Commons:Administratore

Anderi Sproche:

Administratorerächt kriege chönne Benutzer, wo mer vertraue cha und wo d Richtlinie kenne und beachte. Des bedütet uff kei Fall, dass d Administratore über s Projäkt bstimme chönne.

Administrators as of May 2013 [+/−]

Listing by language Listing by date

Number of Admins: 273 1Veertje, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 32X, de, en-2, hsb-1, ru-1 99of9, en (bureaucrat) á, fi, en-2, sv-2 A.Savin, ru, de-4, en-2 Adrignola, en AFBorchert, de, en-3 Ahonc, uk, ru-4, en-2, de-1 Aka, de, en-3 Ala z, pl, en-2, ru-1 ALE!, de, en-3, es-3, fr-1, it-1 Alhen, es, en-2 Alison, en, ga-3, fr-2, gd-1 Alno, fr, en-3, es-2, pt-1 Alpertron, es, en-3 Amada44, de, en-3, fr-1 Angr, en, de-4, fr-2, ga-2, la-2, cy-1 AnRo0002, de, en-2, fr-2, es-1 Anthere, fr, en-3 Aude, en, ar-3 Avenue, en, de-1, fr-1, it-1 Avraham, en, he-2 (oversighter, steward) AVRS, ru, en-2, eo-2 Axpde, de, en-4, es-1, fr-1, it-1, nl-1 AzaToth, sv, en-4 Badseed, el, en-3, it-1 Bapti, fr, en-3, de-2 Barcex, es, en-2, fr-1 Bastique, en, fr-3, es-2, la-2, ga-1 Bdk, de, en-2 Bencmq, zh, en-3 (steward) Benoit Rochon fr, en-4 Beria, pt, en-2, es-2 Bidgee, en Billinghurst, en (steward) Blackcat, it, en-3, fr Blacklake, ru, en-2 Blurpeace, en, es-1 Butko, ru, uk-2, en-1 Cambalachero, es, en-3 Captain-tucker, en Cecil, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, fi-1 (bureaucrat) Chatama, ja, en-1 Chris 73, de, en-3, ja-1 ChrisiPK, de, en-3, fr-1 ChristianBier, de, en-3 Ciell, nl, en-2, de-1 Cirt, en, es-2 Common Good, en CommonsDelinkerHelper (bot) Cookie, es, en-2 Courcelles, en, es-2, fr-2 Coyau, fr, en-1 DaB., de, en-1 Dantadd, it, pt, en-3, es-3, fr-3, gl-3, ca-2, ro-1, el-1 Darwinius, pt, en-3, es-2, fr-2, gl-2, ca-1, it-1, oc-1 Davepape, en David Levy, en Dcoetzee, en, fr-2, et-1, af-0 Denniss, de, en-2, fr-1 Dereckson, fr, en-3, de-1, nl-1 Didym, de, en-2, fr-2 D-Kuru, de, en-2, it-1 Dschwen, de, en-3, fr-1 (bureaucrat) Edgar181, en, de-1, fr-1, es-1 Effeietsanders, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1, la-1 Ejdzej, pl, en-2 Elcobbola en, de Elitre, it, en-3, fr-2 Elya, de, en-3, uk-2, ru-1 EPO, da, en-3, de-1 Érico Júnior Wouters, pt, en-2, es-2 Esby, fr, en-3, de-1 EugeneZelenko, ru, be, en-2, bg-1, pl-1 (bureaucrat) EVula, en Ezarate, es-3, en-1 Fanghong, zh, en-2, fr-1 Fastily, en, fr-2, zh-2 Flominator, de, als, en-3 Foroa, vls, nl, en-3, fr-2 Funfood, de, en-2, bar-1 FunkMonk, da, en-4, no-3, fo-2, sv-2, de-1, es-1 Geagea, he, ka-3, en-3, ru-1 Geni, en George Chernilevsky, ru, uk-3, de-2, en-2, bg-1, la-1, be-1, fr-1 GeorgHH, de, en-1 Gestumblindi, als, de, en-3 Gmaxwell, en (checkuser) Gnangarra, en Golbez, en, ja-2 Greudin, fr, en-2, de-1 grin, hu, en-3, de-1 Gruznov, ru, en-1, fr-1 guillom, fr, en-3, de-1 Heb, da, en-2 Hekerui, de, en-4 Herbythyme, en, fr-2, es-1, it-1 (checkuser) Hesperian, en High Contrast, de, en-3, fr-1 HJ Mitchell, en Howcheng, en, ja-2 Hystrix, de, en-1 H-stt, de, en-4, fr-1 INeverCry, en, es-1, ru-1 Infrogmation, en, es-1 JDavid, pl, en-2, de-1 J Milburn, en Jafeluv, fi, en-4, fr-3, de-2, ru-2 Jameslwoodward, en, fr-1 (checkuser) January, en Jaqen, it, en-2 Jarekt, pl, en Jastrow, fr, en-3, de-1, it-1 Jcb, nl, en-3, es-3 Jcornelius, de, lt-2, la-2, en-2, pt-2, fr-1 Jdforrester, en Jean-Frédéric, fr, en-4, es-1 JeremyA, en JGHowes, en, fr-2, de-1 Jmabel, en, es-3, ro-2, de-1, ca-1, it-1, pt-1, fr-1 Joergens.mi, de, en-3 John Vandenberg, en Juliancolton, en (bureaucrat) Julo, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1 JuTa, de, en-2, fr-1 Jusjih, zh, en-3, fr-1 (bureaucrat, steward) Kaldari, en Kallerna, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1 Kanonkas, no, en-4, nn-3, da-2, sv-2, de-1 (bureaucrat) Killiondude, en, es-3, ru-1 King of Hearts, en, zh-4, es-3 Klemen Kocjancic, sl, en-3, de-2, hr-1, bs-1 Krd, de, en-3 Krinkle, nl, en-3, de-2 Krzysiu, pl, en-2, szl-2 KTo288, en, zh-4 Kved, es, en-3 Kwj2772, ko, en-2 Kyro, fr, de-3, en-2 Leit, de, en-3, fr-1 Léna, fr, en-3, es-1 Letartean, fr, en-3 Leyo, gsw, de, en-3, fr-3, es-1, la-1 Lobo, es, ca-2, en-2 Logan, en, es-3 Lokal Profil, sv, en-4, pt-2, fr-1 LtPowers, en, es-1 Ludmiła Pilecka, pl, en-2, ru-1 Ludo29, fr, en-2 Lupo, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, it-1 Luxo, gsw, de-4, en-1, fr-1 Lymantria, nl, de-2, en-2, fy-2, fr-1, zea-1 Magister Mathematicae, es, en-4, pt-1 (checkuser) Magnus Manske, de, en-2 Magog the Ogre, en, es-2 Maire, pl, en-4, es-2, fr-2, de-2, ru-1 MarcoAurelio, es, en-2, fr-2 (steward) Marcus Cyron, de, en-1 Mardetanha fa, az, en-3, tr-2, ar-1 (checkuser, steward) Martin H., de, en-2 (checkuser) Masur, pl, en-3, de-1 Matanya, en, he (steward) Materialscientist, en-4, ru-4, nl-3, fr-1, es-1 Matt314, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, zh-1 Mathonius, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 (steward) Mattbuck, en, fr-1, la-1 Maxim, ru, en-3, fr-2 MBisanz, en (steward) McZusatz, de, en-3, es-1, la-1 swg-1 Mentifisto, en, mt, it-2 (steward) MGA73, da, en-3, de-2, sv-1, no-1 MichaelMaggs, en, fr-1 Micheletb, fr, en-3, it-1, es-1 Micki, sr, bs-4, hr-3, en-2 Mitchazenia, en, es-2 Miya, ja, en-2 Mmxx, fa, en-3 Mono, en Moogsi, en, la-2, fr-1, grc-1 Morgankevinj, en, es-1, la-1 Mormegil, cs, en-2, de-1 Morning Sunshine, vi, en-3 M0tty, fr, en-1 MPF, en, da-2, de-1, fr-1 Multichill, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1 Mys 721tx, zh, en-3 Nagy, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, sv-1 Neozoon, de, en-4, nl-4, fr-2 Nilfanion, en, fr-1 NordNordWest, de, en-3 notafish, fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2 O, zh, en-4, zh-wuu-2, zh-hu-3, yue-1 fr-1 odder, pl, en-3, de-2 (oversighter) Okki, fr, en-2 Otourly, fr, en-2, it-1 PeterSymonds, en, de-1 (steward) Pharos, en, fr-1 Philosopher, en, es-1, zh-1 PierreSelim, fr, en-3, es-1 Pitke, fi, en-4, sv-2 Platonides, es, en-2, fr-1 Podzemnik, cs, en-2 Polarlys, de, en-2, fr-1, no-1 Powerek38, pl, en-4, fr-2, es-1, de-1 Pruneau, fr, en-4, de-1 PumpkinSky, en, de-2 Putnik, ru, en-2 ~Pyb, fr, en-2 Pymouss, fr, en-3, de-2, it-2, he-1 Ragesoss, en, de-1, fr-1 Ra'ike, de, en-2 Rama, fr, en-3, de-2, la-2, es-1, it-1, ja-1 (oversighter) Rastrojo, es, en-3, fr-2, eo-1 Raul654, en, es-1 Raymond, de, en-3, nl-1 (oversighter) Rd232, en, de, es-2, fr-1 Rehman, en, si-1 Reinhard Kraasch, de, en-3 Rillke, de, en-2, fr-1 Rimshot, de, en-4, fr-2, it-1 Romaine, nl, en-3, de-2, af-1, fr-1 Ronhjones, en, fr-1 Rosenzweig, de, en-3, fr-1, la-1 Royalbroil, en, es-1 Rubin16, ru, tt, en-3 Rüdiger Wölk, de, en-2 Russavia, en, ru-3 (bureaucrat) Sanandros, als, de, en-3, fr-1 Sandstein, als, de, en-4, fr-3, it-1 SarahStierch, en SatuSuro, en, id-1 Sfu, pl, en-2 Shizhao, zh, en-1, ru-1 (steward) Siebrand, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 Skeezix1000, en, fr-2 Spiritia, bg, en-3, ru-2, mk-2, de-1 Sreejithk2000, ml, en-3, hi-3, ta-1, kn-1 Steinsplitter, tir, de-4, it-3, en-1 Steven Walling, en Stifle, en, ga, fr-2, de-1 Sven Manguard, en Tabercil, en Tarawneh, en, ar, de-1 Techman224, en TheDJ, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1 Thuresson, sv, en-3, no-2 Tiptoety, en (checkuser, oversighter) Tom, en, es-1 Trijnstel, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 (checkuser, steward) Trixt, it, en-2, fr-1 tsca, pl, en, da Túrelio, de, en-3, es-1 VIGNERON, fr, de-2, en-2, zh-1 Waldir, pt, en-3 Whym, ja, en-2 Wikitanvir, bn, en-3, as-2, bpy-1 (steward) WJBscribe, en, fr-3, de-1 Wknight94, en Wpedzich, pl, en-4, de-2 (steward) Wsiegmund, en, fr-1, es-1 Wutsje, fy, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1 Wuzur, de, en-3 wvk, de, en-4, fa-3, fr-2 Yann, fr, en-3, hi-2, gu-1 Yarl, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1 Yuval Y, he, en-3 Zirland, cs, pl-3, en-3, sk-2, eo-2 Zolo, fr, en-4, de-2, zh-2 Zscout370, en, ja-3 Zyephyrus, fr, en-3, la-3, el-2 Zzyzx11, en, es-1, fr-1 KrinkleBot, Bot account; temporary adminship for testing, see also Commons:Bots/Requests/KrinkleBot (2). Brion VIBBER, Temporary adminship: "Temporary enable to look into UW campaign setup". No exact expiry date. The system currently recognizes 273 administrators. If that is not the last number in the list above, there is an error in the list.

Shortcut: COM:A odr COM:RFA E Administrator (oder Ammann) hät di folgende züesätzlige Rächt:

• er cha e beliebigi Site schütze und ihr Schutz uffhebe
• er cha Site lösche und widderherstelle
• er cha Bilder und anderi Dateie lösche
• er cha Benutzer sperre und Benutzersperrige uffhebe
• er cha s Interface und Site, wo gschützt ßin, bearbeite.

Du dich als Administrator bewerbe, dodeby sottsch aber die Kriterie erfülle:

• Du bisch nit völlig neu in de Wikimedia-Projäkt. Du häsch in de letschte zwei Monet bi Commons mitgwirkt und bekännsch dich zu de Zyl vom Projäkt.
• Du häsch e Nutzersite und mindestens 100 Byträg (Dateie oder Tekscht).
• Du befolgsch d Grundsätz und akzeptiersch d Abstimmige vo de Commons-Benutzer.
• D Benutzer vo de Commons mien erkänne, dass du e fähige Administrator werre chasch.

E Nominierig durt normalerwis sybe Dag. De Admin-Status wird gwährt, wenn mindestens 4 Stimme abge worre und 75% vo-n-ne positiv ßin. Wenn des erreicht isch, no cha e Bürokrat informiert werre, wo s Ergebnis umsetzt.

Noch de Meta-Regle fyr Administratore cha de Züegang vo inaktive Administratore gsperrt werre.

Beatrage vo de Administratorrächt

Mache e Undersite Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Dy Benutzername uff mit dem Inhalt:

==[[User:Username|Username]]==
{{custom edit|Template:Administrators/Requests and votes/Username|text='''Vote'''}}

Gründ, wiso dr Administrator werre wottsch ~~~~

===Votes===

Deno müesch sälle Tekscht do uffliste.

