Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 2018

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

Translation admin rights back

Hello, crats.

Tulsi Bhagat had their user rights removed when they were locked. They reached me on IRC requesting that those groups were restored. I restored those that could be done by admins, but translation admin is missing. You may want to restore it if you agree. Thanks.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a crat but why doesn't they ask the rights back theirself? Seems like a small effort. Natuur12 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I think they saw me on IRC and, as I was the one who removed the other rights, they requested to me there. They were notified about this section here thought and might want to weigh in.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agreed with Teles. The thing about to ask the rights back myself: See here, Didn't get any result. So that I better thought to talk with the revoker. I saw him on IRC. Since, He was the revoker. I've placed the matter to him there and he has proceed. Thanks ! Hoping this uncontroversial. Regards — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 08:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Temp Account Creator Request

Hi,

I would like to apply it to my alternate account Artix Kreiger 2. I was uploading images from Flickr and I kept getting a 0 error. I think it was some 8 edit/60second rate limit thing I've hit probbably. So I am requesting the account creator right (0 rate limit) right for my alt for a moment to see if it solves the upload. Its a 500 upload batch. Thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • There is no 8 edit/60 second rate limit "thing", both your accounts are autopatrolled so there is an extremely high rate limit which is extremely rare to hit unless you're running a bot without a flag (380 per 72 minutes for normal users. Auto patrol raises it to 3 million in an hour (999per second)). Please share the error message you are receiving, it is more likely you are experiencing a bug or error than rate limit. You're not uploading to a level requiring the use of the account creator right and we certainly don't hand out permissions "for a moment" to test a theory. ~riley (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Since I didn't take a screen shot, I can't provide any sort of proof of that. I retract this comment. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done - If you experience this issue again, contact me and we can open a phabricator ticket for this issue. ~riley (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

GLAM Toolset rights

I need GLAM Toolset rights. I am here since April 2017 and have many edits.--√Jæ√ 10:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please describe what you intend to do with the toolset. --Krd 11:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Krd: I want to upload freely images from Flickr.--√Jæ√ 11:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    The GWT is not like F2C, though it can upload images from Flickr, it is up to the operator to extract the right fields from Flickr and feed that back to GWT as a XML file. It would also be good practice to layout any very large planned upload (>10,000 images) as a project with a Commons project page. You have had access to GWT on Beta Commons since the end of January. Please run a test batch upload there first to gain confidence with how the tool is used. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: How I can get a XML of a flickr photoset ID?--√Jæ√ 12:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know of any easy way. I would use the FlickrAPI with calls like this, to datamine the info, then export the records to an XML file formatted like mw:Help:Extension:GWToolset advises. There may be tools to pull data about a Flickr album or photoset straight into a spreadsheet but these are ways of doing it that I have no experience with.
The upload wizard can upload a Flickr album, but this needs the user to be an license reviewer or sysop. Even then, I think the blacklists and license constraints are automatically enforced (not sure, you would have to check).
If you have a particular project in mind, you could write it up as a COM:BATCH request then discuss and think about what you would need to learn if you want to do it yourself. --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: By which way you upload your files? I will upload by that way.--√Jæ√ 13:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not something available off-the-shelf without work, but there's nothing to stop you trying. As I explain at User:Fæ/Flickr API detail, the way I do it relies on being able to write in Python, have a Python installation and handle the install of modules that are peculiar to the way I do it. Example Pywikibot based programs you can customize for free are at https://github.com/faebug/batchuploads, but to use these you must be competent with Python first and there is no step-by-step guide. If you know other programming languages, Python is fairly easy, but I expect any programmer would want to rewrite my code into something they understand better. Python is highly recommended as a learning language, if you want to try it as a hobby. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: By this tool I have got the file information but I don't know how to save it?--√Jæ√ 13:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You are supposed to write some code around the call, then import the xml data and process it. The example calls on the Flickr help pages are just that, examples, not a solution to avoid writing a programme. In Python you can use a module like https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-flickr/0.3.2, which requires you set up a Flickr API key (see Flickr online help about their API). Again this is not stuff you can pull off-the-shelf and start using. There's a lot to learn if you have never used APIs as part of your programmes before. --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: By which way you upload this file?--√Jæ√ 13:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

By creating a customized variant of this code. Almost every upload project I run requires custom mapping of metadata and customization of how that metadata is either webscraped or pulled from a unique API for that archive. --Fæ (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jæ: As you have opened another bot request at Commons:Bots/Requests/Jæbot (2), I consider this withdrawn per above. If I'm mistaken, please advise. --Krd 09:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:B_dash

Please see. --Túrelio (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 09:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Assign CommonsDelinker bot flag

