
| Mormegil             |          | sysop |
| Kelson               |          | NULL  |
| Kaganer              |          | NULL  |
| Dschwen              |          | sysop |
| Miya                 | NULL     | sysop |
| Ilario               | NULL     | NULL  |
| Chrumps              |          | NULL  |
| 80686                |          | NULL  |
| Reedy                |          | NULL  |
| Nikerabbit           | NULL     | NULL  |
| Ragesoss             | NULL     | sysop |
| Lokal Profil         |          | sysop |
| DerHexer             |          | sysop |
| Hedwig in Washington |          | sysop |
| Benoit Rochon        |          | sysop |
| Dereckson            |          | sysop |
| Multichill           | NULL     | sysop |
| ChrisiPK             |          | sysop |
| Jarekt               |          | sysop |
| Kwj2772              | NULL     | sysop |
| Micha L. Rieser      |          | NULL  |
| Jean-Frédéric        |          | sysop |
| Praveenp             | NULL     | NULL  |
| Pleclown             |          | sysop |
| Mmxx                 | NULL     | sysop |
| Rubin16              | NULL     | sysop |
| Magog the Ogre       | NULL     | sysop |
| Brackenheim          |          | NULL  |
| Whym                 |          | sysop |
| Indeedous            |          | sysop |
| Krinkle              | NULL     | sysop |
| Fastily              |          | sysop |
| Ата                  |          | NULL  |
| Mono                 |          | sysop |
| Ebraminio            |          | sysop |
| Didym                |          | sysop |
| Rillke               |          | sysop |
| WikiBronze           |          | NULL  |
| -revi                |          | sysop |
| Sjoerddebruin        |          | NULL  |
| McZusatz             | NULL     | sysop |
| Varnent              |          | NULL  |
| Vogone               |          | NULL  |
| Tacsipacsi           |          | NULL  |
| Steinsplitter        |          | sysop |
| BaseSat              |          | NULL  |
| Patrick87            |          | NULL  |
| Leitoxx              |          | NULL  |
| JurgenNL             |          | NULL  |
| Guillaume (WMF)      |          | NULL  |
+----------------------+----------+-------+
51 rows in set (0.02 sec)

User:CommonsDelinkerHelper

Hi, CommonsDelinker has been rewritten by Magnus (see phabricator:T86483). User:CommonsDelinkerHelper (the sysop bot) does not need longer a own account. Please move sysop flag from User:CommonsDelinkerHelper to User:CommonsDelinker. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, I can add the sysop flag, but to remove it from CDH you'll have to ask a steward! --Dschwen (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
As the bot has been rewritten and is now operated by somebody else (as it seems). We should wait a day or two to get some opinions on this. I'm not opposed to giving CD the flag though. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. See meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#CommonsDelinkerHelper.40commonswiki (you can also remove botflag). In the maintime requests on User:CommonsDelinker/commands can't be removed by bot. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
So CDH used to be in charge of the removal from the task list. Why was this task merged into CD? The privilege separation was a neat feature. Can CD handle not having the sysop flag for now? Or are we impeding CD functions severely by no immediately giving it the bit? --Dschwen (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It dos not make sense to have two accounts (and it wasen't a privilege separation, passwd was stored in the same file). It would be possible to protect User:CommonsDelinker/commands using AbuseFilter (but this method is not 100% safe because of the condition limit - but if you don't like to grant +sysop it would be a solution). Now CD can't edit the request page (=blocking removing replace requests etc.) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It does, please read w:Principle of least privilege. --Ricordisamoa 21:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ricordisamoa: Sorry, but i disagree. There was never a (so called) separation of power (for what i can see). Only two different folders, and the password stored in the same file. So why should we change that? I like to explain you what a separation of power is: Hosting the sysop bot on a different server. You can't request such things from volunteers... - all other adminbots here don't have a separation of power. Instead of saying "thank you" that someone cares about the delinker, you go complain *sigh*. @Dschwen: The CDH has only edited on commons. See my last sentences. *sigh* --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Created a workaround with Special:AbuseFilter/139 --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
(Giving an opinion as a amateur bot writer and follower of the Phabricator discussion) Steinsplitter has dug into the operation of this tool. I appreciate the potential governance benefit of separation of powers, however there is no actual separation of guiding minds to be concerned about. A human equivalent of a Chinese Wall makes no sense, so a veneer of separation, when actually the tool is using the same credentials to do these tasks, would be masking or even give a false impression to our users should they need an awareness of how this works. We are increasingly short of unpaid volunteers with the skills, free time or personal interest in handling serious maintenance jobs, I suggest we find ways to keep what needs to be done as simple as possible. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The privilege separation would in this case not be a security measure, but a means to avoid nasty bugs. The CH code was run and developed under the assumption that the bot does not have a sysop bit, while the CDH task was designed to operate with the bit. We are now operating code that has not been tested with the bit under admin rights. Anyhow, I'm sure this is not a big issue and have added the bit to the CD account. I would however appreciate if such concerns were not simply dismissed without bothering to think about potential implications. I don't think it is in the interest of the project to mindlessly assign admin bits without any discussion.✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I also deleted filter 139 and fully protected the commands list. --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason being that we need to be careful with our condition limit. We have a couple of heavy filters and only a total of 1000 conditions. --Dschwen (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for translation admin flag

Moved from COM:RFR:

I need translation administrator right to take control under the chaotic translations in this wiki. I already have this right in Meta-Wiki and Wikimedia Outreach and will be glad to help you all here. Thank you. Ochilov (diskuto) 02:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Errm... Marking this page is a very very bad idea. All existing translations will be overwritten. Can you please tagg a page for translation, so we can see that you know how the translate extension work? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that it already has a box with other languages. I think it will be better for me to make a withdraw. --Ochilov (diskuto) 12:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Odder's change in the group membership of Russavia

Hi Bureaucrats

I noticed this morning the following in my watchlist

(User rights log); 05:35 . . Odder (talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Russavia from (none) to administrator ‎(Commons adminship is a community prerogative and lies outside of the remit of the Wikimedia Foundation)

It appears to me that odder hereby overrule the WMF Global Ban Policy as Russavia has been globally banned according to this policy. Is that a correct understanding? It appears to me that it is done in protest to the WMF Global Ban Policy and how this was used yesterday to globally ban Russavia. Whereas I fully respect if odder disagrees with the policy or the manner in which it is used, I see it as an abuse of his tools in his role as a 'crat to then hand the admin bit back based on personal preferences, since Commons is not exempted from following WMF policies.