This is the requests and votes page, a centralized place where you can keep track of ongoing user requests, and where you can comment and leave your vote. Any user is welcome to comment on these requests, and any logged in user is welcome to vote.

When requesting rights that do not need the support of the community (e.g. filemover) please go to Commons:Requests for rights‎!

How and where to apply for additional user rights on Commons

• Administrator: Commons:Administrators/Requests
• Bureaucrat: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests
• Checkuser: Commons:Checkusers/Requests
• Oversighter: Commons:Oversighters/Requests
• Bot: Commons:Bots/Requests

All applications made on the above pages are automatically transcluded onto this page.

How to comment and vote

Any logged-in user is welcome to vote and to comment on the requests below. Votes from unregistered users are not counted, but comments may still be made. If the nomination is successful, a bureaucrat will grant the relevant rights. 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.

It is preferable if you give reasons both for  Support votes or  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.

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

Requests for adminship

watch

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.

Alan

Vote

Alan (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo)

Scheduled to end: 16:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to introduce User:Alan to the community for RfA. Alan has been active on Commons since November 2012 and has almost 7,400 edits. Since he has joined Commons, he has made an impression on me personally; I see him doing a lot of maintenance work including patrolling new files and DR/speedying problematic files, renaming files, licence reviews, participating in DR's etc. Alan and the community would benefit with him having the tools. russavia (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alan

I'd like to thank russavia and Steinsplitter for this opportunity. Also, I'd like to mention that I used to edit under my former username, User:Alan.lorenzo, and that I currently am an administrator and bureaucrat on Spanish Wikivoyage and OTRS member. --Alan ^(talk) 17:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support as nominator russavia (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support OTRS member, trusted user, excellent candidate.--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. --Ralgis (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - We are in need of more active administrators, especially those speaking Spanish. Feel free using your language skills to improve the experience of Commons for people only speaking Spanish. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And Euskara too. russavia (talk)
•  Support. I can not see any arguments against. --McZusatz (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. Very active and polite user. --Millars (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Do not expect problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Jcb (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. INeverCry 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, looks good. Trijnstel_talk 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support--Inefable001 (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support a×p_de^Hello! 12:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support a good one --High Contrast (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Lymantria (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose - sorry, but "since November 2012" is for me at a difficult project like Commons not enough. Not enough time to learn all the things you need to know. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Discussions in various questions below display intelligence and a willingness to talk things through. Also, an admin with experience on WikiVoyage will surely be worthwhile! -Pete F (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Ezarateesteban 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Can be trusted with the tools. I do not see how 6 months of experience are too little. Regards, Vogone (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral 6 months are too little. But the contributions look good. --Didym (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support The user's contribution history, thorough responses to questions asked here, and comportment in this RFA all indicate that he would be more of an asset to Commons with the sysop tools. Happy to add my support here. Begoon - talk 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --UAwiki (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Siegfried von Brilon (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --99of9 (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
•  + Although being fairly new at commons is a valid concern, Alan is an active and knowledgeable user, and I am convinced he will be useful as an admin. Another Spanish speaking admin won't do any harm either. Savh^ñ 12:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Despite russavia already mentioned some use cases, please write down in your own words a rough estimation here for what you will use your admin tools primarily. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rillke. I think it would be chiefly active "with tools" in DR, deletion categories and AN. And I will continue with the same thing that now. And of course: Where I'm needed :P --Alan ^(talk) 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• How would you respond if File:Fairphone.jpg was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "seems to be CC-BY-NC-SA [1]"? --99of9 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. Per commons:multi-licensing. Fairphone is a project of Waag Society and is the owner of rights. Alan ^(talk) 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done Ok, I didn't find that one. It's helpful if the source link points to a page with the correct license. I've corrected the unported to nl. --99of9 (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The source was correct. Look under the photo. (CC) FairPhone 2012 links to CC webpage (by/3.0/nl).
        • Ok, I see - I was confused by the changing image, but did try hovering over the CC logo which is unlinked. --99of9 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you for changing unported to nl, my mistake. --Alan ^(talk) 15:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• How would you respond if File:Reyes católicos Wax Museum.JPG was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative, apparently fails FoP-Spain" --99of9 (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Per COM:DW. "Replicas of artworks: Exact replicas of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself.". This is a replica of a picture (it seems of Goya??) in PD. --Alan ^(talk) 13:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, I assumed from the filename it was a photo of some wax figurines. I'll add another question (next) which is like that. So in this case it should be {{PD-art}} but you don't know the source painting? --99of9 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, is a exact replica using wax. Sincerly, put the name in a label, but I do not remember the exact name, sorry. --Alan ^(talk) 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
        • So you're arguing that wax figurines are exact replicas of public domain human bodies, and thus do not have sufficient originality to warrant copyright? Don't you think that the artist gets to choose the pose/expression/clothing/colours in an creative artistic process (as for most sculptures of people)? --99of9 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
          • If we understand that the wax figures aren't replicas, in application of the Spanish Royal Decree-Law 1/1996 art.21 (21. Transformación), all spanish wax-art photos should be deleted. --Alan ^(talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes. I'm pretty sure they should be treated like other portrait sculptures. I've set up a DR for this one. (My view of "replica" is when you take a fixed shape object and make another fixed shape object the same apart from overall scale.) --99of9 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
              • I seems perfect. Let's see what opines the comunity respect to this matter. The museums always provoked differences of opinion. --Alan ^(talk) 17:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• How would you respond if File:David Bisbal - Wax Museum.JPG was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative, apparently fails FoP-Spain" --99of9 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I forgot this. See above. --Alan ^(talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• How would you respond if File:Urkiola_Sanctuary.jpg was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative, apparently fails FoP-Spain" --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • the image is to show the stained glass (In PD per antique, the wall is inevitable. I think that applies COM:DM. --Alan ^(talk) 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry I don't buy that. The photographer could have walked forward by about 10 meters if he wanted a picture of the glasswork. If anything DM would be the other way around (glass DM in the context of the wall). --99of9 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • No. There is a ribbon that prohibits approaching. One solution, cut the image. --Alan ^(talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, that would be fine if it's still useful so small. --99of9 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Image cropped and updated. New resolution is "decent" with 409 × 440 px. Alan ^(talk) 17:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
            •  Done thanks. --99of9 (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Please have a look at File:Cartel de guía de viajes aprobada.svg. The code generated for attribution for re-using this file is:

Por Alan.lorenzo Este archivo se derivó de: UK_traffic_sign_2205.svg City_silhouette.svg Yes_check.svg (Trabajo propio) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)].

What does cc-by-sa (Creative Commons Genérica de Atribución/Compartir-Igual 3.0) demand from re-users? -- Rillke^(q?) 12:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• City_silhouette.svg have BY-SA 3.0 (ShareAlike) and because of this, must use the same license. Others let choose and BY-SA is supported. --Alan ^(talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is true. And CC-By-SA also requires atribución. So the authors of the original work (there is only one the exceeds COM:TOO in this graphic, so I listed him) should be listed (even though they were just one click away) so that they're included in the attribution line. Good luck with your RfA. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fæ

Vote

Fæ (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo)

Scheduled to end: 11:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: Please keep the tone and comments in this discussion respectful and civil toward both the candidate and other commenters.

I would like to put myself forward for admin tools. Over the last 3 years I have made significant contributions to Commons:

• 70,000+ images uploaded from a wide range of sources, including over 2,000 of my own photographs. A summary can be found on my user page.
• 680,000+ edits [2]
• ~1.4 million edits by Faebot.[3] Much of these have been part of my project to add place categories to uploads from Geograph, this being a comprehensive photographic record of the whole of Britain. Other projects have included identification of problematic mobile phone uploads by examining EXIF data, automatic categorization of identical duplicates using the Commons API for when upload tools have failed to do this for themselves, and a number of varied special requests raised on Commons:Bots/Work_requests that I found interesting to handle.
• Discussion and development of Commons policies and the presentation and promotion of Commons in 'real life' with GLAMs and other institutions over the last couple of years, such as the British Library, the Wellcome Trust and Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums.
• I am a founder of the GLAMtoolset project and represent the UK on the Steering Group. This is a large inter-chapter funded project in partnership with Europeana, to make available an easy to use set of Commons mass upload tools for GLAM professionals to apply to their institutional media collections and archives.

Though it would always be useful to have a "GLAM-knowledgeable" admin available to help out, more important would be my experience of helping with all types of admin tasks on Commons to inform these projects, as well as continuing the support I already give to the institutions on how to encourage Wikimedians to join in with making these projects a success, as well as promoting (and lobbying) on how to avoid copyfraud and the use of simple policies for copyright and attribution.

Declarations:

1. I am a founder of the proposed thematic organization Wikimedia LGBT. meta:LGBT
2. I am a trustee of the charity Wikimedia UK. wmuk:Board

--Fæ (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Oppose Too much GAMING commons community policy. Fails to read discussions prior to closing discussions. Penyulap ☏ 11:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I am confident the tools would be helpful to him and he won't misuse them. --McZusatz (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose – Fæ neglects to mention past accounts and sockpuppets and neglects to mention past enwiki ban in his nomination statement. Would you trust a sysop who hides facts from you? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry. I supported another user here today because I felt they were suited to the stressful position of admin, but a look through the (vast) available history of the candidate (and his aliases/prior accounts) here and at my home wiki en.wp does not give me confidence that is the case here. I also feel the candidate often tends towards the letter rather than the spirit of policy in order to achieve an aim, and this is not a philosophy I'm comfortable with. Begoon - talk 14:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Alan ^(talk) 14:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted botoperator, I only know Fae as a reliable user and opponent in RD. :) I think Fae would make a good admin. Let's give it a try! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• {{o}} Bad character (humiliating and insulting comments in discussions to insult opponents in discussions), biased (which is against NPOV as shouldn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias). JKadavoor Jee 16:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Corrected per the command by Túrelio (He asked; not requested to correct this accordingly). My vote is based on Commons:Guide to adminship and Commons:Staying mellow; I'm not aware of any previous or EN:Wiki related issues that discussed below. I expect more matured and controlled behaviour from admins. (I didn't understand what A. Savin meant by some oppose voters do not seem really representative for the Commons community. Do we have separate classes of memberships like Blacks and Whites? JKadavoor Jee 10:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Withdrawing my oppose per [4] JKadavoor Jee 17:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Oppose for many reasons. But to be honest, he is better than a lot of the admin we have now. That isn't saying much, though. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral I don't have reasons to oppose, but I don't feel comfortable supporting. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Didym (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support In hope of short, true and meaningful statements and the tools primarily used for GLAM work. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see any good reason not to support this nomination (and I think the comment immediately above is deplorable). Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not comfortable with this due to recent enwiki ban. --Rschen7754 20:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - I don't normally follow RfAs and my Commons experience isn't that extensive, but I'm voting here in response to the canvassing by those who are opposed to Fae for political/cultural reasons. Many of the oppose votes here, like my support, are extensions of the still-ongoing, years-old conflict about Commons censorship, which was the major underlying motivation for the appalling en.wiki ArbCom case. I know that Fae is a prolific contributor who has done work few others would have the patience for - and he was an admin on en.wiki so good that even in months of spewing politically motivated vitriol no single one of his detractors ever came up with a claim that he had misused his admin tools in any way (look at where I made this point, unrefuted, in the ArbCom pages if you don't believe me). Politically, Fae's position - that Commons should not be censored - is nothing unusual here or among Wikipedians as a whole, but it is very inconvenient to those whose mission in life is to change that. Wnt (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe that Fæ's free speech track record is dismal. Fæ sought to blacklist forums that he disapproved of. Fæ sought to restrict Penyulap's freedom to express his thoughts. Wnt, I don't believe that you fully comprehend Fæ's position on freedom of speech and censorship. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wnt, here is a link to the ArbCom case involving Fæ. Commons is incidental to the case and "censorship" is simply not a part of it. Please do not mislead people with your imaginings. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • He is still giving it his wholehearted support as we speak Penyulap ☏ 11:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - per Hedwig, let's give it a try. In case of abuse it's possible to remove admin flag. Also, some oppose comments do not seem really representative for the Commons community to me. --A.Savin 21:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • We're all contributors to Commons. Of the six opposers, I believe that five of them aren't Wikipediocracy users. I never seen Penyulap, Begoon, Jkadavoor, or Rschen7754 participate in any discussion on Wikipediocracy, and Ottava Rima isn't welcomed on Wikipediocracy. Fearmongers and conspiracy theorists such as Wnt and others are exaggerating an issue that's pretty non-existent. Like Jewish people, Wikipediocracy users are a tiny minority that's constantly accused of controlling everything. I don't believe that it's fair to describe !voters as not being a true part of the community. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In regards to "let's give it a try. In case of abuse it's possible to remove admin flag." I don't believe the RfA process is intended to be a simple trial and error process, rather, qualities such as basic moral autonomy should be examined, it's less work for the community that way. Penyulap ☏ 00:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per A. Savin who has just hit the nail on the head! russavia (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Don't know yet, so  Neutral. Trijnstel_talk 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Per Hedwig, A.Savin and Russavia. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral - for now. I have some concerns, especially re. the previous sock accounts, but I've seen some good work on Commons too, recently. Need to think on this some - Alison ^❤ 23:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Vast contribution record. Fae declares above that he is a trustee of WMUK; his recent pushing for proper transparency and governance at WMUK convince me that he will make a strong contribution to the future of commons as as admin. TheOverflow (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Vast contribution record." Most of that is script based editing that can be done by bots, but is instead done by a lot of admin who have been criticized of using the scripts to hide some edits that are not agreed upon by the larger community. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It was pointed out by Russavia that many people without Commons contribs are voting. The above user is supporting with his second contrib. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