I like that we now get echo notifications if we are mentioned in edit summaries. Problem is I keep getting these notifications after I delete a file which was on use on Commons, since CommonsDelinker links to my username. Bots are supposed to be except from this new notification feature, but CommonsDelinker doesn't have a bot flag locally on Commons. Could a 'cat assign the bot a flag please? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I know that Commons:Bots/Requests exists, but this isn't about allowing the bot to run or not, but merely assigning the user group for a well established bot, I thought this would be a more appropriate venue - especially since it isn't my bot to request a flag for. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I generally support this, but I'd like to have double checked that this doesn't suppress any desired notifications. Can you please ask the bot operator(s) to comment here? --Krd 09:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a single active op/maintainer, User:Magnus Manske, though others are named in its history. Magnus may want to handle this, or perhaps more maintainers should be added? --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
+1. Why do these notifications appear now? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Added to the blacklist, should resolve the problem. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Can anybody confirm that the issue is resolved? --Krd 07:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove gwtoolset from User:Lankiveil

Unfortunately, Lankiveil is no longer with us, so gwtoolset should be removed. --Rschen7754 21:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, thank you for letting us know. odder (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for Translation administrator

bachounda

Actually we working on Wiki loves Africa / Monuments / Earth Contests, we create many pages on diffrerents laguages, the great constraint, is to how translate the landig pages and other sub pages we should to wait until more thar two months,like this request without response : Translation marking request;
Anthere leader of Wiki loves Africa Contest since 2014, She proposed me at this section to help, To speed up the translation on the Wiki loves Africa pages, if I am accepted, this will allow to the Projects a best gain of time to see the Wiki Loves Africa pages in differents languages and translated fastly and effectively. thanks --Bachounda (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Could it be possible to grant user:bachounda translation administration rights for him to help in particular with Commons:Wiki Loves Africa pages. It would be very helpful to our team. Thanks

Please Kindly don't add Your Support Below
only authorized users can add their reviews

- Thanks

Support

What process are you voting for? Is a vote the way this works now? --Fæ (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi actually we working on Wiki loves Africa / Monuments / Earth Contests, we create many pages on diffrerents laguages, the great constraint, is to how translate the landig pages and other sub pages we should to wait until more thar two months,like this request without response : Translation marking request;
Anthere leader of Wiki loves Africa Contest since 2014, She proposed me at this section to help, To speed up the translation on the Wiki loves Africa pages, if I am accepted, this will allow to the Projects a best gain of time to see the Wiki Loves Africa pages in differents languages and translated fastly and effectively. thanks --Bachounda (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It is not a vote, and the user please should request it themselves if possible. --Krd 16:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment What is going on here? Why are people voting here? Please, this is not a RfA. There is no reason to canvass for this tool and the user should request the tool themselves. T Cells (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I think according this policy the request is on the page is at the adequate place there Commons:Translation administrators/Policy --Bachounda (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 11:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for GWToolset user

Hello,

I'd like to request the rights to become a GWToolset user. I'll be learning to use it next week at the Women Tech Storm hackathon in The Hague (Netherlands).
I'm a trusted user and a long-term volunteer. I'm an admin on Commons and nl-Wikipedia and on the OTRS team. I hope that with the GWToolset I can help with the requests on the Batch Uploads page. Ciell (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Per standard practice please make some test uploads at Commons beta with the toolset. --Krd 11:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
My test uploads are in the queue on Commons Beta. Ciell (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Krd, are my uploads sufficient? Is there anything else you need me to do? Ciell (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. --Krd 16:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for GWtoolset user

Hello,

I'd like to request the rights to become a GWToolset user. I'll be learning to use it at the Women Tech Storm hackathon in The Hague (Netherlands).
I'm a Wikipedian in Residence and hope that with the GWToolset I can publish the collections I work with on Wikimedia Commons. As a volunteer I also want to help with the requests on the Batch Uploads page. I uploaded 3 test uploads which are in the queue at Commons Beta. Thanks so much for helping out! SIryn (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Krd 12:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for GWToolset user

@Krd: @Natuur12: I'd like to request the rights to become a GWToolset user. I'm be learning to use it at the Women Tech Storm hackathon in The Hague (Netherlands). I'm a Wikipedian in Residence and hope that with the GWToolset I can publish the collections I work with on Wikimedia Commons. As a volunteer I also want to help with the requests on the Batch Uploads page. I uploaded 3 test uploads which are in the queue at Commons Beta. Thanks so much for helping out!Ecritures (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a crat at Commons. Therefor I can't help but I do support this request. Natuur12 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know Natuur12 :) Ecritures (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 05:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User:Abrape,_User_talk:Abrape

Hallo, ich wünsche während meiner Abwesentheit Seitenschutz in der Art, dass nur Admins meine beiden Seiten bearbeiten können. Weshalb wird meinem Wunsch nicht entsprochen? Ich bitte hiermit darum, meinem Wunsch entsprechend zu handeln. Vielen Dank. LG --Abrape (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

For reference: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Abrape, Usertalk:Abrape Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Es ist kein spezieller Grund für einen Seitenschutz dargestellt, und ein allgemeiner Grund per Commons:Protection policy liegt nicht vor. Zudem hier falsch, und auf Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections bereits negativ entschieden. --Krd 05:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for Translation admin rights

