Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Shortcut: COM:BN

Bureaucrats' work area
Changing username request | watch To request to change your username	Usurp an account request | watch To request usurpation of an existing account.	Requests for bot flags request | watch To request a bot flag.	Requests for adminship request | watch To request to become an administrator.
Other resources: Need administrator assistance? See the administrators' noticeboard. Need help? Try the FAQ, or the Help desk! Have an idea or suggestion? Tell us at the Village pump! Need a check user? See the CU request page!
Click here to add a new section

Contents 1 Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Kanonkas 2 Mailing list 3 Granting people adminship without Community consensus. 4 User:Flickr upload bot 5 Usurping a username 6 Bot flag temporarily granted to two users

[edit] Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Kanonkas

Hi dear crats,

I think its time to close this one, its been waiting for closure for almost 48 hours now :)

Best regards,

Huib talk 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mailing list

A bugzilla request has been sent (bugzilla:20486). Please comment here to give your views about this matter. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

List created. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a malfunction in the configuration? I just tested and I can subscribe myself to the list and I'm not a bureaucrat (Last time I checked)

I would suggest to disable subscibing and let only the listadmin add people to the list, and give a note of that on the mainpage.

I guess you will handle a lot of people trying to add them to this list this way.

Best regards,

Huib talk 12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My views are as follows: why was the community not informed (if they were, I never saw it), and why is a mailing list needed? Bureaucrat issues should take place on the wiki, not elsewhere. Majorly talk 14:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Some things require off-wiki discussion. That's really not a debatable point. There have been and will continue to be off-wiki discussions, making a list means we don't inadvertantly omit folks. I'm not sure who the admins are, but make me one and I'll get the visibility and permissions sorted out if desired, I've done it enough times before. I have no interest in long term list adminship though. Gave all of mine up a while back. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Granting people adminship without Community consensus.

Hello,

Our new crat granted here a user adminship with only 3 votes in favour, our policy always told that there is a need to get 4 votes in favour and so this request would be unsuccessful, or be extended.

I contacted Kanonkas about this on IRC and he is saying he will nog desysop it and will give some explanetion on the way, but a bureacrat isn't above a policies so this should get fixed asap.

Kanonkas is hiding behind this edit while moving our policies and info on some other pages the line of the 4 votes got lost, but since it is a policy and there has been no consensus to remove it the 4 votes still count.

I'm sure people make mistakes, no problem with that but this user shouldn't have been granted adminship and Kanonkas isn't trying to resolve this or making a request on meta to fix this, he is just saying that he is starting a discussion with the crats on this, but this adminship should be removed untill it is fixed not the other way around.

Best regards, Huib talk 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you come up with the conclusion "a bureacrat isn't above a policies"? That's right, but nonetheless, did I really go above any policies? I do think you should reconsider your approach on this matter. I consider hasty actions on such matters to not be a good idea. Plus, I have replied to you on my talk page about this matter. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes you placed yourself above the policies on this matter by saying that a exdental removal of something.. (it was moved to Commons:Administrators/Howto) makes our policy old. So you decide that our policy isn't working anymore and our policy has been changed without consensus. Huib talk 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Going forward a bit more cross checking in marginal situations probably is helpful. Let's treat this as an honest mistake because policy is pretty clear that we need 4 supports at a minimum. Let's ask at Meta to have the bit turned off, or if we are comfortable, ask Alperton just not to do anything for now, and lets reopen and extend the RfA to seek a clearer consensus on whether Alperton should be an admin. Any objections? (if there's a discussion of this elsewhere please point to it) ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I will place our requirement right back on the administrator policie page, and I would agree that this rfa could be extended for a week, its pretty clear that he will make it since Herby will support on a extended rfa and I would support also, but I would suggest to turn of the adminbit and re-oping it, so it is clear in the log when his adminship started.

There has been a discussion on IRC also, but that doesn't seem to solve this enough. Huib talk 18:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why bother? He's already said he won't use them until the issue is resolved. Removing the rights simply so they can be granted again seems pointless to me. Incidentally, this whole incident has been blown too far out of proportion. Despite my personal opinion that this number requirement is unnecessary, the issue could've stayed at one venue (the bureaucrat's talk page or BN). It was hardly abuse, or deliberately against community consensus, so let's not go starting too many threads about this rather small issue. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree no need for a trip to Meta if Alperton will just state intent not to use them, best said on the RfA itself I think. Someone needs to undo the close and retransclude it. I'd prefer K do it but I will, if it's not done before I have to leave for the airport in 3 hours... Also, let's not squabble about where to squabble. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Peter but I think it is a very very very big thing when one crat decides that we don't longer have a 4 votes or 75% support policy because the page doesn't say it anymore because it is moved to a other page, a page that isn't marked as policy.