TheOverflow has been a Wikimedia contributor since May 2012. I don't believe that we should discount !votes. Everyone should be free to express their opinion, and we shouldn't ignore anyone's opinion. If he or she is familiar with Fæ and WMUK, then his or her insight should be valued. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me make my third 'contribution' by saying I am a commons user, not a contributor, and I often observe, what happens behind the scenes. This RFA as motivated me to participate in the discussion, and I feel my observations are relevent. So, please consider my view, even if you discard my !vote. TheOverflow (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Fae definitely does good and useful work here, but some of my encounters with him have left a rather bad impression, unfortunately. Here he derails a village pump thread about identifiable minors by claiming that, should the suggested change be enforced, Commons would need to a) de-admin every admin under 18, and b) hire paid staff to enforce the new policy. I'll leave it up to you to decide how silly those claims are, given the initial suggestion. And at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brief Skinny Lad (5989161662).jpg, he heavily implied that the deletion request (or some of the deletion votes) were solely based on homophobia ("Anyway, I'd better get back to my uber-gay Christmas décor.", "Of course, no homoerotic content there to excite anyone."), which I found particularly distasteful. --Conti|✉ 06:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think he can work on better without any admin rights. Too often involved in COM:ANU skirmishes. --High Contrast (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Huge volume of edits, and tools will be useful to him. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Cool dude who knows his stuff, but I honestly don't think he's cut out to handle the strains of adminship. Sorry -FASTILY 00:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Experienced, dedicated contributor. INeverCry 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but the ban on Wikipedia is a bit too concerning for me to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As a reminder, I am not banned on the English Wikipedia, or blocked or banned on any other project. I have not returned to editing the English Wikipedia, this may confuse some people. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

collapse mostly off-topic now that Kevin has clarified. Stick to the topic at hand please.

See that makes this bit right here so hard to understand. Can I ask what are you like at back-pedalling ? Penyulap ☏ 06:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Do you understand the difference between was and is or is this too hard? A view on en:User talk:Fæ may help. --Túrelio (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Turelio, that was a little too hostile. It is common for people to continue to use a ban to justify an oppose even if the ban is over. Rarely do people support admin when an individual was merely blocked until at least 6 months have passed. A ban is sometimes never overlooked. The ban dealt with policy that directly affects Commons (copyright), and this is concerning to a lot of people. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) True, except that Penyulap was not justifying their oppose. S/he attempted to argue/ridicule/trap Fae's answer to someone else. When you do that without getting your easily checked facts straight, you should expect some egg on your face. --99of9 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC) The problem with your statement is that nether Penyulap or Kevin stated that the ban was currently active. They mentioned "the ban." There was a ban. It was a rather major ban. It is a pertinent ban. The responses to try and discredit it do the support no favor and were hostile and not within Commons policy. "Egg on face"? No, not even close, and it is kinda incivil for you to make the statement because it is a standard battleground "me vs you" statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Though the English Wikipedia Arbcom has no particular authority on Commons, it would be helpful if you could link to findings of fact or eventual remedies where copyright was an issue rather than leaving this as an open implication. My understanding of the case was that though people made multiple allegations relating to copyright theft and other crimes, the intense and detailed investigation conducted (that included my contributions to Commons), reached a conclusion was that there were no findings relevant for these allegations and these had no bearing on the ban relating to "Wikipedia's norms and policies". --Fæ (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "Finding of Facts" are only used if there is something to be acted upon and necessary. The question of the map, for instance, was what sunk your previous RfA and was central to you being dragged into ArbCom on en.wiki. You can't say that copyright wasn't an issue. You can profess to be innocent of copyright infringement. Sure. But you can't say that it wasn't an accusation lodged against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Correct, there was nothing to be acted on with regard to these allegations, because there was insufficient evidence to take action. Copyright was not "central" to being "dragged" to Arbcom, as anyone who reads MBisanz's original case statement can tell, as it is not mentioned. It is factually incorrect that this "sank" my last RFA, the last RFA was not closed, I withdrew the RFA shortly after receiving a threat as part of an off-wiki campaign which my partner and me were distressed by. --Fæ (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC) (Ec with OR) I confirm that's correct 99of9, it looked like politician's double-speak to me, Kevin mentioned something about a ban, and Fæ gave what looked for all the world like a denial, I don't care if someone is banned on en.wiki, or every other wiki for that matter, proof is I quite like Michael, who says along the lines of ( struck I was banned by a bunch of idiots (or whatever) inserted "That's just what Fæ and ArbCom believe"). I like and prefer that 100 times more than what looks to me like something intended to mislead. I don't mind, and am happy to look past other people's opinions to make up my own, and just as I said in the very first vote here, the first sentence, it's the gaming that I object to. The spirit is the most important thing. 99of9, your coment is very ambiguous, this response is for only one of it's possible meanings, if my response doesn't make sense, please rephrase a bit so i can respond to the other meaning. Penyulap ☏ 15:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I don't believe that you recall our conversation correctly. I didn't describe ArbCom as a "bunch of idiot". ArbCom possesses great people such as Newyorkbrad. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC) @Ottava_Rima and Penyulap: It's probably best if you two were to allow Ktr101 to respond to Fæ's response on his or her own. If Ktr101 was mistaken, he or she can say so and clarify for us. If Ktr101 was indeed referring to the past ban and not a current ban, then he or she can tell Fæ what he or she actually meant. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC) @99of9: It seems Commons admin panel is the last refuge of all banned, blocked and warned members of our sister wikis. Do we need to strengthen our admin community with people who have ability to throw eggs to the faces of poor contributors? JKadavoor Jee 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to his past ban, as it was far too recent for me to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Support . Geagea (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'm too little involved in this community to have a strong opinion on this matter. Regards, Vogone (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Will make a capable and competent admin. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 01:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Aside from the issues underlying the en-wiki ban and the lack of candor relating to his use of multiple accounts, Fæ's comments here just the day before this discussion began [5], uncivilly proclaiming that blocking one of his en-wiki critics would be "a bonus to the community," also demonstrates that the candidate is unsuitable to hold a position of trust. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per "Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others". He doesn't seem to have stopped. Salvio giuliano (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Does a lot of, good work, and hopefully will continue to do good work, but aside from the nose to the grind wheel stuff, is pathologically drawn to creating controversy and conflict.--10:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs)

Sometimes does good work, but could benefit from mastering nose to the grind wheel stuff rather than endlessly trying to inflate his upload and edit count.--KTo288 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Fae's past history does not inspire confidence. — Scott • talk 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Gave quickly good answeres to all my questions. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Strong support This user is somebody that I aspire to be like when I "grow up" on Commons. A past trouble on English Wikipedia should be counted as a badge of honour on Commons. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you have your own problems on en.wikipedia? Because I do not see any edits of your account on en.wikipedia [6]. Your first edits suggest that you aren't a new user, and your statement above seems to verify that. You sure have waded into some very controversial topics, and right from the start. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

@Ottava_Rima: Sinnamon's enwiki activity isn't relevant to this discussion or to his or her right to state his or her opinion in this discussion. Can you please stop looking for votes to discount? It isn't helpful. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is, because the user practically admitted that they are a sock puppet of an established account. We need to be sure that there are no duplicate votes, and I believe a CU is warranted here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting that you have your own problems on en.wikipedia?" No, I am not. I am suggesting that "A past trouble on English Wikipedia should be counted as a badge of honour on Commons." In other words I will not edit ENWP even to change the incorrect spelling. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sinnamon's comment is against the spirit of WMF, and should be discouraged. They are not enemies; fighting each other. It is a pity that many banned, problematic users find refuge in another projects and use their wicked abilities to damage the goodwill of WMF. JKadavoor Jee 02:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that Sinnamon's vote is to further wage war against another project. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Support - I do believe people can learn from what went wrong in the past and I'm convinced about his good intentions. Jcb (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose While I firmly believe people can change and that second chances are important, they must come after sufficient evidence that the requester has learned from his or her mistakes. At this point, I do not have enough confidence that Fæ has changed enough to allow me to feel comfortable extending him the trust necessary for access to the admin maintenance toolset here on the Commons. I'm sorry. -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• have you ever used sock-puppets outside of LEGIT sock-puppets such as robots Fæ ? Penyulap ☏ 11:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No. A long time ago I used some accounts for privacy reasons, this is perfectly acceptable within the policy you appear to be referencing. For the last 3 years I have only used User:Fæ and User:Faebot on Wikimedia Commons. --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • OK good enuf for me. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Privacy is no problem, just how many privacy accounts are you talking about ? Penyulap ☏ 15:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Two privacy accounts, making trivial numbers of contributions to Wikimedia Commons (as in fewer than 10 files uploaded) and retired more than 3 years ago. Fæ (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
        • That sounds ok. So what is your attitude to people double-voting (or more) in admin elections, under what conditions is it OK with you ? Penyulap ☏ 19:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't see how that question is relevant. I don't believe that Fæ was involved in vote-stacking. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Sorry to be confusing, I don't mean Fæ's alternative accounts, I mean his recent very strong support for burying all discussion of double voting in an admin election which had only just been uncovered. Seems there is a time limit, that if you get away with rigging elections for long enough before it's discovered, then that's all just fine and discussion should be stifled, I'd like to know if that's a good summary then or now. I'd like to know just how much of a complete blind eye two-tiered justice system we want on commons. Penyulap ☏ 22:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
              • If I suspected such a thing was occurring, I would raise it for investigation with our Bureaucrats who have the burden of responsibility for ensuring that the process for creating and removing administrators is properly managed. The particular case had privacy issues that dated from 8 years previous to the discussion you took part in. When someone admits to having made a serious mistake but points out a privacy issue, I would much prefer to leave it for proper full investigation by Bureaucrats or Oversight depending on the nature of the mistake/problem; it seems common sense and basic human respect to treat privacy matters conservatively, particularly for an admitted mistake made years ago. If you have any remaining concerns for the case you refer to, considering that the accused account retired due to the discussion and their concern and distress related to a potential invasion of their private life, you may want to raise the matter again on COM:BN rather than here or elsewhere. I had no personal connection to the account in question, in fact I cannot recall if we had interacted in any significant way before the date of the discussion on AN/U, certainly I have not interacted with them since they retired from Commons. --Fæ (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
                • I can see you are quite fast in finding an excuse to close community discussion, enabling the admin, who has not been de-sysopped, to at any time resume their tools upon making a request. The 'privacy issue' you speak of is, and correct me if I am wrong, that after they were caught, they claimed it was a family member, so if someone was caught out for making 12 votes 8 years ago, but after they are caught they suddenly remember they have 12 cousins, that's good enough a reason to censor all further community discussion, derail the de-sysop process, over concern for 'privacy', do you think that would be a fair balance between privacy concerns and proper functioning of the bureaucracy ?

The person has not been de-sysopped, the community is now divided between those who feel that the sysop was being hounded long after the fact and those who feel it is not appropriate to double vote in elections on principle alone, the process has been derailed, how do you count the cost to the community against the cost to the admin ? Penyulap ☏ 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Here you go -FASTILY 04:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

well that clears a few things up, and spells out the chilling effect Alison mentions. Penyulap ☏ 05:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"the community is now divided", on examination seems to be a parody of the discussion. COM:BN is the right place to ask for a Bureaucrat to investigate further, or take action. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

well I don't know what discussion you're looking at, but I do know you're sadly mistaken if you think rigged elections are a laughing matter to all sections of this community. The discussion was re-opened and re-closed at a guess a dozen times, and there are discussions devoted to the closure of that discussion itself. There is a difference between resolving differences and simply censoring, bullying, suppressing, and ignoring people. That is the difference which makes or breaks a volunteer community.