Hello Wikimedia Commons Admins,

I'm in need of Translation Admin rights in order to work on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2018_in_Cameroon to translate it to English as the original version is in French. This will enable users or Wikimedians in the community to have the text in both languages in order to better understand how to take part in the competition. Thanks --Alangi Derick (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Translation admin rights are not required to perform translations. Please elaborate your intentions. --Krd 11:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done. Edits look good. Thank you! --Krd 15:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for Account creator status

Dear bureaucrats: I am a filemover and would like to be given the status of account creator; I find that when working through rename queues I often run into the ratelimit and would like to get around this restriction, please. Thank you! D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 06:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Translation administrator right for User:4nn1l2

I have translated some pages into Persian such as Commons:2D copying/fa, Commons:License laundering/fa, Commons:Staying mellow/fa, etc. Every so often I run into RTL issues. One common problem is that files and boxes need to be aligned correctly. For instance, take a look at Commons:Staying mellow/fa where pictures and the userbox should appear at the other side of page. Commons:Revision deletion/fa is another case. So far, I have reported these problems at Commons:Translators' noticeboard (See [1] for example). That would be jolly good if I could fix these glitches myself. This expedites the whole process and saves volunteers' time, because I believe I have the needed competency and skill to resolve these issues myself.

Thank you for your time and consideration. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 05:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Expiration of GWT group memberships

In follow up to a note on the Village Pump, as GWT access is only granted by requests here, it is worth highlighting here that the following accounts are members of the gwtoolset group and have not made an upload to Wikimedia Commons for over a year, and in some cases for more than two years.

User Last upload
InfocollectieAM 20140808
Dan-nl 20150112
ACrockford 20150413
Neuchâtel Herbarium 20150616
Baugeschichtliches Archiv 20150630
DimitraCharalampidou 20150914
LizzyJongma 20150925
Rromir 20151104
Jan Ainali 20151215
Pietromarialiuzzo 20160204
Mmason23 20160405
Kelson 20161020
Fred ande 20161216
Eloquence 20170101
Ebastia1 20170302
Prolineserver 20170402
TeklaLilith 20170413

When we established the GWT group, there was an expectation that the right might expire if not used for a year, but this was never formalised in policy. I am considering putting a simple proposal that membership of this group will expire if any account makes no upload for more than 12 months. Even if the GWT is not itself used, the fact that an account is actively making uploads is a good indicator that they remain interested in upload projects and may have good reason to use the tool. As can be seen in the current list, some of the accounts are effectively retired or were only used for test purposes, so there is no good reason to have significant rights hanging around on unused accounts.

As with other expiring rights, it would be a good idea if users were notified in plenty of time before access is removed, and they can request an extension if they have realistic plans to make use of the tool.

I am not planning on making a proposal immediately, perhaps in a few days, and welcome feedback and ideas on what the proposal should contain, especially from 'crats or fellow GWT users. Thanks :-) --Fæ (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Affected users should be notified on their talk page with instructions on how to re-apply for their rights. Maybe consider warning them before actually taking their rights. Otherwise I'm ok with this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I support the idea. The toolset can be requested back at any time, so this should not be any big deal. --Krd 11:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
+1 --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Good proposal Fae! Natuur12 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Good proposal, I'm all in favor of staying current. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: As we're having the temporary rights feature now, another idea could be to generally grant this right for one year only, of course with possibility to request extension. This eliminates the task of reviewing the activity. What do you think? (I don't think this approach will work for other rights we have at Commons, but for GWT I think it happens quite often that this is needed for a year or shorter.) --Krd 18:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
An automated default 1 year term with easy renewal would seem a perfectly good way forward, thanks for the suggestion. Perhaps we should notify all the current GWT users listed here so they have a chance to comment before this is enacted. If someone wants to send notifications for this discussion that would be great, if not then I can look at those when I return from holiday.
Would GWT renewal requests be here, or is there a simpler way of doing those? --Fæ (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any more simple way currently, but feel free to suggest. --Krd 05:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I prepared the list of people to be notified at User:-revi/MassMessage, but I need help with message text. — regards, Revi 09:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Notification sent. — regards, Revi 15:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
As long as notification time is plenty and there is a message on the users's talk page about the right being revoked, I don't see objections. This applies to the GWT on the Commons production environment only, or also to GWT on Commons beta? --OlafJanssen (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This proposal is only for Commons production. In terms of notifications, the process will be that access automatically expires after a year. A bot task can send out reminders that this is going to happen, though that has yet to be defined. This is pretty efficient in volunteer time as the only time humans would step in, is when a user requests an extension as they still want access. The beta site stays flexible and without any specific guidelines. On beta, GWT access might be removed in a very informal way, just as informally as it is handed out, there are no plans to do this sort of thing on Beta right now.
GWT users have invariably been well established accounts, or GLAM professionals like yourself. Neither of these types of user or their colleagues will have any problem requesting future access or extensions, if they have plans to use the tool. --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems fine with me. I haven't done a GWT upload in years and don't plan on doing so, so feel free to remove my rights. Husky (talk to me) 17:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Revi for the heads-up. I also don't see a problem with this proposal. We might still use the GWT at a later date, but I don't mind requesting permission again. Best. 85jesse (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. +1. --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
It is said that the GWT right can be requested easily. I do think that we need to communicate very clearly to the affected users, requesting the right again can been seen as something that demotivates these users. I think we need to make it required that a message is posted on the user's talk page who is/are affected, saying something like: 1. It has been noticed that the right to use the GLAMwiki Toolset has not been used since ..., 2. On Commons we have set the policy to remove this right after ... time of not using it, because security reasons, etc etc ... 3. If you would like to do a new upload with the GLAMwiki Toolset, you can easily request it on ... . Or something like that, so that people know what is happening, why that is, and how to regain the right. Romaine (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
A +1 from me. --DivadH (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Per above discussion I have removed the rights from the accounts listed above and notified them on their talk pages. I'd also like to add the discussion result to any GW overview page, but I'm undecided which are relevant. Please feel free to assist. Thank you. --Krd 08:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The most appropriate place is mw:Help:Extension:GWToolset. I'll add a note to it, probably the "asking for user rights" section. --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The manual is now amended to mention the GWT right is for one year at a time, see mw:Help:Extension:GWToolset#Asking_for_user_rights. Thanks to everyone reviewing this minor change to improving management of rights and contributing to making it happen. :-) --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I think we're done here for now, and perhaps we should have a review in a year or so and summarize how this performs. --Krd 15:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Requesting translation administrator rights

