Commons:Administrators

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

(Redirected from COM:A)
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

Alemannisch | Asturianu | Български | Brezhoneg | Català | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | Молдовеняскэ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Nederlands | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Shqip | Türkçe | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

This page explains the role of administrators (sometimes called admins or sysops) on Wikimedia Commons. Note that details of the role, and the way in which administrators are appointed, may differ from other sites.

If you want to request administrator help, please post at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.

There are currently 268 administrators on Commons.

An admin wielding the mop

Contents


[edit] What is an administrator?

Administrators as of November 2009 [+/−]
Listing by language
Listing by date

Number of Admins: 268

[edit] Technical

Administrators are users with the technical ability on Wikimedia Commons to:

  • delete and undelete images and other uploaded files, and to view and restore deleted versions
  • delete and undelete pages, and to view and restore deleted revisions
  • protect and unprotect pages, and to edit admin-protected pages
  • block and unblock users, individual IP addresses and IP address ranges
  • edit the MediaWiki namespace
  • rename files

These are collectively known as the admin tools.

[edit] Community role

Administrators are experienced and trusted members of the Commons community who have taken on additional maintenance work and have been entrusted with the admin tools by public consensus/vote. Different admins have different areas of interest and expertise, but typical admin tasks include determining and closing deletion requests, deleting copyright violations, undeleting files where necessary, protecting Commons against vandalism, and working on templates and other protected pages. Of course, some of these tasks can be done by non-admins as well.

Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate respect community consensus.

Apart from roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor. Of course, some admins are influential, but that derives not from their position as such but from the personal trust they have gained from the community.

[edit] How do I become an administrator?

First, consider whether becoming an administrator is the best way for you to contribute to the project. Experience shows that outstanding contributors of content often reduce their contributions because of the maintenance overhead after they become admins, and this is what we want least. So please contribute your best skills and understand that there are many ways of getting community credit besides being an admin. Admin status on Commons is not an honour for outstanding content contributors, but just provides an additional set of tools for people who show that they want to clean up.

Consider whether you actually need the admin tools for the work you would like to do. The community does not hand out the tools to those who do not need or who are not likely to make use of them. So, if you need the tools only for a limited period, or in order to clean up your own contributions, please simply ask an existing admin to help you out.

Admins are expected to remain reasonably active here, and if after appointment you cease to use the tools for an extended period you will automatically lose them under our de-admin policy. You should expect as a admin to make yourself available on Commons to a reasonable extent (a userpage that asks people to leave messages for you on some other project is not considered acceptable practice for an admin).

More information about the administrators' community roles can be found at Commons:Guide to adminship.

We do not have any hard and fast rules setting out the minimum period you should have been active on Commons in order to apply for adminship, nor any minimum number of edits. However, the requirement that you be a experienced and trusted member of the Commons community typically means that prior to applying you should have had sufficient breadth and depth of experience here to be able to demonstrate that. If you are an admin or an experienced user on another project, by all means mention that, but bear in mind that off-Commons experience is on its own not normally enough.

Although not mandatory, it is often a good idea to talk to existing admins to get feedback about your experience and approach. You may be able to get another admin to nominate you, although self-nominations are also allowed.

When you request adminship, the community will consider your ability to fill the admin role. Individual Commons contributors may have varying expectations of candidates, and you may wish to review some archived applications to get a sense of what people are looking for. As a practical matter, users often want to see a reasonable level of involvement in admin-type activities such as deletion requests, accurately tagging images as copyright violations, new user patrolling, and so on. Users often want to be satisfied that you are an integral member of the Commons community and will look at the way you interact with others, on user talk pages and elsewhere.

[edit] The public discussion and vote

Adminship nominations usually remain open for seven days, for votes and comments. The period starts when you posted your nomination (if a self-nom) or when you posted your acceptance (if somebody else nominated you). At the end of that period the nomination will be closed by a bureaucrat who will either grant or decline promotion. The nomination may be left open for more than seven days, or a longer period specified, should a bureaucrat consider that desirable.

As a guideline, promotion normally requires at least 75% in favour, with a minimum of 4 support votes. Votes from unregistered users are not counted. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.

If the nomination is successful, the closing bureaucrat will grant the applicant admin rights.

[edit] The request for adminship

When you are ready, make sure you have a userpage, enable email in your preferences, then apply, or ask your nominator to apply, back on the main Commons:Administrators page.

[edit] Suggestions for administrators

Please read Commons:Guide to adminship.

[edit] Removal of administrator rights

Under the de-admin policy, administrator rights may be revoked due to inactivity or misuse of sysop tools.

[edit] How do I become an administrator?

First, go to Commons:Administrators/Howto and read the information there. Then come back here and make your request in the section below.