I've reminded you more than once you should listen to other people if you want them to listen to you, and that is pretty much the reason that this RfA is going to fail, (yes, let me be the first to break the news, it's going to fail) because you have to listen, rather than ignore other people, even those you disagree with. The community IS divided over the rigged elections and there is a huge difference between 'victory' and 'harmony'. Penyulap ☏ 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Info A link to this RfA, posted by Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs), appeared on Wikipediocracy, a site devoted to the criticism of Wikipedia. odder (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't believe that information should be hidden. Sharing news and information for discussion on a forum isn't a crime. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Noting for general reference that Michaeldsuarez is banned from the English Wikipedia [7] after the Arbitration Committee found that he had carried out off-wiki harassment against Fae,[8] which he attempted to justify in very similar terms to what he has said above.[9] This should be borne in mind when reading his comments. Prioryman (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict.) So ? everyone's been banned from en.wiki by arbcom haven't they ? Michael, Fæ, Jimbo and me. Oh, except for Jimbo and me. If Michael can't talk because he was banned by arbcom on en.wiki then why should Fæ be a sysop when he's been banned by arbcom on en.wiki ? doesn't make sense to me, I say 'who cares' lets just stick to what is here. Fæ is welcome to have an RfA and Michael is welcome to comment. Penyulap ☏ 20:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure why you think Fae is banned when in fact he is not. He's in a very different position to Michaeldsuarez, who is not only currently banned, but was banned for harassing Fae. You would think that Michael would have learned by now that he needs to stay far away from anything to do with Fae. Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
          • (Edit conflict.) I must be mistaken, you see I looked at his en.wiki userpage, and it was kind of blank, well, compared to mine it is anyhow, so I looked in the history and the last few edits are all about arbcom bans and stuff, point is, none of it matters. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I didn't harass Fæ. That's just what Fæ and ArbCom believe. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
            • well I guess that is an open way to put it, and it seems I was correct about my guess. Still, I think both of you are good contributors here. Just that I think Fae doesn't have the moral direction other admins I support do, and his responses here aren't helping. Generally I like to predict what information people would like to know and give it to them before they ask, or straight away. Fae makes some admirable admissions, but leaves out so very much which is clearly relevant that it makes this whole RfA feel more like a cross-examination of a hostile witness. I like the way you put it Michael, that you're banned by people who are out of their minds, cause then we know. Simple. Hmm, I wonder what other new things will come out as the week progresses. sigh. Penyulap ☏ 05:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that information should not be hidden (actually, I opposed Michaeldsuarez' ban just as I opposed Fae's). It is apparent that those interested in having a Commons that is not owned and operated by Wikipediocracy will need to reach out and "CANVASS" in the future. One admitted strategy of Commons' opponents, as mentioned on w:User talk:Jimbo Wales right now, is to try to worm their own people into adminship in a sort of stealth jihad to take over the site. Since they keep their own forum and are lining up their rank and file to vote in things like this, they are having a disproportionate impact. The only way to counter this is if the regular Commons contributors who believe in wide-ranging, uncensored holdings make the decision to organize and get out the vote themselves for their RfAs in the future. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I only approached two users with offers of nominating them for sysop: WhatamIdoing and Stefan4. Neither of them are Wikipediocracy users, I first approached WhatamIdoing in November (long before Jimbo made his suggestion), and Stefan4 is a recipient of of the "Hot sex barnstar". Wnt, stop trying to scare people. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) I'm a Commons admin of some five years now, as well as being a moderator and one of the original founders of Wikipediocracy. These positions are by no means mutually exclusive. It sounds to me like you're suggesting people should not be open about such things, lest they be accused of all sorts of bad things. This will just lead to people going underground, and not openly able to speak on other sites as they see fit - a chilling effect, if you will. I'm definitely against that, which is why I'm standing up to be counted here - Alison ^❤ 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Come off it, Alison. We all know - and you better than most - that Wikipediocracy is Troll Central. You also know perfectly well that Michaeldsuarez is under a ban for harassing Fae off-wiki. Put the two together, and it's perfectly obvious that he is continuing the feud that was supposed to have been ended by his ban. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Are people forgetting that the off-commons mentions of RfA works both for and against a candidate ? I can see support for Fae stating 'I'm voting here in response to the canvassing'. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on now, stop being rational and analytical... It's much more fun to pretend there is a "stealth jihad" to "infiltrate" sleepers into the Commons administrative corps on account of Jimmy Wales recently suggesting that was the way to clean the festering Commons stable. Of course, that's silliness, the way that house will be eventually cleaned is through WMF intervention and a black-hooded executioner's axe... Someday, someday... Carrite (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I believe I am the only person who had commented in the section above who actually got here from WO and I did not vote. What I did is point out that the hefty contribution figures given by Fæ are misleading. See this instance where he made nearly 5,000 edits, mostly image uploads, within the course of two days, or this one where he makes 5,000 minor changes over the course of a single day and that is just what fits on the page as there were more of those edits that day if you look at contribution history before and after that page. Such edits are happening over time periods that make it highly unlikely these are anything but automated edits with the exception of a very small morsel. It is something he has been doing a while such as back in December when he made thousands of edits over the course of days adding categories for uploads by x user with very minor copy-edits in between. He made less than 15,000 edits prior to the arbitration case on en-wiki and less than 3,000 to Commons space, most of the latter also in the past year. That is not to suggest these recent contributions are not significant or constructive, but scraping image databases and minor copy-edits or categorization demonstrate little about his ability to be an admin and appear to have been a response to developments on a different project geared at puffing up his credentials.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are not a regular editor here, so let me break this down for you, and give you some insight on how Commons works:

• This edit is problematic why? You do realise that we are a repository of freely licenced media and to be a repository, you need to have the media. So uploading files is what we do, and we encourage all editors (new and established) to do this.
• This seems to be replacing a template used in images with a more suitable one. If a better information template can be used to provide better information to our reusers, then great.
• This and this were adding categories to an editors uploads, to make it easier for the community to deal with an issue it had at the time. I believe this was done at my request from memory. I also asked Fae to do exactly the same to my uploads, but only because I wanted to keep track of files I've uploaded over years. This is collaborative editing, which is what we are here for.
• His edit count is irrelevant in the over scheme of things, but given that he was banned from enwp, and still stayed dedicated to our projects by way of contributing here is fantastic, and should not be frowned upon.
• Other examples of how Fae has so-called inflated his edit include Category:Images from norden.org uploaded by Fæ and Category:Files from Imagicity.com (processing) -- both high valued streams that I personally asked him to upload -- not because I thought he needed to inflate his edit count, but because they are high valued streams that we need on this project -- one full of Scandinavian politicians photos that I told editors on the various WP that we have access to -- the other being the stream of an expat academic in Vanuatu who has captured that island nation and its people beautifully.

I hope you can understand why when someone with 93 edits since 2007 comes to this project (8 of them connected to this very RfA) and basically tries to bring unproven and somewhat outrageous insinuations into the equation, I sincerely hope you don't mind it when we tell you exactly why this isn't being "The Devil's Advocate" but something else completely, as I have done above. russavia (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not disputing whether those contributions were helpful or not, but whether they indicate anything of value regarding his desire for adminship. It does seem as if he has just been trying to pad his résumé since that case on en-wiki.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't use Wikipediocracy for canvassing. I use Wikipediocracy in order to inform people (informing is not the same as creating !voters) and to provide an alternative forum for people who can't speak out on Commons (i.e. banned people) to let their thoughts and feelings be known. I don't use Wikipediocracy as a pool to draw !voters. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Overflow voted in support on his second edit. I think that the support is more curious than the oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

TheOverflow has been a Wikimedia contributor since May 2012. I don't believe that we should discount !votes. Everyone should be free to express their opinion, and we shouldn't ignore anyone's opinion. If he or she is familiar with Fæ and WMUK, then his or her insight should be valued. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel this is quite interesting, User talk:Jkadavoor#Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ2. Seems to raise the question, are people allowed to speak openly and honestly about their feelings in an admin request, Fæ, what do you think, do you feel that the oppose vote should be seen as a personal attack ? should people be free to say what they think without feeling hounded, or that they need to watch everything they say, lest admins appear upon their talkpage using threatening lanugage, what kind of an environment would you like on commons ? Penyulap ☏ 06:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

An allegation of "Bad character" is damning and requires unambiguous evidence. Túrelio states this "is an ad-hominem argument, a personal attack", I suggest you ask them to clarify that point. As the allegation is against my character, any view I provide you with on this would be called partisan.

I would like Commons to be a mellow and non-hostile environment. Part of the role of administrators is to work constructively towards this goal. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fighting fire with petrol doesn't seem the way to go. That editor seems quite gentle and polite from the contributions they make, so a confrontational approach is not called for and will be counter-productive. Personally, if someone calls me an idiot, I'm usually first to agree, and then if I care, I might ask in a friendly manner why they think so, or what is the most idiotic part of my repertoire of stupidity. That approach gets better results than going to war. But that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we can all agree I'm an idiot, right ? Penyulap ☏ 10:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question If you are appointed as an admin, and User:Pieter Kuiper is at some point unblocked by the community:

• How will you react?
  • I will stay clear of him.
• How will you relate to him?
  • I would not. I would leave any problem resolution to others.
• How will you respond if he nominates 10 of your files for deletion with rationales that he and some other members of the community think reasonable?
  • Pieter has raised many perfectly good policy based deletion requests on my uploads and when he is unblocked, I am happy to leave the outcome of requests to the community.
• How will you determine the difference between legitimate discussion and harassment?
  • As I would avoid any interaction, I would leave it to the community to decide.
• What will you do if you feel he is harassing you?
  • Seek independent advice or raise for alternative views in a neutral forum. --Fæ (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

--99of9 (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question Fæ, you said earlier that you have confined yourself to two accounts for the past three years but prior to that you had used alternate accounts (which you call privacy accounts). You state that there were "two privacy accounts, making trivial numbers of contributions to Wikimedia Commons". I realise that you may not have used these accounts for years, but can you take some time and confirm that there were only two alternate accounts? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm for the community that there were only 2 accounts actively used here on Commons as so-called privacy accounts. russavia (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. How are you able to answer this question on the candidate's behalf? He's been asked to confirm that he only used 2 different alternate accounts (which he refers to as "privacy" accounts), which, to my simple mind, is a question he can only answer himself. You can tell us what you are aware of, for which I'm sure we are grateful, but the question asked is another thing entirely, surely? Begoon - talk

Russavia, I don't want to see this RfA devolve into the mess like Fæ's first one, but a reassurance from you is worthless. I believe Fæ's statement to be provably false, but without being able to ask about specific accounts, it is difficult to challenge it. With Fæ's permission, I would like to ask about specific accounts, which he can then comment on whether or not they are his - does that seem reasonable? Since Fæ pretends not to interact with me, you are welcome to answer for him in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok, sorry if I committed some sort of faux-pas - I didn't realise there was some kind of proxy conversation likely to occur here - ignorant of that part of the history. This kind of multiple account thing always gets very confusing for me - seems to make open discussion difficult. I'll butt out now, with apologies for my earlier confusion. Still interested in the general answers to the question though, given the history I have seen. Begoon - talk 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle, I have advised Fae to stay well clear of you, and I advise you to do the same with Fae. I have stepped in as someone who has his privacy in mind. I have answered your questions based upon the information that I was aware of, and also upon information which Fae provided to myself and the English Wikipedia Arbcom (not that they have any authority on this project). The information he has provided is found at en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Use_of_multiple_accounts; which finished a year mind you and this RfA is not an extension of your battlegrounds there.

To make it easier for people to understand this spreadsheet lays out all of the accounts, with the exception of the 2 privacy accounts. Fae compiled the list, I provided the annotations. Whether those privacy accounts are named elsewhere is not my concern as an admin/bureaucrat on this project, but they should not be named on this project out of decency to Fae and his privacy . I know what the two privacy accounts are, and I have also shared this information with another bureaucrat, and it's my opinion that they were legitimate use of the accounts under the circumstances; although their use may have presented some problems. There are other admins who are also aware of them by their own methods, but whether they pipe in that's up to them.

It's up to you whether you wish to proceed with this line of questioning, but I will not be confirming nor denying those accounts for you, at least not on Fae's behalf. This RfA is about moving forward; Fae knows he may have erred in the past, but he has clearly turned over a new leaf. russavia (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, I think I understand. Sorry if I'm still getting it wrong, but that's a very confusing set of instructions/explanations/imperatives you give above. DC shouldn't pursue the question. Should I? Or would that be advised against in your position as Bureaucarat/Admin? It all seems so complicated for such a simple question. What does "although their use may have presented some problems" mean?

I'm really not trying to beat a dead horse here, but it sounded like such a simple question to elicit such a complex, obtuse answer, and reminiscent of the historical lack of openness from en.wp associated with the candidate which initially gave me the red flags causing me to oppose. Can you just help me understand why all this cloak and dagger stuff needs to exist here? Begoon - talk 19:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Because of long-term harassment, hounding, and lack of respect for editorial privacy (both on and off project). It's as simple as that really. russavia (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Ok, well I won't press any more, since it is becoming too confusing, and it appears the candidate does not intend to address the question, which is, of course his right. I won't say that doesn't disappoint me, though. Perhaps a less confusing and stressful approach would have been for Fae to just make it clear himself that he felt enough questions had been answered on the matter, and he didn't intend to respond further, as I noticed one of the other current candidates did politely and diplomatically in their RFA. That seemed an acceptable, drama free way to handle things, but hindsight is 20/20, I guess. Thanks for your time trying to be the man in the middle, anyway. Begoon - talk 10:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, the accounts that were listed in the ArbCom case is not a complete list, as Fæ will attest. Fæ was banned from the Engligh-language WP as a result of that ArbCom case. One of the conditions of Fæ's unblocking earlier this year was that he disclose all alternate accounts to ArbCom, which they have confirmed that he has done, although they ArbCom did not provide that list to the community or disclose how many alternate accounts Fæ listed. Although they have no standing here, perhaps one of the Arbs would be willing to confirm that with the sole exceptions of Fæ and Fæbot, only two other accounts from the complete list of Fæ's known accounts have edits on Commons? Would that be acceptable to Fæ? And, to you, of course? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have said all that I will say on the matter DC. Continue this line of questioning directly with the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee; it's a matter for them, not for us. We don't dwell on ancient history here, and I am well aware of the ongoing harassment of Fae, and the continued threats of harassment being made offsite, so I suggest you take it to English Wikipedia where this is actually relevant and more inline with what they allow. russavia (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the English-language WP. It is a question about whether someone who is asking for advanced privileges here is, frankly, lying about their use of alternate accounts. That is something that I think the Commons community would want resolved. I have offered a way to settle this question that will not compromise Fæ's privacy by revealing the names of the alternate accounts. If Fæ has been truthful about their past account use, he has nothing to lose by doing this and has an opportunity to make me look foolish by putting a conclusive end to my questions. This is not "harassment", but the type of basic diligence that I would expect on any project. Considering some of the people who have been given admin and bureaucrat rights, I think it would be in Commons best interests to look more closely at candidates. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not slander other users. If you have evidence, present it, otherwise keep the innuendo to yourself. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Accusing others of slanders is a legal threat that is normally met with an indefinite block. I will give you an hour to strike it and apologize before I ask for your immediate ban until the threat can be deemed no longer pertinent. After all, and you have done the same towards others using the same terms. Hypocrisy and incivility isn't acceptable conduct on Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As you well know, I meant slander in terms of "accusations without evidence" rather than any legal sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I assumed as such, but you were unwilling to assume the same for others and you pushed for NLT here with such a strict interpretation before. It just isn't fair for an admin to do such then perform the same action when it suits them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mattbuck, with respect to Fæ's privacy, I will not name his alternate accounts without his permission. This prevents me from presenting my evidence, as you put it. I have suggested an alternative way for Fæ to confirm his use of alternate accounts without disclosing them. There is nothing slanderous about my comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is really rather Ted Cruz-esque. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If I can clarify, and I believe I wouldn't be alone in my own thinking, when I ask someone about alternative accounts as I often do, I don't want, and don't actually care, if they name those accounts. What I am looking for is a clear outline of the activities of those accounts, a narrative to explain the anomalies in the regular contributions for an editor. If Delicious carbuncle has seen something unusual, then a simple frank narrative which encompasses everything that Dc has seen would, I think, satisfy Dc. At least it would satisfy me if I was concerned. The discussion doesn't need to go so far into hostile territories, not for me, and I think some others may feel the same way. Penyulap ☏ 18:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Break

 Question You have uploaded into Commons from public-domain-photos.com a lot of photos, which depict signs. You have categorized them only as Category:Signs. For example, see three files in this category, which have name "Alligator ...".