I would like to hear the opinion of the other 'crats on the project regarding this. Is this an acceptable use of 'crat tools? Thanks in advance. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As additional information, odder has informed Philippe (WMF) about his objective for re-instating the bit. Apparently, odder thinks we should run our own de-adminprocess here first to gauge the Commons community opnion. There are two things I do not understand in this:
  1. What is the urgency of reinstating the bit? There are a lot of speculations about the real reason for the global ban, but they are - speculations. A lot of admin collegues appear to believe on Russavias side of the story without even considering the possibility that there may be important details let out. As a precaution and to show integrity with the WFM, I think it would be best to leave Russavias status for the time being. There may actually have been a very good reason for the global ban. We just don't know.
  2. I do not understand why odder thinks we at Commons can overrule a global ban from the WMF?
-- Slaunger (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that Odder's action in resetting the sysop bit was a symbolic gesture by him. It does not and cannot 'overrule' the WMF's actions, as the WMF global ban was accompanied by a global lock which prevents Russavia from logging in regardless of his locally-set sysop status. As to Odder's action itself, I feel it was unnecessary but I am aware that he feels extremely strongly about the need for independence of community decision making from the WMF. I don't feel it would help Commons become more mellow by having a big argument about this symbolic act. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I was writing something very similar, but Michael got there first. I agree entirely with his sentiments.
The only thing I would add is that after the last WMF Office de-adminship action, the community expressed a significant (but by no means unanimous) level of support for de-adminship being left in the hands of the community and local bureaucrats. The actions of odder then attracted the support of the community and he can justifiably claim that he is, again, following the previously expressed will of the community. Nick (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs, thanks for explaining about the global lock. I was not aware that the change merely had symbolic meaning. I agree it is not worthwhile to have a huge discussion about this if the act is merely symbolic. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Nick Thanks for your additional explanation. It does seem like a moot point though to me as whatever the community may think about it, it will have no actual effect. I think it is digging trenches and advocating for silo-thinking instead of building bridges, but that is just my personal opinion. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
If Odder wants to make a symbolic web protest, he should get a 'blog or a facebook page.
As a 'crat instead, he has responsibilities. Responsibilities that include safeguarding the good name of WP in general. When he's happy to re-grant admin rights to such editors, he seems to have little regard for those responsibilities. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Note that odder is a Commons bureaucrat, not a WP bureaucrat. --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I agree mostly with Slaunger. I wish that there would be a better solution that a permanent ban without discussion and appeal to solve the conflict between Russavia and the WMF. Re-sysopping Russavia is the wrong solution and has no practical effect. It it is just a misuse of the bureaucrat's right to express his discontent over the WMF decision. A letter to the WMF would be more appropriate. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, what Michael said. Although I would have appreciated if there had been some communication with the other crats beforehand. --Dschwen (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Philippe (WMF) has commented on the global ban. I think Philippe provides good reasons for not digging into the details. It appears they have an elaborate approval process for such a ban, involving their legal team. As I read his statement, you need to do more than merely provoke Jimmy Wales to trigger such a ban, that is, claiming this is just because of the Jimmy-Russavia controversy seems unlikely. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Slaunger. Having long-term experience with similar issues, I see Philippe's explanation as ordinary fluff. It says nothing that we did not already know, it states what is indeed standard corporate practice, for corporations that are not responsible to a broader community. It's a rationalization for not addressing the basic issue, which is about community trust and trust in the community. One can find "good reasons" for anything. The problem is that, on the face of it, we have alleged reasons for the ban (from Jimbo, on his WP talk page, though he claims he was not involved -- and I believe him, but do remember, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"), and those reasons would be utterly inadequate. The WMF is likely to care most about Wikipedia, and the "reasons" for ban come from Wikipedia. Phillipe says:
there are times when - for the safety of users of this site - we simply must draw the line and ask that you either trust us or don't. This is one of those times.
Someone needs to point out to Phillipe that we don't trust them, if they will not communicate with us. Yes, there are times when privacy must be maintained. However, this appears not to be one of those times. If so, it's possible to handle the matter; Commons has trusted users who could be informed. This should not, however, be handled purely privately, by a single trusted user here, unless that user is clearly representing the community. Rather, if the WMF wishes to continue to insist on privacy, the privacy issue should be handled first. Who is being protected? Russavia? If Russavia was abusive and harassed someone, how will the revelation of this increase risk to that person? What harm does sock puppetry -- the major charge relating to Wikipedia only AFAIK -- do that requires privacy? While it is not impossible that there could be some situation where privacy must legally be maintained, that seems very unlikely here. The claim of Phillipe about very careful process is contrary to the appearance, with a flood of bans abruptly issued.
The argument for privacy has mostly been based on avoiding libel of the banned individual. However, if that's the basis, a banned individual should be able to waive privacy rights. In some cases, specific evidence would need to remain private. However, this kind of issue is already routinely handled with checkusers. No, bottom line, that comment by Philippe provides no reason to trust him or the WMF on this. Once upon a time, many of us trusted the WMF to keep hands off and to act only as servants of the communities. That trust has been damaged, and it appears that Philippe does not care to recognize the issue, nor would I expect him to. He is only an employee of the WMF. --Abd (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have some experience with challenges to cross-wiki actions (such as global locks). Odder's action here is at worst harmless, and, as stated, symbolic. It could not possibly injure the WMF's legitimate interests.
  • A more effective action would be for the 'crats to agree on allowing Russavia to create a new account here, which would open up a channel for communication with Russavia, that is authoritatively him. That account would be explicitly acknowledged as Russavia, and would be linked from the Russavia user page.
  • I suggest that this begin with an agreement from Russavia to only edit his own (new) Talk page with that account, and to avoid any disruption or highly controversial editing, until and unless the community here has agreed to allow him to continue. I would imagine that Russavia's agreement would include not using that account to edit any other WMF wiki, unless explicitly permitted there by local consensus, first. (He would ask through others, not by socking.)
  • The point is to assert local control of purely local activity. The 'crats could decide, through their own consensus, whether or not to allow Russavia to more extensively edit, and whether or not to give this new account the admin bit. And all this can and should be open. To avoid unnecessary disruption, the 'crats may consult privately first.