Hi! Like last year, I would like to request temporary translation administrator rights in order to work on pages for the Norwegian WLM campaign. This time I'm starting a bit earlier (phew!), so I'd like to request the right for two months instead of one. Jon Harald Søby (WMNO) (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 18:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to request for temporary translation admin rights for next 3 months for the Wiki loves Monuments in India. I don't want to knock and bother someone everytime. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 14:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for rights: interface administrator

Hello, Administrators will loos access to edit scripts in the MediaWiki namespace soon. In order to continue with editing and maintaining scripts in the MediaWiki namespace (including gadgets), please add me to the aforementioned usergroup. This will not add any new user rights (see Special:UserGroupRights) but keep status quo after the removal. For details see here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind to give status that way to at least two requesters, but because interface administrator status is even more important /potentially dangerous then administrator status, should we make process at least like request for administrator rights? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please no. I rather trust the crats their judgement then having a popularity poll. Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Eugene, This is not about adding any new permissions to the interface. The rights are getting removed from the admin toolkit for security reasons, we got elected to use those tools. I don't see any community consensus here on commons to remove those tools from commons admins. Best :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that every admin in good standing who can make plausible any need should receive the right on request. If there is no objection shortly I suggest to implement this accordingly. --Krd 14:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I am biased, of course, but at least for existing, active admins I believe this right should be assigned unbureaucratically (no pun intended). Existing admins are already trusted with editing those pages and we need to ensure the maintenance for the time being. That said I am open for a tightened process in the future. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, take my opinion with a grain of salt as I requested this right above, but as I see it up to now the community has trusted every administrator with the ability to edit JS and CSS in MediaWiki namespace since their election, so this is mostly about limiting the scope of harm an account compromise can do. That is, if an administrator is not interested in editing JS or CSS, why not limit the damage their account can do if compromised? I'm of the opinion that any admin with the interest and ability to edit JS or CSS should be granted permission to do so, so long as they agree to take reasonable steps to protect their account against compromise. For that matter, I'd strongly encourage every admin to enable 2FA even after this right goes live as the damage a compromised admin account can do will still be excessive, even without the ability to edit JS/CSS in the MediaWiki namespace. —RP88 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Personally, I don't need the right now, so I will request when I need it (and relinquish it when I won't). Hopefully there will be a simple process for that. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Removal of the right is currently with the Stewards, as is the removal of admin flag. But we can grant the flag temporary on request. I'd prefer to gather some experience first how much fluctuation there is before we discuss every theoretically possible scenario, and combine are reasonable changes in one proposal, if possible. --Krd 15:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Strangely, it appears that on en.WP that bureaucrats can remove the interface administrator group but on Commons they can not. I wonder if this was an oversight on the part of developers when updating the Commons configuration for the new group. —RP88 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Because enwiki crats can remove sysop. --Krd 17:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This really shouldn't be a big deal especially because admins have been elected by the community for using those tools (See COM:A). I am not amused that tools are getting removed from the admin toolkit whiteout local community consensus or a poll. Editing the interface is the hearth of the sysop[sic.] toolkit. As far i can see this new user group has been introduced as a security measure and thus it should be a no-brainer to add admins who are editing in MW namespaces to this usergroup. If admins are unable to edit the interface, then bugs in tools (e.g. VFC, filemove interface, watchlist notice) etc. cannot be fixed and regular maintenance tasks such as updating dependencies and fixing deprecations is not possible. All of the admins who asked to be added to this usergoup are experienced with editing in the MW namespace, and needless to say that they haven't caused any issues in the past. I want to point out again: This user group does not add any new rights to the sysop toolkit, we have yet been elected for using those tools, it is only some sort of security layer. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
So … what about non-admins? I promised several kind people to accept a nomination for adminship in the not too extremely distant future, however, I don't feel comfortable doing so with a time budget that won't allow me to seriously help with admin backlogs in the near- to mid-term. However, I used a weekend worth of time to convert my OTRS release generator tool to JavaScript for use directly on a Commons page (a new home that would have many benefits I'd be more than willing to elaborate on) and would like to transfer the necessary pages to the MediaWiki (interface) namespace in order to set up and maintain the tool from there. Any chance those new technical "opportunities" developers just gave us could be used to allow long-term users who don't (yet) have the time for the full admin workload to work on tools and maintain them in the MediaWiki namespace?    FDMS  4    18:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Non-admins should be able to get it if they need it. My point above was it should be easily given and removed. To be really an effective security improvement, it should be only given when only when used, and removed when the use has gone. So I suggest that the right to be given for a six months or one year period, renewable on demand. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Almost one week is over, how we proceed with this? :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for the reminder. :) As discussed at the bureaucrats mailing list (with admittedly low participation) I'm going to propose as below, IMO the most simple rule set that catches every aspect. Feel free to comment, but please don't consider this as a vote. If it's going to be controversial and a vote is required, this has to be brought to wider audience. Please also don't consider it as a rule set to be carved in stone, but as a common sense solution that can be implemented with low impact. If problems arise it can be modified per discussion. --Krd 09:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