I have tryed to talk in a pm first, got ignored on IRC i get the message that it isn't a policy anymore so one crat decides that our policy is changed, and that makes it a big deal for me, I would have preferd a easy way without a talkpage and cratpage message, but that didn't seemed possible. Huib talk 18:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's policy, and if it's not marked as such, we need to make sure it clearly is, or whatever it takes. (although I think it's sorted now) But more importantly, let's not harp on this too much, it was a mistake, and bringing it up was the right thing to do, Kanonkas hopefully has learned a lesson and will in future consult more closely with other crats if there is any chance that what he is contemplating is likely to be controversial. But what's done is done, and it's fixed now and it all looks like it will work out. Everyone please mellow out. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd think a minimum 4 votes (we vote? I thought we discussed and came to a consensus!) is a bit archaic - while the community considers the subject, please consider whether Commons is still a small wiki or not, and whether that tidbit is still needed - perhaps something in the double-digits makes more sense these days?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. It should be like 10, but the way we've been voting lately, it wouldn't make much sense to raise it that much. I'm not sure what deal is with others, but I know I haven't been voting as much as normal because many of the recent requests I have not felt strongly about either way. I don't vote when I don't see anything that makes me want to support (some say that no reason to oppose = support, but that's not how most people vote, something usually motivates them). And yes, we vote, but as a clear way of showing where the consensus lies rather than comments by themselves. It's a vote, but not a simple majority vote (although every RfA that pass better have more than just the majority, 51% should never pass). Rocket000 (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Community consensus is not determined by numbers alone. Unanimous support with valid arguments should be enough to promote, regardless of the number of votes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Three people does not a consensus make. Not at a wiki as large as this one, with close on to 300 admins, 5M images, thousands of edits a day, etc. If a proposal is put forward to raise the threshold from 4, I will support it, because 4 is also too low, but at least it is not 3. ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If no-one has raised any objections, then what's the issue? We have plenty of people stalking RfA; surely the lack of opposes indicates that the user is sufficiently trustworthy to be promoted. Adminship should not be a bigger deal than it needs to be. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because for some people (like me), not supporting is a less discouraging alternative to adding a vague "need more experience"/"give me a reason to support" type of oppose. Passive opposition is a less personal and less bureaucratic way of doing it. I feel that if you don't have anything useful to say (like, to the candidate, how to improve, or, to fellow voters, why to support/oppose), then don't say anything. Yes, sometimes, "per someone" type of votes are necessary to let others know you agree (i.e. help build consensus and show that it exists), but sometimes a lack of people commenting/voting is exactly the message that's appropriate. It's the same as when people propose major changes to the site. If there's little interest in it, it shouldn't be done. Only when it looks like some people want it is when the opposers start speaking out. Otherwise, it's unnecessary. surely the lack of opposes indicates that the user is sufficiently trustworthy to be promoted I kinda see it the other way. A lack of supports indicates that the user is not sufficiently trustworthy to be promoted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Julian, please think long and hard about this. Rocket, if you want to propose raising from 4, please do. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Huib that it was a mistake to make Alpertron an admin with only 3 supports. That is simply not enough it should be more (10?) and I'm happy the request was reopend. That way we will avoid endless discussions about this matter.

I do not care if the rights has been removed or not. Personally I trust Alpertron will not do any actions until the matter is solved. So no matter what I'm happy.

Kanonkas got a hard debut but what does not kill you makes you stronger. So I hope and trust that Kanonkas will continue to do a good work. --MGA73 (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Huib that this was clear mistake from Kanonkas side. I think will be good idea if Kanonkas will beg a pardon for this action.

As for Alpertron, I agree with suggestion to extend voting time while Alpertron will not use administrative tools.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Eugene (not for the first time!). Equally some higher level of support at RfA seems very sensible indeed (10 sounds perfectly good to me). I also think a significant number of the supports should come from people who actually use Commons but that is another matter (: --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think 10 is only a good idea if bureaucrats are allowed to extend RfAs to allow more people to vote. Closing an RfA with 3 supports as "fail" doesn't sit well with me at all. And I use Commons a lot, though I don't edit it an awful lot. Usage != edits. Majorly talk 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Majorly - there really is no rush to close any RfA. & I certainly would not wish to exclude people such as Majorly - however there are those who vote on add RfAs who really have been here (=edited :)) very little indeed! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think 10 votes (as 10 in total including support, oppose and neutral) would be a great idea, but we should work also on making more people active on the Rfa's since it isn't the most busy part of Commons.

I have seen wikis with on the watchlistpage a little note like:

Currently:1 rfa 2 rfb 0 rfo 0rfc

I would say it is a little change, and easy to translate but it makes more people see the votes so maybe more people would come and vote. Huib talk 17:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with those above who have suggested a level of at least 10. That really is very little for a wiki of this size. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have created a proposal to change the 4 votes in to 10, I placed it Here, I would be more than happy to recieve comments about this or make changes in it before proposing it in the Village pump. Huib talk 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Flickr upload bot

Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why this bot isn't flagged as such? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My general feeling, that it's good idea to keep images appearing in recent changes for further human processing in case of none-uniform uploads. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It might have changed, but flag or not, I think the uploads still appear in RC. Most upload bots don't have one: Special:ListUsers/File Upload Bot -- User:Docu at 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Usurping a username

Hi,
Possibly I am putting this request on the right page!
I use the username "Varlaam" over in English WP primarily, but in 20+ other projects as well. I'm blocked here by a user of that name with apparently 0 edits. Possibly this was even me accidentally creating an account with a mistyped password.
Could you check into the matter and merge the accounts if appropriate to do so?
Thanks. Sincerely, :en:Varlaam 99.237.208.131 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done User:Varlaam was renamed to User:Varlaam (usurped). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bot flag temporarily granted to two users

Hi...

Tiptoety (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · logs · block log) and Juliancolton (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · logs · block log) are cleaning up some massive spamming (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Return_of_the_Mass_image_and_linkspam_account above) and asked to have the bot flag granted temporarily to avoid flooding recent changes. I've done so and notified my fellow 'crats via our mailing list... any 'crat can turn it back off again as appropriate. Long term we may want to get the flood flag enabled here. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record K copied this here... thanks!) ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pages deleted. Thanks to Kanonkas for removing the flags. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)