  • That new account would, indeed, violate the letter of the WMF ban; however, it would not violate the legitimate spirit of it. We already know that Russavia is willing to violate the letter, he has a couple of IP edits to his own Talk page, but I have seen no seriously disruptive actions from him, only an attempt to show his ban email.
  • If legitimate channels of communication are opened, and used with caution, it will avoid disruption, not cause it. It's up to Commons and the Commons 'crats, my opinion. A global ban is of a user, not of a community that might support a user. A community may decide to carve out an exception, and I am proposing fully considering and being responsive to WMF concerns, without necessarily following them slavishly. However, Commons cannot be responsive to secret concerns, though the WMF could communicate directly with the 'crats if there is a need for privacy. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is my understanding that crats are empowered to execute technical functions, and to only take action when they have a clear mandate to do so. They are not empowered to initiate protests against the WMF based on their personal feelings. I don't know the history of this particular crat but this decision to unilaterally make a symbolic override of an office action seems like drama mongering that serves no legitimate purpose.
There is a growing sentiment on many other WMF projects that this project has become dysfunctional due to persons in positions of trust who misuse their authority. If Odder wanted to reinforce that viewpoint, well done. If he wanted to protest the global ban, he should have done so in his capacity as an individual user of the site not by using his advanced permissions to make a useless, inflammatory gesture. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It's true many think that there are «persons in positions of trust who misuse their authority», but those persons are certainly not the community. On "initiate", see the comments above; Odder's action is consistent with previous discussions and consensus. --Nemo 21:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It's always nice to see that whenever I make a remark in a community discussion here or at meta, you always, always show up to contradict it. Makes me feel important. I don't think it's any secret that you and I have, shall we say, differing views on the appropriate use of advanced permissions. Using them to help people=good, using them to make a protest action based on your own opinion=bad. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • By reinstating Russavias admin bit I dont believe Odder was acting within the communities interest as you can all recall a majority of people expressed no confidence in Russavia during the de-crat process a percentage of them called for de-admin at the same time. Starting a discussion without acting would have been an acceptable response but I suspect given the vehement polarisation and the level of power of the users supporting Russavia wield that many people are not responding in support of the WMF for fear of reprisals. I ask that Odder steps aside from the role of Bureaucrat as his action has only further ensured that people wont openly support the WMF in their re-action. Gnangarra 22:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A bureaucrat should not serve community policy as he sees fit, because therefore others will be afraid to express a contrary opinion? This is ridiculous. There is not the slightest hint here of retaliation or suppression of opposition to Russavia. I do see polarization, of a kind I saw before in dealing with global vs. local issues, there those who claim that local wikis have no power, that the wikis are simply "owned" by the WMF (legally true but substantially misleading), they claim that anyone standing for local autonomy is fomenting rebellion and -- this was actually said -- the WMF might close the wiki. If there is fear here, it would be on the other side, that one supporting local autonomy -- or Russavia, or both -- will suffer, in the future, retaliation. That is more likely, probably, but still, I'll testify, so far, unlikely. On the other hand, Russavia may have been banned for something related to this discussion. It happens. Users get blocked and banned for holding onto old grudges and complaints and repeating them. If Russavia threatened to sue, or was seen as threatening to sue, that could be it. On the other hand, there would then be no reason for privacy, and excessive "privacy" could actually encourage a lawsuit. Russavia himself brought our attention to this document, which led me to the talk page I've linked. --Abd (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is clearly a polarizing issue for the Commons community, and unfortunately it seems that in the past year a large majority of this project has turned Commons into "us v. WMF". This state of affairs is disappointing and distracting from the real purpose of this project - to upload quality images and files for use in furthering our online Encyclopedias. While I am not privy to the reasoning behind the Foundations decision, and I personally consider Russavia a friend, I concede that their actions were well within their rights and authorities. At no other place of employment would an employer openly discuss personnel issues with their employees. At no other business or non-profit would human resources involve the entire company in decisions relating to safety, legal matters, or employee performance that jeopardizes the overall business goals. While I also understand that Odder is elected by the community and is attempting to act in the best interests of the community, his action today is contrary to many user's concerns raised at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat). The 'crat tools should not be used to play politics or "take a stand." Philippe has explained that this was not an arbitrary decsion, but instead one with much thought, discussion, and consideration. Re-instating Russavia's sysop rights, while harmless, seems careless given the circumstances. I see no pressing need to reinstate Russavia's sysop rights and suggest Odder remove them. Tiptoety talk 23:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no question about the "right" of the WMF to take action as it has. Odder's action is within his discretion as a 'crat. Obviously, some disagree. Odder, however, is clearly consulting the community, he's not just winging it. There is another side to this that Tiptoety missed: there was also no "pressing need" to remove Russavia's sysop rights. That action stepped over a line, and was not needed for protection of the WMF community. It was additional to the global lock, gratuitiously added. Odder, from my point of view, was simply undoing an improper action, and it took him a moment. Because this action caused no harm, other than the alleged polarization, there is no non-disruptive reason to challenge it. Hence Tiptoety is participating in increasing disruption here, while imagining that he's supporting the purpose of the wiki. Yes, the purpose is hosting images, but the method chosen is a community-based wiki. That requires community decision-making, and it requires functionaries willing to serve the community. Odder is clearly pursuing that goal. It can happen that one suffers sanctions as a result of pursuing established community policy, when it steps on the wrong toes. Been there, done that. I don't regret my action for a moment. I would regret not standing for the community, out of timidity. --Abd (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Gentlemen, this already borders on the absurd . What does it serve to Commons an admin locked globally? This is not for the community, is a personal grudge. Alan (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Info I have initiated a desysop discussion. --99of9 (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Rights removed per Russavia's request on IRC. <russavia> !steward please remove the admin bit for myself on Commons. --Alan (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think that Odder's actions were wrong. This is the action of someone determining how they believe that community should respond, not letting the community respond. If such an action was to be taken to re-add the rights, and Odder thought that this was the action to take then start a discussion, NOT just take action. I believe that this community is still about consensus, and acting unilaterally is simply wrong. To note that this is the second time that this has happened, and the last time 1/3 of a community vote wanted the removal of the 'crat rights, and the summation by the closer included the statement I hope the nuances of this poll won't be ignored so all I can suggest is that the nuances have been completely lost.