  • Every Administrator who can make plausible a need to edit the interface will be granted temporary or permanent Interface administrators right on request at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard per bureaucrats discretion.
  • If Administrator status is revoked as result of inactivity or result of a deadmin request, interface admin rights shall also be removed.
  • If Administrator status is voluntarily relinquished, interface admin rights may be retained if needed.
  • Non-Administrator users may request Interface administrators right via Commons:Administrators/Requests. The same criteria as for normal admin requests apply.
  • Non-Administrator users who hold Interface administrators right are subject to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship in the same way Administrators are.
Comments

Conclusion

As there appears unanimous approval, I'm going to implement this as proposed. Please note again that this is not carved in stone but a pragmatic solution until the community agrees on anything different. --Krd 12:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Initial requests

As there hasn't been anything more for two weeks, I'm marking this as done. New requests can be added in a new section if required. --Krd 15:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

GWToolset permissions for Auckland Museum uploads

Kia ora, I work at Auckland Museum, and am keen on continuing the work that Fae started on uploading images and data from our collections to Commons. I’d like to request to join the GWToolset usergroup. My colleague Adam Moriarty has already had our domain whitelisted.

I have an account at beta, and have successfully uploaded a few files to Commons using PattyPan. I would like to be able to use the GWToolset, and would also like to try uploading using file URLs through Pattypan, or perhaps (also) through the GWToolset.

Please let me know if there is any more information you need in order for this right to be granted. Thank you. — Hugh (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please make some test uploads at beta using the GWToolset. --Krd 14:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Hl:  ? --Krd 12:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Please request again when ready. --Krd 06:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

De-adminship

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Jcb

According to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship: "De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible".