1. Why did not you add more categories?

   The source site is organized into reasonable folders and I used these to choose the most relevant initial category for the upload. With a large upload, I can either have a backlog category, like Category:Royal Naval photographer (check needed) (used by WikiProject Military History), or use the generic/higher level category as a place for the wider community to help with categorizing photos. In the majority of cases, other volunteers have more experience in choosing the best sub-categories and have been involved in their development. To my memory there was one request to move photos from this upload from a generic category to a backlog (here), this worked well, but there is no accepted best practice community wide to use temporary categories rather than generic categories. A related question on this upload was raised at User_talk:Fæ/2013#Pics_from_public-domain-image.com. I would be happy to follow any consensus view on how best to handle these sorts of initial categorizations for larger quantities of uploads.

2. Why did not you add place? For example, I am not sure, do these places situate in USA or not?

   I'm afraid there was no consistent data at the source site. Some sub-sets were from recognizable official sources, in particular there were a number from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, however even these cannot be guaranteed to have all been taken in the USA.

3. You did not upload these files using Faebot, but using Fæ account. Maybe this is worth explaining. Taivo (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

   Approved bot accounts always have a well defined scope and the bot operator should take care to stick to these boundaries, otherwise the bot-flag might be accidentally hiding changes or uploads that ought to be more visible to the community. Faebot's scope is limited to media related to GLAM projects and Geograph uploads, so for this manual upload that was supported by some scripting, Faebot would have been the less accountable way of preserving this public domain material.

Thanks for raising the question, it highlights the issue that Commons would benefit from a better community consensus on best practices for batch uploads, particularly appropriate and transparent use of bot accounts, use of backlog categories, categorization against the uploader and use of templates with included (effectively hidden) categories. --Fæ (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 Question Do you think this complies with Commons:Administrators#Community_role (COM:MELLOW)? --McZusatz (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct my recent mistake in failing to live up to the aims of the Staying mellow essay. I would like to apologise to Tarc for letting the several years of history behind his comment get me rattled and move me to make a non-constructive comment. As I replied above to 99of9's question, the correct process should be that I seek independent advice or find a neutral forum to raise any question about what I perceive as harassment.

In this case, Tarc proposed on Jimmy Wales' en.wp user talk page that the {{The Hot sex barnstar}} should be re-created featuring my underpants and soon afterwards took part in the associated deletion discussion, which up until that point I had avoided. If Tarc still wishes to create an alternative using one of my available images such as File:AussieBum Undies in ice blue.jpg, then he is welcome to do so, and I will leave it to the community to decide if this is useful, or intended as some sort of personally targeted provocation. Instead, I would recommend a logo could be made from a derivative of my upload of the high quality and artistic photograph File:Naked to the world.jpg, which conveys classic homo-eroticism and sexuality without being as vulgar or potentially offensive in use as the existing template. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are willing to change your mind and try to respect the guidelines, I have no problem to give you a chance. Your response to my oppose vote above is very friendly compared to the other admin. JKadavoor Jee 11:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jkadavoor, I aim to respect Mellow and try to put things right when I stray from it. We are all human, and all make mistakes. Even if I were to be spot on 99.9% of the time, being responsible for 2 million edits made to Commons makes for a big pile of human error to live up to. --Fæ (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 QuestionI've already voted oppose, so if you don't feel inclined to do't feel you need to reply. Tell me your thoughts with regards to File:A CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter with the U.S. Marine Corps' Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron (HMH) 363 flies past an observation post at Forward Operating Base Edinburgh, Helmand province, Afghanistan 120101-M-UC900-034.jpg, first thankyou for uploading it, but if you didn't think that it was educational why bother uploading it in the first place? however once you had why didn't you spend time to try and understand and categorise it rather than immediately nominate it for speedy deletion? How many of your edits and uploads have been in the same vein, and if you recieve admin tools would you have speedily deleted the file?--KTo288 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) I had missed the oddity of this image when I uploaded this in a batch in April this year (I look at these at 90 images a time on the DoD defenseimagery.mil site). I raised the speedy as there was no context on the Department of Defense website as to why this image was of a broken pane of glass.[10] The DoD images are mostly self-uploaded by non-professional photographers who are in the armed forces, in this case it appeared that someone had mistakenly uploaded the wrong image against the description. I was happy with your suspicion that the broken pane was due to active insurgent action, even though that is only a working assumption, it is a good rationale to keep the image as being realistically usable for an educational purpose.

To date I have uploaded just over 14,000 DoD images, mostly selected based on interesting themes, such as being part of the London Paralympics in 2012.

I would not delete my own speedy deletion requests. --Fæ (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Also how about File:Snigging a log (2429906529).jpg, File:Clutch (6343148329).jpg and File:Prep (6343160039).jpg I've had to fix the categorisation on three of your uploads in the last hour, is this indicative of your work, or do you really believe that these files are properly categorised in Category:Drag (fluid dynamics). Which do you think is the wisest option, uploading files and leaving them uncategorised so that they can be properly categorised by other users, slowing down taking the time to properly categorise those files you do upload, or upload files and allow them to be miscategorised?--KTo288 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting and correcting these 3 photos being mis-categorized back in January and March this year. I can see there are no other examples poorly choosing this category. I do not believe this error is indicative of my work. Out of my c.70,000 uploads, approximately 18,000 have been uploaded from Flickr using different scripts, these can be reviewed at Photos uploaded from Flickr by Fæ using a script and have added a great deal of high quality educational, historical and cultural content to Commons. These 3 files were uploaded with the excellent Flickr2Commons tool by Magnus Manske. I have not used this recently due to questions about how different upload tools were handling duplicates (for which I wrote a generalized duplicate check script to categorize these, and as a result the community corrected several hundred problem images, out of around a half million) and due to the ongoing knotty problem in Flickr2Commons of how to best use Flickr tags to find Commons categories. This was the source of the problem you identify, as Flickr2Commons matched “Drag” to “Drag (fluid dynamics)”. Unfortunately the tool does not highlight suggested matches to the uploader as part of the pre-upload display, which might help circumvent some of these errors. This is a problem I recognize, and have often used VisualFileChange to batch-fix poorly selected categories after upload, as well as individual corrections, sadly I overlooked the 3 you correctly highlighted and have fixed already. If anyone can find dubious categories elsewhere, I welcome them to comment on my user talk page and I will happily investigate to check if there is a wider issue, as well as correcting the particular errors.

On the general issue of how much categorization should be done on batch uploads, I think that reasonable work should be done, however comprehensive or even good categorization may not always be possible, and there are many benefits, particularly with GLAM partnerships, for getting on with an upload using basic categorization, and then working with the wider community to encourage improving categorization in the long term. The COM:Geograph project is an excellent example of high value with 2 million photographs of the UK uploaded to Commons, ensuring their preservation, and the community taking years to slowly categorize and make use of them. My own tools to use Ordnance Survey open data to add place categories to all of the 2 million files over the coming year, I think shows how committed I am to helping with massive improvement of categorization on Commons using better tools and techniques, rather than being restricted to manual categorization, which is highly likely to be unable to cope as Commons grows from 17 million images to 100 million without an equivalent exponential growth in our volunteer numbers. --Fæ (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What did I do wrong? Doesn't my concern deserve a constructive response? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sysops must be capable and willing to interact with people that they dislike. Sysops can't always just deal with people that they like. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You hat other people's on topic comments, then harass people on their talk page about not fixing something you could have fixed. This low level of disruption is unbecoming. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed a symptom of the issue, but I can't fix the issue itself. I left a message so that he can uncover the cause of the issue and deal with it. I didn't want hyperlinks to become broken for a second time. I wasn't harassing Fæ, and I expect a sysop to deal with totally benign messages constructively, not with a response that in essence means "I wish to ignore you." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a long, negative history with Fae. Why would you think any such message would be appropriate when it could be construed as harassment by any outsider? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, unblocks of course, just because someone gets blocked doesn't mean that you can prevent them interacting with wikipedia, as DDOS has no real solution, as many squids as we have, there are always people who are crafty enough to take everyone off to that blue page that says wikipedia is not working try again later, (after the attack subsides). There is no such thing as ignoring people on the Internet, just an illusion. 'Not talkies' is not always a professional approach. I noticed an approach here that I still don't understand, Fæ said he didn't want to talk about the subject of Pieter Kuiper because it was "too painful", however, even today he has an archive bearing Pieter's name on his talkpage, which I don't understand, but then I'm not all that bright. Penyulap ☏ 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

watch

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.

Requests for CheckUser

watch

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.

Requests for Oversight rights

watch

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.

Requests for permission to run a bot

watch

Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.

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

Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.

Autobot (talk · contribs)

Operator: BokicaK (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Transfering images from sr.wiki.

Automatic or manually assisted: manually assisted

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):

Programming language(s):

 Bojan  Talk  03:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Which task are you willing to run? --Ricordisamoa 09:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't noticed that field. My intentions are moving images from sr.wiki that were uploaded by trusted users -- Bojan  Talk  14:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

SamoaBot 3 (talk · contribs)

Operator: Ricordisamoa (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: internationalize file description pages, using apposite templates (like {{original upload log}}) and MediaWiki system messages (like {{int:license-header}})

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic unsupervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): intermittently, at the operator's discretion

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 20-25 EPM

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (already flagged)

Programming language(s): Python (with PWB)

--Ricordisamoa 01:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Some test edits: Revision of File:Signator.jpg and Revision of File:Emerald spring in yellowstone.jpg --Ricordisamoa 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another: Revision of File:Hospital-quiron-san-sebastian.jpg (at the moment I'm checking every single diff before saving, later I could run it "bot-like") --Ricordisamoa 05:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• The edits look fine to me. I know other bots do work like this, but I don't see much harm in redundancy, especially since you're making a few changes at once. Which portion of the file database do you plan to run it on? --99of9 (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For example I can start from a search, or from pages that transclude {{ImageUpload}}: most times they are old, low-frequency-edited pages, and often contain superseded/superfluous syntax structures. --Ricordisamoa 13:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine by me. --99of9 (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks OK for me, but will be good idea to borrow other trivial clean-ups ideas from similar bots. Like {{Location}} place, etc. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Upd: another test edit. What do you mean with "{{Location}} cleanup"? --Ricordisamoa 13:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant that {{Location}} should be near {{Information}} (I usually place it before). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Above or below? PS: another test edit --Ricordisamoa 14:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Above. Please not that removing 1= from language templates may cause problem when description contains URL with with some special characters. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I know, but it checks for them, and it's always been working. --Ricordisamoa 16:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

But then if someone puts a link in later, they have to also know to put the 1= in as well? That sounds like it will make life difficult. --99of9 (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So should I avoid doing that? Removing "1=" only breaks the template if the text contains another "=". --Ricordisamoa 21:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion. But I can imagine another user coming here and applying for a bot that puts the 1= in... and I certainly don't want to see bot wars. So maybe just leave them untouched if Eugene (and others?) think that's best. --99of9 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Smallbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Smallman12q (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: To upload ~500k files from the US National Archives and Records Administration based on a database dump provided in partnership with the Digital Public Library of America.