Odder you are elected by the community to be a 'crat (noting the defined role there) and you have an important voice in this community, you are NOT the voice of the community. Many of us are elected to roles in this, and broader communities, and we all (have to) learn to act within the bounds of these defined roles; we all have to learn that when we have a strong opinion then we should be keeping away from the tools, that where we have a conflict or vested interest then we most importantly should keep our fingers off the buttons.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Odder has past form for overturning WMF removal of admin bits. Even when, in both cases, the Commons process clearly supported the de-adminship.
I have no faith in Odder as a bureaucrat. I had little before, after JurgenNL, but to see that he's still taking this same approach of political grandstanding against the inevitable result I have even less now. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes the WMF needs to improve its communication with the Wikimedia projects (not just Commons) but it didn't mean that Odder should've miss used is 'crat tools for his own political point scoring. I have no trust left with Odder, this isn't the first time he has miss used his tools and it wouldn't be the last. Bidgee (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bidgee: I am fairly certain that you intend the above paragraph as rhetoric. For the benefit of clarity for readers, you have not presented evidence against community agreed policy on Commons that odder has misused his rights on this project. Unless you can provide a link to a published plan, neither is it possible to prove that he will misuse these rights in the future. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was away for a few days; so no clear idea what had happened in between. But it seems Odder's action is just procedural (and so alright) to tell WMF that they should not cross the borders. Here they can block/lock a user and notify it in their user/talk pages. The remaining things (removing user rights, blocking alternate and bot accounts, watching any future socks, etc.) should be done by local admins. In case of any doubts, we have a recent precedent here. Jee 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Odder misunderstand the conclusion from his de-'crat. According to his understanding it was a support to the "hallucinatory independence of Commons" so as long as he is bureaucrat he will keep doing the same thing. User:MichaelMaggs, your understanding of Odder's acts was wrong (not a matter of native English speakers but simple logic and common sense). He does not care Russavia but only his own agenda. Russavia couldn't answer to his de-admin process so it was might become bad for him. He only meant to stick a finger in WMF eye.
In all his actions he forgot to ask him self the important thing - does this actions serve the benefit of the whole project. This is the main goal. Commons in a position of leading the project as our actions influence all the project . But this kind of leadership only bring us to confrontation against WMF.
I also want to thank to User:99of9 for taking the correct leading step her. Hopefully a step for a new kind of dialog with WMF. Together with that I also want to thank to Russiava that made a end to this farce. And also thank you for all your job her. You did not blocked her in Commons so be well in all your going to do. -- Geagea (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The wannabe-policy is no policy at all, this was an office action. I've not heard of bureaucrats overruling WMFOffice, and generally I'd doubt that this would make any sense. In the specific case I wonder if something like an "admin without deletion rights" exists. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Close this thing, it's attracting flies. This was started here with a misunderstanding, that somehow Odder had reversed the WMF ban. He had merely restored the admin bit, thus returning it to status quo ante, allowing Commons to make its own decision on that point, as was done quickly. There is nothing here for 'crats to do, no call for 'crat action. If anyone wants to discuss the global bans, there is Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#WMF Global Ban Policy. --Abd (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure odder would agree that 'crat actions must always be open to criticism. The so-called "flies" are community members who should be properly heard. I agree there is no further action to take at this point, but similar action and non-consultation was previously cause for a de-crat request, so it is not a discussion that should be flicked away lightly. Before closure, I suggest that User:odder addresses, or at least acknowledges some of the above discussion points. --99of9 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It does seem like rather poor form for a bureaucrat to use their user rights in this way. There's no way that someone who has been banned from all Wikimedia sites through an office action can be an administrator on any of those sites. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, my general view is that wikis go south when noticeboards intended to request action get used for discussion and criticism instead. Is this the best place for this discussion? If so, fine. I'm not in charge.
The comment about "flies" was a generic one about contentious discussions over moot actions that remain open more than needed. It was certainly not about any specific user. If people want a response from Odder, I'd suggest asking on User talk:Odder. He is not required to respond here.
Odder did consult immediately on User talk:Philippe (WMF), and planned to start desysop review. Events overtook that. I could make arguments that the bit should have been left, in every case with globally locked users. It shows the status they had when locked. It could not harm anyone. But the community did want the bit removed, probably, but Russavia short-circuited the process by resigning. Thus the rights of the community were preserved. --Abd (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems pretty odd for a bureaucrat to not respond at all to a thread on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard in which at least one of their colleagues and a large number of contributors in good standing have questioned their use of the tools. My understanding (as an admin on enwiki and a long-term contributor here) is that people who hold advanced permissions are expected to respond to good faith criticism of their use of the permissions. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Abd Consulting comes before action and not afterward. He did not consult him but only notified him. After he take the action he ordered User:Billinghurst not to take an action as a steward. I also direct you to his statement about his action. Odder planned to start desysop in the same evening but did not done so. Anyway, if Odder think that he made a mistake, he have tha stage to tell us that. Unless, unfortunately his bureaucrat right have to be removed. -- Geagea (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Geagea: Odder's comments were made with an oversight hat on his head, not a 'crat hat. Though I would agree with your sentiments about the intent of his statement. The intent was to try to tell me that my action was unsanctioned, and in this I will totally disagree. I also clearly documented my action with a ticket number, so he was being provocative, but that is Odder.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a wiki, actions are easily undone. Yes, he planned to start desysop, but then some other ideas were suggested and he was consulting about that. There was no emergency, just a misunderstanding that started this discussion. Yes, functionaries should be responsive, but this is not the venue for it, my opinion.
As to "ordering Billinghurst," he did not "order" the steward to do anything. He requested that he not do something. And Odder's request was proper, that is, within his ordinary discretion. He is an Oversighter, and was apparently pursuing established Commons policy. Billinghurst disagreed. This is another example of conflict over local autonomy. I cannot judge that interaction. Nor, I'm sure, can Geagea. So, if Odder loses his rights here, from my perspective, it would be if the Commons community does not protect and support those who protect and support it.
I read the above as a threat to start rights removal if Odder does not reply satisfactorily, here, immediately. Perhaps someone considering that should tell Odder. The User talk page is where one notifies a user of something they need to do -- or stop doing. Not this page. Odder has responded to concerns on his User talk. --Abd (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A bureaucrat who isn't monitoring the central Bureaucrats' noticeboard - especially concerning a discussion of their use of the Bureaucrat permissions - should surrender the tools, or have them removed, for that reason alone. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, you may have a point, if a bureaucrat has been inactive in responding to this noticeboard for a long time, this is likely to show they are not following their leadership duties as defined in the guidance for bureaucrats. However a quick search of the history of this noticeboard shows that odder is far more active and responsive here than some other bureaucrats, some being inactive for a very long time indeed. Here is a short list of current bureaucrats who have not contributed here for more than a year and the exact day of their last edit:
Jusjih 2013-09-07, Cecil 2011-11-12, Kanonkas 2010-11-09.
--Fæ (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why, but Fæ's list is inaccurate. Jusjih and Kanonkas have both been active, last edits were January 4, 2015, for both of them. The most inactive 'crat is Cecil, who has a wikibreak notice on her Talk page. Last serious editing was at the end of August, 2014. If anyone is concerned about Cecil's continuation as a 'crat, Cecil should be asked on her Talk page. Not here. When one is inactive, the first thing to go is following massive discussions on noticeboards! --Abd (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It is correct that general edits to Commons are more recent. The dates are quoted are correct for the last time they contributed to this noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Jusjih has no time for commons, but time for meta:Stewards/Elections_2015/Statements/Jusjih ... I think he should resign. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Nick-D and Steinsplitter - if folk are inactive they should drop rights, if they wish to return it should be considered but holding on to rights when inactive is not the way to treat the community that trusted them with the rights. --Herby talk thyme 14:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Herbythyme, I would hope that any Bureaucrat that drops the right, and later wishes to regain it, should have the good judgement to re-stand for election; even if they have not been away for more than a year. I see no harm in applying this expectation for admins either, as without establishing the current consensus there appears a lack of trust in the election process that originally elected them and at the end of the day only takes 7 days of voting. Anyway, we are on a far tangent. If someone wants to talk about the Steward elections or how hats are handed back outside of consensus, then those are really new threads and might even be better on a more widely seen noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
If someone is reasonably uncomfortable with the current crats they are free to issue a de-crat request. This discussion, though, seems to be going to reach it's dead-end soon, and will unlikely lead to any new argument. --Krd 14:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above) In spite of low activity (only two edits since the 18th), Odder was extremely responsive to comments on his Talk page. He has not responded here, yet. The user who started this discussion also asked about the action on User talk:Odder and Odder replied in detail. (The discussion). On the 18th, Odder engaged in a number of discussions of the events, he has not been aloof and isolated.
The question asked here was not of Odder, it was of the other 'crats. There are 7 other 'crats. Four have commented here. 99of9, Dschwen, EugeneZelenko, and MichaelMaggs. The last more or less expressed 'crat consensus.
My understanding of wiki dispute resolution is that it starts with discussion on Talk pages. Noticeboards are down the road, properly. In his comment here, 99of9 has: "Before closure, I suggest that User:odder addresses, or at least acknowledges some of the above discussion points. However, there has been no request on User talk:Odder, and my sense of 'crat restraint is that a 'crat will not get entangled in contentious discussions. So: if it is desired that Odder respond here, I suggest he be asked, and by another 'crat, when that 'crat considers the discussion here complete and ready for review. I'd actually close it, pending comment by Odder, i.e., close the top part and open a subsection for response only by Odder at first, and then comment from others if considered useful. Odder should have ample time to consider the response. There never was an emergency here, except in the minds of some who did not understand how global locks work. They prevent login, that is all they do.
Basic wiki principle: no wiki user is required to do anything. As pointed out, there are inactive 'crats, study, however, only one has no activity in January. Tradition is that functionaries may be inactive for substantial periods. It is best if they notify the community that they are taking a break, but it is not required. If inactivity is considered a problem, the 'crat should be pinged on their Talk page, that's standard practice.
When I wrote that this was gathering flies, it was about discussion that becomes a sprawling mess, that continues to ping 'crats watching the board with edits outside the board function, there being no appropriate action. It was not about criticism of Odder's action, per se, but what happens in noticeboard discussions when nobody takes the initiative to recognize that there is nothing to be decided and close them. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment This discussion should be closed. Slaunger asked "I would like to hear the opinion of the other 'crats on the project regarding this." and MichaelMaggs replied, adding that "having a big argument about this symbolic act" is probably not a good idea. I'm sure Odder has read the comments. The issue of what to do with inactive 'crats/admins/etc is a separate discussion. -- Colin (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It should be closed, though I think that we should note that we know that Odder will be totally aware of this discussion. [During the course of this discussion, at meta Odder has requested removal rights of Commons admins so is doing their 'crat tasks.] What is disappointing to me is that Odder has 1) not commented at all, 2) neither acknowledged that their actions may have been rash, nor were undertaken with the consensus of this community. I am not encouraged by a 'crat who focuses on their narrow, apparently jaundiced PoV, to the exclusion of the broader scope of the view of the community. I am even less encouraged by their attempting to hide and ignore commentary. We all make misjudgements, or mistakes, it is part of being human. Trying to bluff your way through does Odder no credit, whereas the ability to demonstrate the ability to reflect on the community's opinion would be well worthwhile for future confidence of the community and the consideration of an apology would be worthwhile. Put your grudges aside and show the ability to be a neutral judge of consensus!  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Some folks incl. me needed some venting, but toggling the admin bit for some hours was still a kind of "null edit", and we do no null edit wars. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Be..anyone: That is completely understood, and weirdly I have no issue if the 'crat action had been done part of a community consensus. So for me, the 'crat appropriate action could have been to start the discussion about the actions of WMF to remove rights that the community had granted, the community comments, and if there was a consensus to reapply then undertake that action.