Is the linked discussion sufficient to request de-adminship? I would think so, the outcome is not certain but if the outcome has to be clear before the request the actual request would be superfluous. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Alexis could you explain why this question is even worth asking? Where is your "consensus"? You got a handful of votes/comments, evenly split. Fae pinged a large number of active admins, and not a single one of them even bothered to vote. Perhaps, because en:Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Perhaps because none of them would like to be treated that way. You had a complaint about Jcb but instead of dealing with it at the proper venue, or opening a discussion on that complaint first, you went straight to the highest escalation and asked the community to agree with you that a de-admin was required. I really, really, wish this so of destructive and harmful nonsense would stop. And I do think you should be formally censured over this. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: Bring your complaints to ANU, not BN. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Several trusted users have supported a de-adminship request and some admins have voiced serious concerns. If Jcb has sufficient community support he won't be losing his bit. But his status seems, to me, sufficiently debated to have a vote. I will respect the outcome of that vote. If this is not sufficient to have a vote, it'll mean admins have to turn to clear vandalism before we can have a vote. That wouldn't be healthy. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm rather worried that you appear to not understand what "discussion leading to some consensus" means. There will always be "several users" who dislike any particular admin, and the only thing "trusted" about them is that they can be relied on to turn up at such polls to vote for a de-admin. De-adminship is rare. Remember that such polls are often an excuse for people to make personal attacks and unsubstantiated negative comments without the normal expected degrees of evidence or justification or mutual respect. Some admins declare their real names. So it is important the community doesn't gratuitously engage in such without good reason and where the outcome is not already likely to be guessable. Such polls nearly always generate a lot of heat but absolutely no good-faith efforts to find an alternative better solution. The discussion you started at AN/U is textbook "no consensus". And unless an admin's behaviour was totally outrageous, I'd expect to see some effort to resolve the disagreement about practice/behaviour that wasn't nuclear. -- Colin (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: Again, bring your complaints to my talk page or ANU, not BN. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
No, Alexis, that is not grounds for opening a de-adminship discussion. Jcb, please take the genuine concerns seriously. We all need to default toward carefulness, cooperativity and communication. --99of9 (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@99of9: This is worrying. Jcb shows little willingness to improve and "De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible" is not a number, but feels like roughly 75% or more. Actual de-adminship only requires 50% majority, but to actually start the request a supermajority is required. So whenever the requirements to start a request are met, the de-adminship is guaranteed to succeed (I assume I don't have to explain why this is a problem). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Cite: "In the rare case that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing their status, it may seek de-adminship in the same way as adminship is sought." Does the current ANU discussion lead you to the objective conclusion that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing their status? --Krd 15:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: Part of the same Patstuart edit from 2007 that was added without consensus. Admins should not be immune to de-adminship requests. Let me throw the question right back at you: if there would be a request for de-adminship, are you fully confident Jcb will pass? If you're not, why should crats block the request? If you are, what's the harm in determining Jcb still has sufficient community support to continue? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
For the record, see this discussion. The text you claim was "added without consensus" followed this discussion and the added text was immediately mentioned by Patstuart in this discussion, and also mentioned at AN/U: "I have added the appropriate sections at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship‎, for which there seemed to be universal consensus. Please feel free to change the wording...." Are you really claiming that after 11 years, that text didn't have and still doesn't have consensus? -- Colin (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Admins are not immune to de-admin request, which is easily visible from the archive. I don't know if Jcb would pass, this is none of my business and mostly irrelevant for the question if such a request should be raised. The possible harm is that, although admins generally should answer questions on their actions and explain their decisions, a few users who are dissatisfied with a single decision shall not raise a de-admin on own end just about about that single issue. A de-admin comes into play after the issue has been discussed with the admin in a civil way, and only if the offense is severe or repeated, and if there is some community support.
In the current discussion I'm missing the parts "civil" and "community support". Please advise if I'm mistaken. --Krd 21:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for Bureaucrat review of sysop action

Hi, could a Bureaucrat please examine the user block and background under discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_appears_to_be_an_inappropriate_indef_block_of_User:Rowan_Forest?

Yann appears unable to respond positively to questions about their actions, preferring instead to accuse me of being a troll, regardless of being unable to supply any evidence that my one question, or my own actions anywhere else, is anything other than perfectly factual and intentionally polite and civil.

When the community is unable to ask questions of an administrator without getting personal attacks in response, there is a serious issue with our project governance. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time to close those discussions. Any general discussions on how we should improve our communication can be continued in appropriate boards. Jee 03:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree and think our 'crats should have stopped it the moment Fae started his revenge poll. It is against clear policy, which requires a discussion, consensus-forming and not the settling of personal disputes. -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No comment from a bureaucrat even after nine days? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact that a bunch of trolls end up disrupting the dicussion we were having doesn’t mean there’s no merits to it. It was abundantly demonstrated that some of Yann’s recent actions need scrutiny and that should be taken seriously. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The original discussion has run its course and been closed, referring to bureaucrats for any further action. When can we expect to see a decision to pursue sanctions or to dismiss the matter? JFG (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment The situation is difficult during the holiday season as many people are on vacation. Only few bureaucrats, including myself, have spoken with Yann privately, and there appears consensus that Yann does understand the issue and will make sure such incident will not happen again. I'm convinced no further action is warranted. As said before, I will not close this section as I already commented in the previous discussion, so this will be kept open for some more days for another crat to make the final comment or raise any different opinion. --Krd 05:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks Krd, if the crats here are happy that no further action is needed, that seems fine. The crucial thing, I think, is not that a mistaken block was made. It's that editors really should not be blocked with all avenues of appeal cut off except as a last resort - certainly not in the first instance. I think that's especially important on a project which has no equivalent of the UTRS system and no Arbcom - and from what you say, I guess that's agreed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    From what I've understood, your point is valid and important and has been addressed accordingly. --Krd 19:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Jcb

Could someone please close this discussion? Editors with long-standing grudges are viciously attacking one another and it's clearly no longer a productive exercise. -FASTILY 19:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and have closed the discussion now accordingly. --Krd 06:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

CommonsMaintenanceBot

This bot used to update MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins-data.js, which is impossible now without the interface administrator right. So please add the bot to this usergroup. Additionally, if I had this right, I could update the list during bot outages, as I did before. --Didym (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Both done. --Krd 07:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