Example

JSON source

{ "id": "nara--1693425", "key": "nara--1693425", "value": { "rev": "1-a8e9cee50a8cea9d1724c12a0d0d69e5" }, "doc": { "_id": "nara--1693425", "_rev": "1-a8e9cee50a8cea9d1724c12a0d0d69e5", "hasView": [{ "url": "http://media.nara.gov/Public_Vaults/14755_2006_001_a.jpg", "format": "image/jpeg" }, { "url": "http://media.nara.gov/nwl/berryman/H-009_7-1-1928_Yes_We_Have_No_Ambitions_print.pdf", "format": "application/pdf" } ], "sourceResource": { "date": { "begin": "1928-07-01", "end": "1928-07-01", "displayDate": "07/01/1928" }, "description": "This cartoon plays off a line from a popular 1923 song (\\" Yes, We Have No Bananas!\\") to characterize car maker Henry Ford\'s Presidential ambitions--or lack thereof. Ford blames his busy schedule for his hesitation to jump into the \\" Presidential contest pool, \\" while eager supporters encourage him to \\" come on in !\\" Berryman was correct in his prediction: Ford chose not to pursue the Presidency.", "title": "Yes, We Have No Ambitions Today!", "rights": "Restrictions: Unrestricted; Use status: Unrestricted", "collection": { "@id": "http://dp.la/api/collections/15e82b12ef89a63d03737461e2440df8", "id": "15e82b12ef89a63d03737461e2440df8", "title": "Records of the U.S. Senate, 1789 - 2011" }, "stateLocatedIn": { "name": "DC" }, "creator": "U.S. Senate. Office of Senate Curator.\\t(? -)", "isPartOf": "Series: Berryman Political Cartoon Collection, 1896 - 1949", "type": "image" }, "object": "http://media.nara.gov/Public_Vaults/14755_2006_001_t.jpg", "ingestDate": "2013-04-11T21:27:25.187803", "originalRecord": { "access-restriction": { "specific-access-restrictions": null, "restriction-status": "Unrestricted" }, "contributors": { "contributor": { "contributor-display": "Berryman, Clifford Kennedy, 1869-1949", "contributor-record-type": "PER", "contributor-type": "Artist", "standard": "Y", "num": "1", "contributor-id": "3119843" } }, "hierarchy": { "hierarchy-item": [{ "hierarchy-item-inclusive-dates": "1896 - 1949", "hierarchy-item-id": "306080", "hierarchy-item-lod": "Series", "hierarchy-item-title": "Berryman Political Cartoon Collection, 1896 - 1949" }, { "hierarchy-item-id": "375", "hierarchy-item-lod": "Record Group", "hierarchy-item-title": "Records of the U.S. Senate, 1789 - 2011", "hierarchy-item-record-group-number": "46" } ] }, "production-dates": { "production-date": "07/01/1928" }, "created-timestamp": "1/20/2013 4:36:49", "arc-id": "1693425", "use-restriction": { "specific-use-restrictions": null, "use-status": "Unrestricted" }, "title": "Yes, We Have No Ambitions Today!", "title-only": "Yes, We Have No Ambitions Today!", "general-records-types": { "general-records-type": { "num": "1", "general-records-type-desc": "Photographs and other Graphic Materials", "general-records-type-id": "4237050" } }, "scope-content-note": "This cartoon plays off a line from a popular 1923 song (\\" Yes, We Have No Bananas!\\") to characterize car maker Henry Ford\'s Presidential ambitions--or lack thereof. Ford blames his busy schedule for his hesitation to jump into the \\" Presidential contest pool, \\" while eager supporters encourage him to \\" come on in !\\" Berryman was correct in his prediction: Ford chose not to pursue the Presidency. ", "parent": { "parent-title": "Berryman Political Cartoon Collection, compiled 1896 - 1949", "parent-lod": "Series", "parent-id": "306080" }, "edited-timestamp": "[g_x128_110, g_x32_443, g_x64_221, g_x2_7090, g_x16_886, g_x8_1772, g_x4_3545, b_x1_14180]", "objects": { "object": [{ "thumbnail-url": "http://media.nara.gov/Public_Vaults/14755_2006_001_t.jpg", "object-sequence-number": "1", "file-size": "579687", "mime-type": "image/jpeg", "num": "1", "file-url": "http://media.nara.gov/Public_Vaults/14755_2006_001_a.jpg" }, { "description": "Download PDF", "object-sequence-number": "2", "file-size": "209895", "mime-type": "application/pdf", "num": "2", "file-url": "http://media.nara.gov/nwl/berryman/H-009_7-1-1928_Yes_We_Have_No_Ambitions_print.pdf" } ] }, "title-date": "07/01/1928", "subject-references": { "subject-reference": { "subject-type": "SRT", "display-name": "cartoons (humorous images)", "num": "1", "subject-id": "4170951", "standard": "Y" } }, "level-of-desc": { "level-id": "NAVI", "lod-display": "Item" }, "physical-occurrences": { "physical-occurrence": { "media-occurrences": { "media-occurrence": { "num": "1", "media-type": "Paper" } }, "reference-units": { "reference-unit": { "city": "Washington", "fax": "202-357-5911", "name": "Center for Legislative Archives", "ref-id": "36", "address2": "Room 8E, 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW", "summary": "true", "phone": "202-357-5350", "state": "DC", "num": "1", "postcode": "20408", "address1": "National Archives Building", "mailcode": "LL", "email": "legislative.archives@nara.gov" } }, "copy-status": "Preservation-Reproduction-Reference" } }, "creators": { "creator": { "creator-id": "1107050", "standard": "Y", "num": "1", "creator-record-type": "ORG", "creator-type": "Most Recent", "creator-display": "U.S. Senate. Office of Senate Curator.\\t(? - )", "summary": "true" } }, "variant-control-numbers": { "variant-control-number": { "mlr": "false", "variant-number": "NWL-46-BERRYMAN-H009", "num": "1", "variant-type": "NAIL Control Number", "variant-number-desc": "NWL-46-BERRYMAN-H009" } }, "arc-id-desc": "1693425", "indexable-dates": { "date-range": "[b_x16_120, b_x8_237, g_x64_30, b_x4_486, b_x16_119, g_x128_14, g_x32_59, g_x128_15, g_x16_118, g_x8_243, g_x32_60, g_x64_29, b_x2_974, b_x8_242, g_x16_121, g_x4_487]" }, "parent-control-group": { "parent-control-title": "Records of the U.S. Senate, 1789 - 2011", "parent-control-lod": "Record Group", "parent-control-id": "46" }, "_id": "1693425" }, "isShownAt": "http://research.archives.gov/description/1693425", "provider": { "@id": "http://dp.la/api/contributor/nara", "name": "National Archives and Records Administration" }, "@context": { "begin": { "@id": "dpla:dateRangeStart", "@type": "xsd:date" }, "@vocab": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/", "hasView": "edm:hasView", "name": "xsd:string", "object": "edm:object", "dpla": "http://dp.la/terms/", "collection": "dpla:aggregation", "edm": "http://www.europeana.eu/schemas/edm/", "end": { "@id": "dpla:end", "@type": "xsd:date" }, "state": "dpla:state", "aggregatedDigitalResource": "dpla:aggregatedDigitalResource", "coordinates": "dpla:coordinates", "isShownAt": "edm:isShownAt", "stateLocatedIn": "dpla:stateLocatedIn", "sourceResource": "edm:sourceResource", "dataProvider": "edm:dataProvider", "originalRecord": "dpla:originalRecord", "provider": "edm:provider", "LCSH": "http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects" }, "ingestType": "item", "dataProvider": "Center for Legislative Archives", "@id": "http://dp.la/api/items/02b4f072d067494f67b08d6a4100f143", "id": "02b4f072d067494f67b08d6a4100f143" } }

File

Yes, We Have No Ambitions Today! - Nara - 1693425.jpg

Description	English: This cartoon plays off a line from a popular 1923 song ("Yes, We Have No Bananas!") to characterize car maker Henry Ford's Presidential ambitions--or lack thereof. Ford blames his busy schedule for his hesitation to jump into the "Presidential contest pool," while eager supporters encourage him to "come on in!" Berryman was correct in his prediction: Ford chose not to pursue the Presidency.
Author	Berryman, Clifford Kennedy, 1869-1949
Date	1 July 1928
Current location	National Archives and Records Administration  Native name National Archives and Records Administration Location Washington, D.C. (headquarters), and many regional facilities and presidential libraries nationwide in the USA Coordinates 38° 53′ 34.01″ N, 77° 1′ 22.71″ W    Established 1934 Website www.archives.gov Authority control VIAF: 132254586 LCCN: n84176101 GND: 00605336X BnF: cb12182396f WorldCat
Record ID	This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identifier (National Archives Identifier) 1693425. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Record group: Record Group 46: Records of the U.S. Senate, 1789 - 2011 (ARC identifier: 37) Series: Berryman Political Cartoon Collection, 1896 - 1949 (ARC identifier: 306080) NWL-46-BERRYMAN-H009
Source	U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
Permission (Reusing this file)	This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright. Note: This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. (See 206.02(b) of Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices). It also does not apply to certain US coins; see The US Mint Terms of Use. This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.
Other versions	Please do not overwrite this file: any restoration work should be uploaded with a new name and linked in this page's "Other versions =" parameter, so that this file represents the exact file found in the NARA catalog record to which it links. The metadata on this page was imported directly from NARA's catalog record; additional descriptive text may be added by Wikimedians to the template below with the "descriptions =" parameter, but please do not modify the other fields. (Note: Editors who post this notice are strongly encouraged to add details explaining how it applies to this file.)

	The metadata on this page was imported directly from NARA's catalog record; additional descriptive text may be added by Wikimedians to the template below with the "Description=" parameter, but please do not modify the other fields.
	Please help us by reporting errors! This may include misidentifications, erroneous images, typos in the metadata, possible copyright issues, and poor-quality images needing rescanning. (Be aware that, for documentary purposes, NARA often retains the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, or even misspelled.)

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 10-15, as fast as it uploads

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No

Programming language(s): Python 3.2

Will use metadata from DPLA bulk download for NARA. The metadata is in json, and is converted formatted to the template by the bot.

Smallman12q (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

For reference, a previous NARA batch upload was approved at Commons:Bots/Requests/US National Archives bot.Smallman12q (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah sure, looks good to me. --Dschwen (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Usual suggestion: please use language template for Author/Source/Record ID fields. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please can you put a deeplink in the "source" field, as that is where most editors will look. I tried to get the original of this example, but apparently "The Online Public Access (OPA) system will be down for maintenance from May 10 to May 25.", so we may not be able to thoroughly test this for a couple of weeks. --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I recently heard some details about that as well. I'll try to keep updated on the status. Bdcousineau (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• What kind of label is: "NWL-46-BERRYMAN-H009"? It might help to add the name of this kind of identifier. --99of9 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That is an old catalog number used by NARA. It is no longer in use, but since it is in the current template used by NARA on Commons, it has been included. It most likely refers to the "NAIL" database, which was the in use prior to ARC/OPA, the current database. For a sample, see File:Football team on the field, Haskell Institute, Lawrence, Kansas, 1914 - NARA - 519149.jpg. Better removed? Bdcousineau (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it in there, but having the template do nothing with it (i.e. not display it). That way we can easily reintroduce it if someone thinks it is useful later. --99of9 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• 500k files! Wow, this is huge, congratulations and good luck! --99of9 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Great start! Since this is a large set, and since the metadata will not be perfect (never is for a transfer of this size): are you thinking of staging this? Say, a few hundred to start, then 1k, then 10k, with pauses to see what sort of cleanup is needed? --SJ+ 22:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Rybecbot (2) (talk · contribs)

Operator: Rybec (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Sometimes when files are transferred from Flickr by a bot, the tags on Flickr lead the bot to add inappropriate categories. For example, this photo of some rocks in shallow water was given the unhelpful categories Commons, Facebook, Flickr, Google, News, Pic, Wallpaper, Wiki, Wikipedia and Photographs. Mass importation of files causes a need for mass removal of categories, which is what this request is for.

Automatic or manually assisted:automatic with some supervision

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):occasional

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):4

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):Y

Programming language(s): Python (standard pywikipedia category.py or replace.py script)

Rybec (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Test edits have been done: 50 files were removed from the News category. Rybec (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• So do you remove every image in this kind of category, or only those from Flickr, or??? --99of9 (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you could make better edit summaries, like Removing [[Category:News]]. Also will be good idea to remove from several categories at once edit when applicable. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• The bots that import images from Flickr don't create new categories, but only add images to categories that already exist, so my intention is not to get rid of the categories entirely. When a category should contain no images but only subcategories, then I would want to empty it of images, but typically there would be some images which belong and others which don't. My intention is to manually identify the ones which don't belong, make a list of them, then have the script make the changes.

I've done another three test edits to show removal of multiple categories in a single edit with a non-default edit summary: [11] [12] [13]. Rybec (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK for me, but I think will be good idea to use link to categories in edit summary. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to doing that. Rybec (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I’ve have had the same kind of trouble with stuff bot-uploaded from Flickr being piled up in Category:Lisbon (a much more specific category than those above, of course), which is a pain to clean up manually. There’s a few things that the importing tool could do automaticly, like avoiding over-categorization (e.g. if a photo is under Category:Streets in Lisbon is should not be also under Category:Lisbon), but more or less human input and manual work is going to be needed sooner or later. A big problem is how to tell apart what media really belong in a given category from those that should be further moved to more detailed subcategories within the same tree. I’d really like to have separate "(cleanup)" subcategories for all categories afflicted by this kind of flooding, really. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

SamoaBot 2 (talk · contribs)

Operator: Ricordisamoa (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: detecting and logging (in a user subpage) SVG images without a proper xmlns declaration on the root <svg> element: those images aren't viewable at all in some browsers, and should be properly fixed (this can be done later, either manually or automatically)

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic, supervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): intermittently

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): about 1 edit per minute (max)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (already flagged, see [[../SamoaBot]])

Programming language(s): JavaScript, with Ajax (own code, will be published soon)

Ricordisamoa 04:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Here can be seen the log of all images detected so far.--Ricordisamoa 06:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• How hard would it be for your bot to fix them and reupload? --99of9 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  It is currently written in JavaScript (I plan to switch to Python in a few weeks), and Ajax upload isn't tested yet, but I will try to do as much as possible. In the meantime, it could however log these files. --Ricordisamoa 02:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to add maintenance template to image page too.