If we don't like the actions of the WMF, should our community action be better or worse? This then becomes a fight about principle, not this futile pissing on the doormat. IMO always go for the moral high ground.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has not progressing because Odder is not willing to discuss. As being said 'crat actions must always be open to criticism and he have to discuss about the rational behind his action. 'crats are not kings, they are note above discussion with simple users and admins. We can not expect everybody understand (or willing to understand) nuances, it that case the only way is to say clear as possible. I think that all my word in my first comment her are correct. Unless Order says different, de-bureaucrat process should be engaged. To figure out if we really want to "stick our finger in WMF eyes" and to find out if we agree that this kind of decision should be forced without discussion (discussion with other bureaucrats, and also does bureaucrat have to discuss about his action afterword).
Few words about opt-out of the WMF Global Ban Policy. I Truly can understand the feeling of the users comment there. Some of them were friends of Russavia, some of them receive help from him and some of them just appreciated his work. And more - the block of Russavia was sudden and absolute. But to base any leading action on that is irresponsibility. Bureaucrat should be the responsible adult. It was already mentioned in the same discussion You can not opt out the terms of service and continue using this site the same time foundation:Terms_of_Use#12._Termination. There was no reason to block Russavia in Commons but he was blocked, and we can't do nothing about it. It is only a proof that Commons is not independent by definition. It is a part of larger project and should seek the benefit of the whole project first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geagea (talk • contribs) 02:43, 24 January 2015‎ (UTC)
"This discussion has not progressing because Odder is not willing to discuss." Could be, but per COM:AGF it's also possible that he missed the very fact that people are still waiting for his reply on this page. In any case, I posted a note on his user talk here. :) Let's wait. Trijnsteltalk 12:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, for how long AGF of non responding should work. 24 hours? 2 days? 3 days? a week? a month? a year? As the time goes by AGF becomes naivety. The discussion opened in 18 January. my comment was in 24 January. 6 days. In 21 January it was suggested to close the discussion. Odder have been following this discussion but could not find time to post "please don't close this discussion I will respond later." or something like this. Discussions are very important part of community base project. Good faith should be assumptions to all the participant. Being deeply amusing from a comment of user have a tone of contempt is not very helpful to discussion. -- Geagea (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Response by odder