  • After clicking on the appropriate button and creating the subpage, copy the link to the subpage, e.g. "Commons:Administrators/Requests/Username", edit Commons:Administrators/Requests and paste it in at the top of the section, then put it in double curly brackets (e.g. {{Commons:Administrators/Requests/Username}} ) to transclude it.
  • If someone else nominated you, please accept the nomination by stating "I accept" or something similar, and signing below the nomination itself. The subpage will still need to be transcluded by you or your nominator.
Use the box below, replacing Username with your username:



[edit] Voting

Any registered user may vote here although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted. It is preferable if you give reasons both for Symbol support vote.svg Support votes or Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.

Promotion normally requires at least 75% in favour, with a minimum of 4 support votes. Votes from unregistered users are not counted. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers.

Purge the cache Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.

[edit] Requests for adminship

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

[edit] Aqwis

Vote

Links: Aqwis (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · logs · block log)

Scheduled to end 15:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. Given the ongoing shortage of active sysop here at Commons, as well as the ever-increasing backlogs, I'd like to nominate Aqwis for adminship. Aqwis, already an admin at the English Wikipedia, has contributed to Commons since 2007, and has amassed close to 4,000 total edits.[1] He has uploaded hundreds of high-quality, useful files and is a prolific member of the FPC community, with five featured images of his own. According to his userpage, Aqwis speaks multiple languages, which should be helpful in a multilingual project such as Commons. The candidate also takes part in discussions at various boards, like the Village Pump, and is evidently very familiar with the project's policies. Overall, I think this user is sufficiently knowledgeable and active to prove an effective administrator. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Julian. I accept the nomination. --Aqwis (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm sorry but I'm going to oppose on this one. The nomination says that we need more active administrators here on Commons and yeah probably we need more but I don't see why you should be the solutions for the problem. You do very good contributions, but you're active with the FP QI and VIC or geocoding and placing categories. I couldn't find a edit warning a user for a badly upload, I couldn't find a involvement in a DR, I couldn't find any edit where admin buttons could be useful. I would like to see more involvement in admin related cases for now I don't see the need to the buttons, and I do not see why JulianColton nominate you with a nomination about the backlogs, it doesn't make sense. Huib talk 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Commons needs admins with all sorts of different skills. Aqwis has shown a dedication to creating high-quality content, and while he's not active in the standard admin areas as of yet, I suspect he has the necessary judgment to help out. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to say but creating HQ content is great and really needed, it doesn't involve administrator tools. Huib talk 21:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom –Juliancolton | Talk 20:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, no harm in giving a competent user the tools. If he were to help once per month in any administrative area, then there'd be less of a backlog. –blurpeace (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. Been around and active long enough. Durova (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I share some of Huibs concerns as expressed above, on the other hand I see Aqwis as a very capable editor and also consider the user totally trustworthy. So I would like to ask Aqwis:

  1. For which purposes/ in which areas do you expect that you will have need for/make us of those extra functions a sysopflag will give you? and
  2. Do you have any experience in dealing with medialicenses/copyright-issues from elsewhere than Commons (where your contributions in this area haven't been very many...).

Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions. I expect that the areas in which I would use the tools the most would be A) renaming pictures with inaccurate/blatantly incorrect/generic names, and B) dealing with copyright violations and speedy deletion candidates, including files in CAT:Unknown. I'd also foray into areas which I have - admittedly - not been very active in thus far, including DR, where I have personally experienced the major backlogs and delays. As for your second question, I have some general experience with various aspects of copyright and licenses having been a Wikipedia admin for almost two years, but I have no substantial off-wiki or real-world experience with dealing with media copyright/licensing issues. --Aqwis (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blurpeace

Vote

Links: Blurpeace (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · logs · block log)

Scheduled to end 06:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Blurpeace is a very active user who participates in many admin related fields. His account was created in December of 2008, and he has been actively editing since June. Blurpeace has a wide variety of experience, including tagging files as copyright violations, recent changes patrol (including marking new gallery pages as patrolled with the newly implemented user right for Commons), and reviewing Flickr files. Additionally, Blurpeace has uploaded a number of images to the project, and has made over 1000 edits.

Blurpeace is friendly in his communications with others, knowledgeable about practices and policies on Commons, and a very helpful user. I believe Blurpeace would be a great help to the project as an admin, especially in a time when Commons needs additional admins. I hope you think so too. Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Conomination

Per the above. Blurpeace is hardworking, clueful, and friendly. An excellent editor who'd be better with tools. Durova (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I gratefully accept. Thank you, –blurpeace (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as a nominator. Killiondude (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have worked with this user for many months; he knows what needs to be done and knows about the licensing. He is also willing to tackle backlogs that need a lot of work. I feel comfortable with him having the tools. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Requests for bureaucratship

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

[edit] Requests for CheckUser

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

[edit] Requests for Oversight rights

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

none currently

[edit] Archives

You can find requests for adminship archives at Commons:Administrators/Archive.


[edit] See also