Edit summary for log action could be just file name with a link, log page name is self-explanatory.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Does a proper template exist for these cases? (and I'll work on edit summary) --Ricordisamoa 06:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

{{BadSVG}} may be adapted for this purpose, or {{Cleanup image}} may be used. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Info In Firefox, you can use the sendAsBinary() method of your XHR-instance to upload the SVG. This avoids encoding issues (while some SVGs also work with the send method, this will screw up others). Downloading is very easy through a GET since the cross-origin-issue is resolved.
• I created a sample that works with FF 19 (tested): User:Rillke/fastTransfer.js. It downloads and uploads a file immediately when invoked. You have access to the raw data in function _gotFile so you can manipulate that data. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I had a look with Firefox 19. It displayed two of the nine files on the list.

(E)-pent-2-ène.svg does not display

(Z)-pent-2-ène.svg does not display

(±)-Ethyl-2-methylbutyrate_Structural_Formulae_V.1.svg has been re-uploaded several times; version of 13:06, 26 March 2013 does not display and Mediawiki did not generate a thumbnail for it; other versions okay

1-Chlornaphthalin.svg displays correctly

1-jpg.svg Mediawiki says there's an error in the file; does not display in browser

1025arud.svg Mediawiki says there's an error in the file; does not display in browser

10th_Panzer_Division_logo_1.svg has been re-uploaded, but both versions displayed correctly

1422_Zeta_in_the_Serbian_Despotate_after_death_Balsa_III.svg does not display

1885ArmenianFlag.svg has since been re-uploaded; original file did not display

Rybec (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I'm going to run a fixed version of the script; let's see... --Ricordisamoa 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I tried to view the new additions to the list, with similar results: most of the files did not display, but one did. I don't know enough about the subject to say definitively that there are false positives.

1969_draft_lottery_scatterplot.svg file has been replaced; old version did not display in Firefox

1988_Illinois_Constitutional_Convention_Vote_pie_chart.svg file has been replaced; old version did not display in Firefox

1st_Panzer_Division_logo.svg displays correctly in Firefox

2-propil-amine.svg does not display in Firefox

201globe.svg file has been replaced; old version did not display in Firefox

250x250Feld.svg does not display in Firefox

2NOGCMOS.svg does not display in Firefox

Even with the possible false positives, the usefulness of this list is apparent. If making the list is all that this request covers, I fully support it (if the request is also about automatically fixing the problems that are found, I don't support that part: some unneeded changes might be made, and test edits fixing the SVG files haven't yet been done). Rybec (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

After 1st_Panzer_Division_logo.svg I changed the code, so it should work well now. --Ricordisamoa 10:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I  Support this request, but I'm leaning against applying the bot flag. If it's only editing one page, and even that only once per minute, I don't see it as necessary. Am I missing a reason you need the flag? --99of9 (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the bot flag is to avoid flooding RCs (if the bot's speed is out of control)... anyway, there's also the first request. --Ricordisamoa 13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What is final functionality? Will bot re-upload fixed files, or only log problematic files? If last is true, will be clean-up template added to file page? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In case it is only logging, I can try to write a JavaScript-Bot which fixes the issue that does not need any other host than a compatible browser to run. IMHO a logging-bot does not need a bot-flag but it would be great if we could combine this functionality (detection and fixing). Then, we also do not need to log each occurrence or adding a template. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You get my {{support}} --Ricordisamoa 11:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I need your source code. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

→ User:Ricordisamoa/XMLNSense.js --Ricordisamoa 10:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thank you. → User:Rillke/MwJSBot.SVGXmlNSFixer.js. Log and continue-params are written to my user space by default but this can be customized by creating an own instance of window.SVGXmlNSFixer. Detection of svg root in its own svg namespace like for this file has to be fixed.

• Files processed so far by the script:
  • File:A-weighting, ISO 226 and ITU-R 468.svg
  • File:5 inch floppy.svg
  • File:2NOGCMOS.svg
  • File:(E)-pent-2-ène.svg
  • File:(Z)-pent-2-ène.svg

-- Rillke^(q?) 20:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

So could you operate a real bot for this task? --Ricordisamoa 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've no dedicated server/computer for this task, if that is your question. But I think if I or someone else continue(s) running this JavaScript over all 666,540+ SVG files, it would be a good idea to ask whether other issues with SVG files should be considered as well. Also the speed/bandwidth is not really sufficient… -- Rillke^(q?) 16:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant "a flagged bot account"; BTW, I got the flag (for another task). --Ricordisamoa 18:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've no flagged bot account where the task would be appropriate to run under. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Would your script work on Chromium/Chrome? --Ricordisamoa 21:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems so. At least the loop runs and the parser does its job. Not entirely sure whether the upload will work but it's very likely (it's using the usual XHR.send() as SVGs are UTF-8 encoded). -- Rillke^(q?) 22:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Should I continue running the script (e.g. under RillkeBot (not flagged)), would you like continuing running it, or do we want to split the load, are there questions left? -- Rillke^(q?) 20:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

For me it's ok, but you should get a bot flag; I'm thinking it may be better to swich to Pywikipediabot, though. --Ricordisamoa 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

How many files are we approximately looking at? If it is of the order of a hundred or less then I suggest to just go ahead with it. --Dschwen (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have to check all files on the Commons, and upload at least several hundred images... However, I have PWB installed, and will starting coding something tomorrow. --Ricordisamoa 21:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all you'll have to check all SVG files. Secondly, when you code please make sure to do a http range request! Try downloading just the first kilobyte of each file you are analyzing. This should speed things up. Let me know if you need help with that in python, I've implemented it before. --Dschwen (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Rybecbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Rybec (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: re-uploading photos which have been cropped to remove watermarks and editing accompanying text to indicate the watermark has been removed

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic, lightly supervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 2 when uploading files, 4 when changing text

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python (the Pywikipediabot upload.py script with minor changes and the replace.py script with no changes)

Rybec (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Badly needed. Please execute a batch of runs as an example. --Foroa (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm having trouble doing the test edits because the newly-created bot account doesn't have reupload permission (just reupload-own)--I checked here. Rybec (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes it's very nasty for new bot accounts. Should work now! -- Rillke^(q?) 18:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you! I've done the test edits. I only prepared 24 files to replace instead of the suggested 30 to 50. Rybec (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not continue until the bot preserves Metadata and please repair this for all edits done so far by the bot. Example where data is lost at File:047-1211 Enschede 125.JPG (before after processing). Please also include a meaningful upload/edit summary (like "image cropped to remove watermark"). Thank you! -- Rillke^(q?) 21:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Question Which software do you use for cropping the file? Is it lossless? -- Rillke^(q?) 22:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! I used jpegtran, which is lossless. I hadn't noticed the problem with the EXIF data; I don't know why that happened. Rybec (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ExifTool is, for example capable copying (nearly) all metadata from the original file to the edited one. This way you could ensure they are never lost. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've reverted my test/example edits. Rybec (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Great demand exists for automated removal of watermarks, and this pioneering bot is brilliant :D I would say the exif is less important at the moment especially if the information is still made available with the older version. If it inspires people to make exif copying bots, all the better. I believe it is not long before we see watermark removal bots that mend the picture rather than crop, but for the time being, in these chaotic times where trigger fingers are blocking people for good contributions, Rybec's bot would help bring some badly needed relief and order. Rybec certainly seems responsive, capable, and I recommend flagging his bot forthwith ! I can't see maintenance and improvements being a problem. Penyulap ☏ 05:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • In this case they contained copyright and camera information and it is quite bad if they aren't visible any more at the file description page. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Question: Does your bot automatically detect the watermarks or are you manually instructing what to crop? -- Rillke^(q?) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  I was just using the identify command from Imagemagick to get the pixel size of downloaded images, subtracting 138 from the height, scripting jpegtran to crop to that size, and the only function of the bot is the re-uploading. I agree that the metadata is important. The problem was that I didn't use the "copy all" option to jpegtran. I've manually uploaded to File:1210_Turnhout_029.JPG one example of a file cropped with the "copy all" option. Its EXIF data is preserved. I also learned how to do an edit summary with the script: [14]. I've started another test run, with the metadata and the edit summaries. Rybec (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone pointed out the need to remove {{watermark}} and the category Category:Uploads by Microtoerisme with watermarks. I was thinking that could be done with VisualFileChange.js. Rybec (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not remove "watermark", but change it to "watermark removed". ("watermark removed" is appropriate for these uploads) – JBarta (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done a second test run, changing {{watermark}} to {{watermark removed}} and removing [[Category:Uploads by Microtoerisme with watermarks]] as described by Jbarta. The files can be seen at Special:ListFiles/Rybecbot. I've changed my request to add the use of the standard replace.py script for the textual changes. Rybec (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Results look good to me. --VanBuren (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Howdy. I suggest using {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}} instead of {{watermark removed}} because the latter redirects to the former. Also, I suggest checking to see if one of those templates is already on the page. When you made this edit, the template was already on the page.--Rockfang (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that "Attribution metadata from licensed image" existed. Might I suggest that "watermark removed" is more used, more intuitive and easier to spot than the other? The resulting template on the image description page is the same either way. Just a thought. – JBarta (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Assuming Jarry1250's Toolserver Template transclusion count tool is correct, {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}} is transcluded 6,192 times while {{Watermark removed}} is transcluded 3,422 times. If an image license doesn't require attribution, then {{Metadata from image}} can be used.--Rockfang (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• The mistaken edit found by Rockfang is one I did manually. When doing the textual replacements, the bot will look for the specific text "{{watermark}}" (by which I mean, enclosed in curly brackets) and change it. Only if {{watermark}} appeared twice already, or together with {{watermark removed}} would it make the same mistake I did. If it encounters "{{watermark removed}}" it does not do any replacement. In other words, it's not inserting {{watermark removed}} but rather changing {{watermark}} to {{watermark removed}}. For the text replacement task I want to use the standard replace.py script from pywikipedia. I don't especially mind using {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}} rather than {{watermark removed}}, although the latter is more succinct. On Wikipedia, using redirects in a similar manner is considered okay. Is it the same here? Is the redirect likely to be deleted? If not, it seems to me like a matter of indifference. Rybec (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Hazard-SJ (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Category replacements

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatically

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Periodically

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No

Programming language(s): Python

There are cases when more help is wanted for category replacements. Now is an example. User:CommonsDelinker/commands has a backlog with, I believe, no bots working on it at the moment, so I'd like to be able to help out in such cases.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• There has been some recent issues with SieBot recently that makes COM:CDC to be backlogged. I'd welcome very much a clone for performing those category moves when SieBot is not working. I support approval (with flag). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Please make a test run if this is not standard bot. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• If this is not a standard bot, one has to care that nothing inside <nowiki><!-- --> or <source> is replaced. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• I planned to use CategoryMoveRobot in category.py (PyWikipedia trunk). Originally, I was planning to manually start the bot for each request, but I could create an on-wiki page for the bot (or use the one currently in use) to use so I wouldn't have to manually start it each time. I'd still integrate the CategoryMoveRobot class into it, though. Would that be preferred? (P.S. SieBot is back up so there isn't much of a rush now.)  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think will be good idea to use User:CommonsDelinker/commands for list of requests and proceed automatically. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  • In such a case, however, the completed requests won't be removed until someone comes along to do so manually, as my bot cannot edit that page.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

    • If you create a separate account for the task, that account could be admin-flagged so that it can edit the page. The task is important and it would be best to integrate a supplementary bot into the existing structure as neatly as possible. Rd232 (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

      Even if I'm not an admin myself (as is the current case)?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

      • Many moves require still manual intervention as many items cannot be bot moved and in some cases a redirect is created, otherwise deleted; I don't think that can be handled by a bot anyway. (I spend on average 2 minutes per category move on cleaning up). --Foroa (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

        Yes, moving categories it technically impossible, so without admin access it wouldn't be able to do the deletions, but rather, create the new category and request deletion of the old one.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

        • Ideally, the bot should be able to update the Wikidata structures as for example in d:Q1144392. --Foroa (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

          I agree: this is a very good idea. Conveniently, I'm already approved to do this on Wikidata.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC) This can't be done until Wikimedia Commons is somehow integrated into Wikidata.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC) It's currently not possible to search for values of D:P:P373 via the API. The only way to get to the relevant Wikidata item would be, considering there is a (correct) link in a template on the category page (such as in {{w}}), go to the Wikipedia page, then the item (if there is one), then change the value of p373.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, SieBot is, again, down, so I've gone ahead and coded the bot. I've ran a 16-edit trial with it here, doing four requests in all. Of course, as I already mentioned, the bot isn't able to edit the queue page, since the current one is fully protected. Also, for now, I'm just marking the old category as a category redirect to the new one.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• We need at least one other bot looking at the commands. SieBot is asleep way too often. However
  1. If the bot behaves differently from SieBot, it should replace it and not work alongside it
  2. If the bots are to work concurrently, you would have to account for more than one bot picking up the same request (as neither can edit User:CommonsDelinker/commands to remove a request before they start executing it).