Hi all,
thank you for all your comments, questions and criticisms.

Let me start by apologizing for not responding to your messages earlier—I've been extremely busy over the past few days in real life, and while I've been following this discussion to the best of my abilities, I could not find the time to respond to your comments as they came. However, let me state that the assumptions that I've been ignoring the discussion and trying to hide from criticism—as opposed to just assuming good faith and reading through what I did write—are entirely untrue and, frankly, very saddening.

I believe very strongly that my action of re-instating @russavia's adminship privileges—though merely a symbolic act—lay entirely within my discretion as a Commons bureaucrat. The Commons community, which as I stated multiple times, is the only body with the right to assign and remove local administrator privileges, has never agreed to revoke russavia's adminship status, and it—and only it—could have made such a decision. Sadly, that decision was taken out of our hands by the Foundation's unilateral action, and my reinstating of russavia's adminship was meant as a means of returning the ability to make that decision to the community—as I already stated in my very first response to @Slaunger's questions, it was never meant as a protest against anything, and particularly not against the Foundation's banning policy which I find useful and important.

I vehemently oppose the opinion that my returning of that ability to the community was an abuse of my bureaucrat privileges; on the contrary, I believe I have acted in the community's best interest based on my understanding of the adminship policy and community consensus on the matter. My reading of my fellow bureaucrats' comments above is that they basically agree with my view on the matter (in that the community should decide whom to allow to hold adminship); I'm thankful for their opinions and I'm glad they decided to post them in this open forum.

However, considering the great amount of criticism over my actions regarding JurgenNL and russavia cases, from now on I will not get involved in any and all matters regarding all future actions by the Wikimedia Foundation in my role as a Commons bureaucrat. Specifically, I will not get involved in restoring user permissions revoked on the global level on Meta (either by the Foundation or by community-elected stewards), and will let my fellow bureaucrats handle those issues—whereas by starting community-wide consultations or acting directly according to their own understanding of Commons policies and their role as bureaucrats.

I would also like to use this opportunity to repeat other people's calls to have a comprehensive and quality discussion regarding the authority of the Commons community over the assignment and removal of admin privileges, and the role of the Meta community and the Foundation with regards to this issue; I believe it would help us avoid such controversies in the future.

Finally, I would like to offer my apologies for starting this controversy; at no point was it my intention, and I deeply regret that it turned out to be so. I hope that despite the poor start, we will all be able to use this opportunity to improve Commons policies and make it a better project.