InterfaceAdministrator bit

Hello everybody, I'm working on fastcci again and need to modify the Gadget script to enable and disable backend servers. I'd appreciate if someone could approve me for the interface bit. Cheers Dschwen (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I know I could set the bit myself, but I didn't want to be to cavalier about it. --Dschwen (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
That's done now, @Dschwen, thanks for your help. odder (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! --Dschwen (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dschwen: Welcome back!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Dschwen (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm redeploying VMs for the backend service. But there might be a subtle bug in the server code. Investigating. --Dschwen (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate request

Hi, can somebody delete this page? Jcb (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 16:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

user:Moheen

Hello there, can somebody somehow add (A) letter to user’s signature after their global renaming [2], else their actions look like non-admin closures? --Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The (A) is displayed by a script and isn't a standard feature. Also, there are many former admins, and we don't typically note their past admin status on archived closures. However if Moheen consents, we could easily change all of the links to point directly to the new account, bypassing the redirect. Guanaco (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems that you didn’t understand my request. I mean current closures, not archived ones. I suppose that their current nickname should be followed by (A), period. --Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Didym: could you please review this? --Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The (A) is a UI feature added by the MarkAdmins gadget (see MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins.js). The data for this gadget comes from MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins-data.js, which normally is maintained by CommonsMaintenanceBot (operated by Rillke). However, it looks like the bot has not been updating the data since the introduction of the interface administrator user right (the IA right was added to the bot 12 September 2018). I've manually added Moheen. —RP88 (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
BTW I don't think CommonsMaintBot learned to handle IA. — regards, Revi 11:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Rillke: CommonsMaintenanceBot hasn't updated that page since this edit 09:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Dschwen: @Krinkle: could you have a look at this? --Didym (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all your concern. ~MOHEEN (keep talking) 16:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for interface administrator (putnik)

I would like to get an interface admin flag for working on gadgets and global styles. I made some corrections to scripts in the past, but mostly I worked on scripts in Wikipedia (~1300 edits in the MediaWiki namespace). Now I would like to more actively switch to working with Wikimedia Commons scripts. I confirm that I have 2FA enabled. — putnik 12:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 13:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins-data.js

Dear kindly Bureaucrats,

Please update MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins-data.js manually whenever you promote an Administrator. CommonsMaintenanceBot hasn't updated that page since this edit 09:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC).

Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Rillke fixed the issue :). --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for translation admin right

Dear bureaucrats,

I would like to request translation admin right here on Commons, which might be able for me to provide support to mark some pages for translation. I am aware of the policy attached on this right. For your consideration, I am also a translation admin on Wikidata project. I hope you could grant the permission. Thank you and kind regards, ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 16:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 08:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Alhen

Can any bureaucrats protect this closed voting? It seems that the bureaucrat who closed the request forgot to protect the voting page.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello to everyone I want to request that I want OTRS member rights temporarily (may be 1 week if allowed) as I am currently working on transferring images from en.wiki with OTRS tickets but when I transferred them it shows the Tag:OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member. I know I have several disputes in past and also many failed RfR but I am not asking the rights permanently I am asking the rights for 1 week so, I think I should get the rights for 1 week if possible I want to promise that I will not misuse the rights and I agree on the condition that if I misuse the rights they should be revoked and I would be block permanently.--√Tæ√ 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tæ: There are no negative consequences to the tag - it doesn't mean that you did anything wrong. Just upload the files and ignore it. --B (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@B: I agree with you but I think I should need to confirm the tag on this.--√Tæ√ 14:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tæ: If you are requesting actual OTRS access (not just membership in the group), that is done at m:OTRS/Volunteering but not likely to be granted for something like this. My suggestion would be to just look at the history of the original image and see if the tag was added by an administrator or a current or former OTRS member and if it was, then it is good. --B (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tæ: Bureaucrats at Commons can neither grant OTRS access nor the global OTRS membership bit. All this is done at Meta and unlikely to be approved temporarily. I have a suggestion: Create a list of to be transfered files and post it to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard (or put it on a page in your user space and refer to it if it is too long). This allows OTRS members to re-check the permissions if they meet the standards we have here at Commons. Then transfer the files which are ok but do not use the {{PermissionOTRS}} tag yet. Instead it should be initially sufficient to tag them with [[ticket:ticket number]]. Then OTRS members can tag it properly. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
We have a backlog of 2000 real unprocessed tickets, so I suggest to abstain from anything that creates additional OTRS work. In first place I fail to see why these files have to be transferred at all, and why this is not done by a bot. --Krd 11:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Krd: ,@B: Thanks to both of you. I think Krd is right and the task can be allotted to a bot but I don't know which bot is suitable for the allotment of task. So, please suggest me some names of Bots which can do the task.--√Tæ√ 15:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know any suitable bot, but I'm sure there are any. --Krd 18:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tæ: At :en, the page Wikipedia:Bot requests has requests/ideas for bot owners. --B (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Interface administrator rights