Again, thanks for your patience, and I'm looking forward to your comments. Yours, odder (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This was, as you say "merely a symbolic act" so your belief that it "return[s] the ability to make that decision to the community" is deluded. You mention "adminship policy" but let's be clear: someone who can't edit can't be an admin. That's so fundamentally basic we haven't bothered to codify it in the policy. Would it help avoid confusion if we did? Perhaps we should also explicitly exclude dead people and fictional people in our adminship policy? All I see is you once again pissing on WMF and rationalising your behaviour afterwards. I do question your judgement if your intention was not to "start[] a controversy". I don't see that it is, at present, possible to have any rational debate over the role of WMF/community wrt blocks or adminship while reaction is essentially divided on the basis of one's opinion of Russavia. I'm grateful for your statement wrt your future reactions to WMF, and imo that is sufficient to dampen any enthusiasm for a decrat process at present. -- Colin (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Your explanation boils down to an argument that you restored the admin tools to Russavia's account for the sake of following procedures. However, the fact that you did not commence the community procedures you identify as being necessary to remove Russavia's admin tools greatly undermines this explanation, especially as you have a responsibility to manage the assignment of admin rights to accounts and so should have taken the lead with starting such a procedure if you judged it necessary (it obviously not being a good thing on security grounds alone for a locked account to have admin rights). I note that in your initial explanation of your actions you repeatedly conflated your opposition to Russavia's ban with your action, which also undermines this explanation ("I vehemently oppose the use of the policy to globally ban russavia and, in particular, to remove his admin privileges on this wiki" ... "And although I appreciate that the Foundation might impose bans however they please, this particular situation is particularly complicated, as russavia has been a highly active and dedicated administrator ... without any evidence to the contrary, it is hard to believe that they engaged in such harassment of other users that would warrant his global ban"). I agree with Colin that you miss-used your bureaucrat permissions to make a point, and it appears that you are now misleading the community to justify your actions. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nick-D: I find it deeply amusing but sadly no longer surprising to see your continued cherry-picking of the responses I posted over the past week; it doesn't take that much of an effort to see what were the reasons behind my not immediately starting a de-sysop procedure against @russavia (hint: it's somewhere here). Of course, it is much easier to post unsubstantiated allegations and assumptions about my actions—particularly using rhetoric phrasing that ensures no blame can be attached to you, such as "it appears…"—than to objectively present my point of view to other participants in this discussion; however, it makes your motives very questionable, and makes me wonder what is it that you're trying to achieve here. odder (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an ulterior motive, and I'm not cherry picking: you posted that stuff on your talk page in response to queries about your action. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi odder. Thank you for your response. I am fully aware of the constraints of real-live activities and how they can obstruct swift responses. Whereas I still do not understand the sudden urgency you had in unanimously re-instating the bit without any community consulting among fellow crats, I appreciate your statement that you will abstain from restoring user permissions revoked on the global level on Meta in the future. I think that is a good decision, as I do not trust you are able to make the appropriate un-biased decisions yourself in such cases as was also clear from the JurgenNL case, where there was absolutely no urgency either. In those cases I think your priorities have been wrong. As a precaution, do not reinstate, as the WMF may actually have information, which you do not have nor should have access to, which prevails over the local authority of our Community. It is as if you have not even considered in those cases, that your view of the case could be incomplete and that the WMF might actually have very good reasons for doing what they did. And as in any professional organization, when the management decides it has to dismiss a member, it is a matter between these parties and not the public. For me, it reflects silo-thinking and not a holistic approach to at least try to work constructively together between the projects and the WMF. Although you state that you enthusiastically support the policy and the new terms of use, it appears that you add a by-line - "as long as they do not ban a user I do not think should be banned". You wrote that you vehemently opposed Russavias global ban. On what grounds? What kind of information do you have, which the WMF do not have? If you have other information, could it be that it was incomplete or biased? The WMF is in a damned if they do and damned if they do not share information about the objectives of the global ban. Philippe (WMF) stated recently as another user keeps pressing that button till it snaps
I'm sorry, but I simply can't let that stand. The claims are not scurrilous. You are not in possession of all the facts. That is not your fault: we haven't given them to you. But you do not seem to recognize that fact. You are not in possession of the facts. Multiple people - from my team, and from the legal team - have examined the evidence in each of these cases. We have an extremely high standard to meet prior to acting, and each of these met that standard. The case is not scurrilous. In each of these cases it is ironclad. I'd stake my professional reputation on it - and indeed, I have. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this quite a strong statement, and if some users for instance still seriously believe russavia was banned just for provoking Jimmy Wales, this would mean that Philippe is outright lying. Personally, I do not have any reason to believe he is not telling the truth, that they had good reasons. The WFM is of course also painfully aware that such a ban would be controversial, especially on Commons, and they are not doing it unless they believe it is really needed.
Last, I do not find your belittling of Nick-D above appropriate, where you find his comment "deeply amusing but sadly no longer surprising". I appears to me that you are not really taking this serious and that the sincerity your are exposing in your response is not very sincere one once you start scratching the surface. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The Philippe statement was made as a misunderstanding of what had been said just before. The WMF claims were not called "scurrilous." Rather the claim I considered scurrilous was this:
Dammed if he does dammed if he doesn't, the banned user only needs to reveal enough information to instil confusion and facilitate the desired drama."
That was not Philippe's statement. However, the trope "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't" is repeated above. Philippe is not "damned." There are issues of policy here, and of "the management." For many years, the WMF has relied on a legal theory that it did not manage the community. Something has shifted, and some are concerned, and others simply think that the WMF is the management, and the manager can't make mistakes, or must be treated deferentially. I would agree but would substitute "respectfully" for "deferentially." The WMF and the community have always existed in a symbiotic relationship, and the purpose of the WMF is to empower the community.[6] The concern is that this could be lost. --Abd (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
If you going to quote me aleast have the decency not to cherry pick part of the comment the full quote was Dammed if he does dammed if he doesnt, the banned user only needs to reveal enough information to instil confusion and facilitate the desired drama. While the WMF has to consider not only the drama, but also doing minimal harm to them while satisfying the community desire for knowledge along with not exposing the WMF to other external implications from what has taken place. Gnangarra 00:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC) the globally blocked person can pick pick and choose what they reveal. I thank Odder for his explanation but have similar reservations about how that coincides with his actions at the time specifically the lack of starting a discussion on the matter at the same time as restoring the admin tools. Theres a lot of heated debates going on from this across many projects, noticeboards and user talk pages, in the interest of settling the drama and closing this piece of Commons past I think its time to move along to other activities accept in good faith Odders offer.Gnangarra 03:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Odder: "I will not do it again" (paraphrasing for brevity)