Hello. I maintain a bot and scripts, and sometimes edit other scripts. May I please have the interface administrator right? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 07:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

VysotskyBot (not a Bot)

Dear bureaucrats, I would like to ask a question. I have been making edits in Wikimedia Commons with User:Vysotsky since several years (>100,000 edits, >6,000 uploaded images). When I wanted to add categories of names of photographers to a large number of images in Commons (>300k), I wanted to make a distinction between these semi-automatic edits via Cat-a-lot and the usual hand-made edits. I made a mistake and called this user VysotskyBot, because I thought semi-automated edits were done by bots. User:VysotskyBot performed >190,000 edits using Cat-a-lot within a few weeks, until User:Steinsplitter appropriately blocked this account because these edits by a non-flagged bot flooded the RC. My apologies for these actions. This now leaves me three options: 1. Obtain a Bot-status for VysotskyBot (though I would only use cat-a-lot with this user), 2. Perform all edits via User:Vysotsky (though I would prefer a distinction between semi-automatic and handmade edits) or 3. Request renaming User:VysotskyBot to User:VysotskyZ (or a similar name) and only perform edits with Cat-a-lot through this user. My preference would be the first or third option. Is this possible? Vysotsky (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: All are technically possible. The third option would require a Steward. Pinging @Steinsplitter.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
A account renanme request can be filed using Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd say the rename is the best solution in this case. --Krd 12:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
And 190k edits attached to this user is no problem with renaming? Vysotsky (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It is unusual to allow a rename for an account with a large number of edits, I recall there have been cases denied for this reason, but don't have those names to hand. You will have to raise the global level request to confirm what is possible and what the options are, this is no longer handled by any Commons trusted user or Commons policies. --Fæ (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It is possible, a sysadmin has to monitor the rename (=the renamer has to file a ticket on phabricator) therefore it will likely take a while. Or the user can crate a new account just for Cat-A-Lot. But to be honest, i see no need to have a seperat account for Cat-A-Lot. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: just create a new account, abandon User:VysotskyBot and redirect User talk:VysotskyBot and the user talk of your new account to User talk:Vysotsky. You can also simply use your regular account for these cat-a-lot edits. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: You could temporarily check "Mark all edits minor by default" under "Editor" on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing when you are about to start using Cat-a-lot.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: why wouldn't you just configure that in the cat-a-lot preferences? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz and Vysotsky: Sorry, I was unaware of that preference.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all advice. I will think about it, look at my future plans and take a decision in a week or so. Vysotsky (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
After careful consideration: because I am planning to also do some large-scale mass licensing template changes (re Nationaal Archief images, see this report) and several non-controversial categorizations, I will request a bot-flag for VysotskyBot. Vysotsky (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation security team is implementing a new password policy and requirements. You can learn more about the project on MediaWiki.org.

These new requirements will apply to new accounts and privileged accounts. New accounts will be required to create a password with a minimum length of 8 characters. Privileged accounts will be prompted to update their password to one that is at least 10 characters in length.

These changes are planned to be in effect on December 13th. If you think your work or tools will be affected by this change, please let us know on the talk page.

Thank you!

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF): There is little benefit to posting this on the VP (6 days ago) and then reposting on other noticeboards. At most it could be added to AN to catch privileged accounts. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF): Phew, "password" is exactly 8 characters so I'm good.
Dutch:
Het Wikimedia Foundation security team heeft nieuwe vereisten voor wachtwoorden ingevoerd. Lees meer over het project op MediaWiki.org.
Deze nieuwe vereisten zijn van toepassing op nieuwe accounts en accounts met bijzondere privileges. Nieuwe accounts moeten een wachtwoord van minimaal 8 karakters kiezen. Accounts met bijzondere privileges krijgen een melding om een nieuw wachtwoord kiezen van minimaal 10 karakters.
Deze wijzigingen zijn ingegaan op 13 december. Als je denkt dat jouw werk, scripts of bots hierdoor worden beïnvloed laat dat dan weten op de overlegpagina.
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: They are also banning the 100,000 most common passwords, which, unfortunately, does prohibit using "password", "password1", "password12", "password123", and "password1234". You can, however, use "password12345" or my personal favorite, "Password123$". "Password123$" meets most sites' complexity requirements because it has a capital letter, a lower case letter, a number, and a special character. --B (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WMF has also required 2FA for interface admins m:Special:Diff/18694065, but I don't know how one can make sure that an interface admin has 2FA enabled. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

They manually check for 2FA in those cases. -- KTC (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Interface Administrator

Hello, would it be possible to be granted IA to fulfill basic edit requests? Thanks Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 08:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Interface Admin Rights

I'd like to reduce the backlog @ CAT:PER like I did before; no need for the pros to do the easy stuff. You guys should be free to fix the difficult/important stuff. I'd like to ask for the Interface Admin bit. Thanks, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 08:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_2018&oldid=371842501"