I don't believe you. You said that before, in the Jurgen case [7]. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The cited comment was specific, about the actions performed in that case. While there is a resemblance, in the Jergen case there was public information about the desysopping, it was all transparent. Reading over that de-crat process, I see certain users pushing assumptions of bad faith, and nothing is done about this, and I recognize the same names here. Apparently, this has come to be expected on wikis. I thank Billinghurst for his thoughtful comment below. I attempted to request a close here, since there is no 'crat action to consider, but the sense was that users wanted Odder to respond. Odder has responded. I see many statements above that are simply false. Should I correct them? How long will this remain open so that every nuance of Odder's response can be exploited for attack, and old claims dredged up, repeated? --Abd (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
When you "attempted a close here", you did it by describing other editors as "flies". You'll perhaps be surprised to learn that some of us don't appreciate the comparison. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course not. However, I did not "describe other editors as 'flies.'" Just like a lot of claims about what people said, they don't match the originals. Seems to be common on wikis. Even though what people said is in the record, it doesn't matter what they said, it matters what we say they said. I've seen that on-line since the 1980s. Now, this is continuing to attract flies. Flutter, flutter. There is no purpose to it any more. So:
Please close this.--Abd (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact, we listen and weight the opinions of small flies and other flutters with the same scale used for big mammals. Otherwise we need not care the screams from some single purpose accounts. Jee 02:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Odder: thanks for the response, and your recognition that the community wishes for no immediate re-assignation of rights where they have been removed external to Commons. It is evident that the community (part or whole) prefers to discuss such matters about whether to have, or prior to any, action by the bureaucrats.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that Odder "recognized" what Billinghurst claimed. Rather, he agreed to not personally act in that way (I assume that could change if bureaucrats were authorized by the community to do this). I do agree with Billinghurst that "part" of the community -- definitely not the "whole" -- prefers discussion first. Odder asks for a discussion of the issue and clearly does not consider it settled. --Abd (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question. I really have empathy to the users that comment WMF Global Ban Policy discussion and I am not judging any of the comments. Odder, do you think, based on this discussion, that the community opt-out of the WMF Global Ban Policy? Do you think that any operational action should be done as a conclusion from this discussion (as a bureaucrat, oversighter or admin)? -- Geagea (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Geagea: As an oversighter, I have zero opinion on the issue, as it is as far removed from oversight responsibilities as you can get (meaning that oversighters never deal with this sort of issues; our actions are very strictly guided by the oversight policy). In all my other roles, I find it very unlikely that the Foundation will allow any one single project to opt-out of their internal policy; to be quite honest, unless the Foundation starts talking to us more broadly than they have until now, I am afraid we've hit a dead end. And as for the discussion itself, I think that it is way too inconclusive (and unstructured) to warrant any other action than further consultation, hopefully with a bigger involvement from other users. odder (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
      • @odder, here you clearly said that Commons has opted-out of the global sysop system. And despite to your word about zero opinion and avoid such controversies in the future, you still continue with the same idea of activism against other projects of the foundation. You cant push any button her but toy are making clear voice with the same sound. Please can you tell me, according to your knowledge, which guidelines/instruction/else Commons has opted-out (redirect them). -- Geagea (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
        • @Geagea: I don't really understand the question–perhaps you could try rephrasing it–and I definitely don't understand how my discussion about the use of the oversight permission is relevant here. In case my previous answer was not clear enough, here it is again: oversighters never deal with issues such as the global banning policy. Oversighters have only one policy that guides their actions, the oversight policy. Oversighters do not get involved in policy discussions regarding any other policy. Please do not drag my actions as an oversighter–or, indeed, any other oversighters–into this discussion. Thank you. odder (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is going round and round in circles, the consensus (though by no means unanimous) after the JurgenNL user permission incident was that the Commons community was capable of dealing with users who should have their permissions removed for reasons of serious conduct issues, and that there was no need for the WMF to do so without informing or consulting with the community here. There is no reason to believe the community could not deal with Russavia's sysop permission, which would have been removed automatically due to lack of use. The real problem is a lack of a clearly laid out policy on removal of rights. I think time and effort would be better spent making a clear and rational policy which bureaucrats like Odder would need to follow and which they can refer people to in the event of confusion or concern. I feel Odder and the other bureaucrats would have come in for some criticism if they hadn't stood up to the Foundation and did something similar with Russavia's sysop permissions, for what it's worth. I think, in part because of the JurgenNL permission incident, bureaucrats are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. We still don't have a coherent policy on removal and return of sysop permission for people like Herbythyme or other returning administrators. Can we, instead of arguing and disagreeing on who said what and when, get on with making sure this sort of issue can't happen again, either with Odder or any of our other bureaucrats, by agreeing once and for all, on a coherent permission policy. Nick (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A clearer policy would help, though it should be within the WMF Global ban policy as thats where the issue originated. There are some occasions when Commons needs to acknowledge it is part of a bigger community rather than an isolated society answerable only to itself. Gnangarra 13:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not totally clear which issue you two think need clarified? Are we still discussing the admin bit of a global banned user? For crying out loud, if you want a policy statement how about "A globally banned user cannot be an admin. It does not matter one jot who removes the bit.". The community has much better things to worry out that some permission bit in a user who can't edit. Nick, your suggestion that such a protest action was necessary to avoid criticism doesn't really reflect the response here by the community, nor the opinions of the other 'crats who I haven't seen support it. Do we need to bring in Wikipedia's "Don't disrupt ___ to make a point?" guideline (I see we only have an essay)? Surely that would put an end to these sort of knee-jerk revert protests and petty power games. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure we have to make more guidelines (after discussion). We should made guideline: What to do when admin in Commons blocked in another project (I disagree that this project is isolate project), guidelines that can avoid canvassing in IRC channel and many more, but meanwhile I can definitely say that Odders action/s was wrong. -- Geagea (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Odder, Your interpretation about not allowing global sysops in Commons is biased to your obsession to the independence of Commons. Stewards are not part of the same decision. I find your understanding problematic as being motivated from your obsession. Together with that I find your lordly tone in the same discussion, un-collegial. User:Billinghurst is part of Commons, none of his actions cannot be considered as outside interference, no matter which role he acts. This came together with your un-counting the other 'crats in your actions. You are not a king and Commons is not a kingdom.
I also think that there is a big problem with nuances. Misunderstanding or unwillingness to understand them it's a problem for bureaucrat. Considering your statement: But I have clearly admitted my mistake above, answering an earlier question from @Andy Dingley and said that I would not perform my actions again. together with my comment above, I don't think you are qualify to be a bureaucrat. Sorry Odder. -- Geagea (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_3&oldid=248330555"