If the bot doesn't behave like SieBot, can you specify in the request how it differs? Does the bot alter the old category for example (afaik SieBot does not)? –⁠moogsi (blah) 02:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As for working concurrently, the only (if not, main) problem if they're working on the same category at the same time would be an edit conflict, which is already handled. Specifically, the bot currently creates the new category page if it doesn't exist (attributing the authors in the summary, or on the talk page if the list is too long), then moves the categories. After it determines that the category is empty, it replaces the content of the old category page with {{Category redirect|"new category name"}}. All that can be seen from the trial I made. As for behaving differently, I think the main difference is the implementation, and probably that my bot actually edits the old category afterwards (not sure if SieBot does that).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Move}} requests have to be stripped during the transfer, no need to remove it from the delinker queue as it needs manual inspection (5 % of moves need manual intervention or category restructuring). --Foroa (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can implement that.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Support I want to make it clear that I support the proposal in its current form, before I start talking about additional features :) One thing which SieBot doesn't do (and which I think wouldn't be difficult to implement) is leave edit summaries for category moves. {{move cat}} has a reason parameter which basically goes unused, as SieBot operates apparently without purpose –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If nobody has further objections, I propose that we approve this request. I expect that there will be some teething issues, but am confident that the bot operator is capable and will be sufficiently responsive to resolve them. --99of9 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

UWCTransferBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Ahonc (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: I wrote a bot using php for transfering free images from Ukrainian Wikipedia to Commons. It is an alternative to CommonsHelper, as CommonsHelper often generates bad descriptions and they are to be checked and fixed, and my bot is better adjusted for it. Images will be checked by local sysops before transfer.

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time per day

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 5-10

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): PHP, based on Chris G's botclasses framework.

Anatoliy (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Looks like human review before transfer is good idea (example: File:Вп станция сихов.jpg). Also better author attribution is possible (File:Врубель Серафим.jpg, File:Бівуак. Чатир-Даг..JPG). As well as better categorization (File:Голосіїв.jpg).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Situation like in first example is fixed. Such images will not transfered from uk-wiki. They should be transfered from original wiki (in this example Russian). Categories for Commons are taken from template 'Move to Commons' in file description in local wiki.--Anatoliy (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please can you internationalize the headings to save us having to do this [15] --99of9 (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. Changes will be applied during next run.--Anatoliy (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

JAnDbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: JAn Dudík (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: replacing text, recategorization, maybe more

Automatic or manually assisted: both

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Sometimes

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes (global bot)

Programming language(s): pywikipedia

JAn Dudík (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Could you be a bit more specific please about what you intend to do with your bot? --Dschwen (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there was zero further input from the requester I will close this as stale soon. --Dschwen (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I want to use bot mainly for mass recategorization or mass replacing of text, see contributions. Maybe, when Wikidata will be able to store links to commons, I'll work on this field too. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean the several thousand edits your bot made without having a flag? Please don't do that or we will have to block the bot. Recategorizations are already performed by User:Category-bot. And I won't give out a bot flag for a maybe job. I'll close this one. You are welcome to reopen a request if and when you have a specific task (that is not already covered by an existing bot). --Dschwen (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that the unapproved volume was inappropriate, the 23 Feb URL format changes like this look useful. So if you can give us a clear, more focused/limited scope, I'd potentially support. --99of9 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could create a template for "URL REKOS", to prevent all those bot edits. --Ricordisamoa 22:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Neuchâtel Herbarium (talk · contribs)

Operator: Chandres (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Upload of the pictures created by the commons:Neuchâtel Herbarium project

Automatic or manually assisted: semi automatic, I launch the script manually for a fixed number of picture to upload , but once it's started the process is automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):around 40 000 pictures remain to be upload, by batch when I'm available to control the upload process, no full automatic work

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):4-5 upload per minute

Bot flag requested: Y:

Programming language(s):

Chandres (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

It might be a good idea to respect the capitalisation of the categories. So far, I renamed the categories of the majority of your uploads. --Foroa (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning , we update the script and I will correct the already upload pictures.--Chandres (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to use Bot in account name. Why Template:Information is not used? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a bot account, it's always me behind, but used with a script. --Chandres (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, using [[tl|Specimen}} is probably some sub-project policy which we could argue against until we are blue in the face... The sourcecode of the description page is formatted in a very confusing way. It took me 3 minutes to figure out where the closing template braces are and to realize that {{Information field}} is uses within the description field. This needs to be made clearer. --Dschwen (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 {{Specimen
 |taxon=Abies alba
 |authority=
 |institution={{Institution:University of Neuchâtel}}
 |description=
 {{en|1=Neuchâtel Herbarium - ''[[:en:Abies alba]]''}}
 {{de|1=Neuchâtel Herbarium - ''[[:de:Abies alba]]''}}
 {{fr|1=Neuchâtel Herbarium - ''[[:fr:Abies alba]]''}}
 {{it|1=Neuchâtel Herbarium - ''[[:it:Abies alba]]''}}
 |date=
 |source={{own}}
 |author=[[User:Neuchâtel Herbarium|Neuchâtel Herbarium]]
 |permission=
 |other_versions=
 |other_fields={{Information field|name={{Occupation|1=Botanist}}|value=?}}
 }}

Actually it is a minor miracle that the old version doesn't produce invalid HTML. If you want to use {{Information field}} please add it to the other_fields parameter. --Dschwen (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this being adressed? --Dschwen (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if , see below :-)--Chandres (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we need the "description" ? It seems redundant with other parameters. I have proposed an alternate layout at File:Neuchâtel Herbarium - Abies alba - NEU000003665.tif. --Zolo (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The actual description field is important for the project by the providing the links to the wikipedia articles in several language, especially the swiss one. But if anybody has ideas on how improving this information part, I will be more than happy! --Chandres (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean, in this case, the link to en:Abies alba. There is a link to the corresponding category in the header. I would also prefer a link to Wikipedia, but we should be able to have that once wikidata: is deployed to Commons (hopefully, in a few months). Personnally, I find it unintuitive and rather confusing to have two different links just a few lines away from each other, without clear rationale why one links to Wikipedia and the other to Commons. --Zolo (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I find that the link the the commons category give less information than a link to the wikipedia article, but maybe we could improve the wording of the description to be more explicit. The idea of having the link to wikipedia article is "reader oriented", whereas commons category is really "wikimedian oriented". I don't want to wait for Wikidata deployment, we never what will happend, and we can always run a bot to correct that afterwards. --Chandres (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would like a more expansive description for those who stumble across a file and don't want to read the background of the whole project. My suggested change is here. In some of the test uploads (e.g. File:Neuchâtel Herbarium - Asplenium Viride - NEU000000475.tif there is no description at all!) --99of9 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The addition of "dried pressed specimen" is ok in english, but would complicated ,without benefice, the script in other language. I will control after upload if all description are present.--Chandres (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't completely understand your answer. Do you mean that you do not know the translation for "dried pressed specimen" in the languages you plan to use, or do you mean that it would be hard to add the words to each language? (Sorry for the slow reply) --99of9 (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Smallbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Smallman12q (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: To upload files related to Commons:Batch uploading/ECGPedia The files that will be uploaded can be found at User:Smallbot/source/Cardionetworks

This is based on OTRS Ticket#2011102310008874 . The ticket is a year old.

Related discussions:

• w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_76#Attribution_of_images
• w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_22#Offer_to_share_images

Automatic or manually assisted:automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run...though there may be future uploads

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): depends on upload speed (10)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): VBScript (Javascript, XMLHTTP, MSHTML, XMLDOM, COM).

Smallman12q (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

A lot of the files lack a description. Also, how should author information be handled? There are a number of .swf, a format that will never be supported on commons Bugzilla: 26269, that could be converted to a supported video format. The .avi could be converted to a supported video format.Smallman12q (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please make test uploads. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I need to verify the OTRS ticket and make the relevant template. I've asked at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Cardio_Networks.Smallman12q (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer from another OTRS volunteer on that page:

License template exist at Template:Cardionetworks permission that provides the relevant details. Regards -- KTC (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps, if not, don't hesitate to remove the {{section resolved}} template and ask further! Trijnstel_talk 18:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know the template was already made. Will do upload later this week.Smallman12q (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Will these images all be put together in a single category? Do you need anything further from my end? James Heilman, MD (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the test uploads yet. Also can you supply links to a few swf files? If they are either static or videos they could be converted as well. Do you have a solution for converting the avi videos yet? --Dschwen (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Working-I'm going to do this upload this week..was busy with Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum but they seem to be stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire. The .swf files have an equivalent .avi file (my guess is the .swf is just a flash wrapper for those who can't play .avi but have flash). The .avi will be converted to the webm format(which the commons now supports) before upload. I am in the process of downloading the files... probably around 10GB + for each wiki. I've written a script that will download all files, the file history table for each file, and text of the file for a wiki so this may be handy for future uploads. A lot of the files lack any text so I'm not sure what to put for these. Any thoughts are welcome.Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What are some examples of fills missing text? James Heilman, MD (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few files missing text. Have a look at User:Smallbot/source/Cardionetworks/Example to see how the uploads will look (including those missing text). Let me know if it looks okay.Smallman12q (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is okay. We will need to go through and add this after the fact. James Heilman, MD (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A few peculiarities

• Afib_ecg.jpg (and a few more) == Description == inside the description value in the Information template.
• 2072.jpg this description is not useful (maybe tag everything with a description of less then 10 chars as needing description)
• Course.jpg this is most likely a copyright violation (stock image, compare to this image or do google image search or tineye.

That last point makes me a bit uneasy about the whole task. --Dschwen (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded ECGpedia at Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia. I fixed the description issue I believe. I will go back and add {{Description missing}} to descriptions with less than 10 characters. I've requested speedy-delete for File:Course (CardioNetworks ECGpedia).jpg I'll do uploads of the other pediass tmrw.Smallman12q (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure so 2) the HR = 32 means that the heart rate is 32, standard shorthand and useful 3) I have sent a note to the up loader there and we will figure out who has copied from who. Does look like it is from here though [16]. The point is the ECGs though and not the clip art. James (log in appears broken)

Ok, so it was probably a fluke. I suggest you go ahead and do a few more test uploads. We should be able to resolve this quickly if you have time. --Dschwen (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

@Dschwen Resolve what exactly? I'll do echopedia.org next.Smallman12q (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This bot request. --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
For Echopedia, a lot of the files have no description, I will see if I can get some from the template on case files pages.Smallman12q (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look at both ECGpedia and Echopedia and am sceptical as to the usefulness of this bot approach. What it does on the Commons end (i.e. after spidering the source side) is (1) upload the files with (2) information on source, author and licensing, (3) add maintenance categories. For most of the files, this leaves Commons users with the tasks of (4) providing descriptions, (5) providing content categories and (6) renaming the files to Commons standards. That is a lot to ask for, and so I would personally favour an approach more akin to Flickr2Commons, in which individual Commons users import selected materials, and thus take responsibility for them here. Another thing I noticed is that the image pages over there link to "description pages" on Commons, which never exist because the files have the " (CardioNetworks ECGpedia)" suffix here. Has that anything to do with their collaboration with us or is this simply an error in their MediaWiki configuration? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Daniel here. There hasn't been a lot of discussion whether this stuff should be imported. I can see that some of the files can provide educational value, but this is largely dependent on good descriptions. Is there an anticipated use for those file on Wikimedia projects? Ie. Wikiversity cardiology? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

An obvious use case would be WikiProject Medicine but the usefulness certainly depends on the quality of the descriptions and discoverability by way of categories (or perhaps file names). -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For the stuff already imported, I suggest adding specific (rather than things like {{Description missing}}) maintenance categories that address the points 4-6 in my comment from an hour ago, i.e. something like Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia missing descriptions (for which an alternative would be CatScan), Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia missing categories (these have not been tagged at all, by the way, since Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia had not been marked as hidden and thus counted as a content category) and Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia needing file name review. This way, people interested in helping out with ECGpedia can dive right in and do not have to spend time searching for files in need of their help. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In terms of converting multimedia files to OGG, it may be worthwhile to have a look at media.py. Adding WebM support to that is easy. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For converting to .webm, I'll be calling w:FFmpeg in a subprocess from python. Daniel Mietchen's description above is fairly accurate as my bot is spidering and then uploading whatever info it can get...which isn't that much. The links to commons from the pedia pages are non-existent (it's a bug). I could add a custom description missing template and whatnot. So far, none of the files are being used...so I'm not sure if I should upload more files for Echopedia. I will post a note to WikiProject Medicine as to whether this upload is worthwhile.Smallman12q (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I plan to go through the ECGs, add descriptions and than add many of them to the appropriate Wikipedia article. James Heilman, MD (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded ECHOpedia to Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECHOpedia. I could do animated gifs for the videos, but most would fall in the 25-30 million total pixel range and currently only less those with 25 million will be rendered.Smallman12q (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Upload videos as videos. It makes no sense to convert them into animated GIFs nowadays. --Dschwen (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Animated

Thumbnail not animated

The videos are 1-2 second clips. Here's what a gif version would look like.Smallman12q (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Five times the file size, conversion loss, and no apparent advantage. Why on earth would you convert to anmated GIF?! --Dschwen (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gifs may be easier to use in some places and can loop by default. Anyhow, it's probably not worthwhile. PCIpedia is up next...it's ~200 files.Smallman12q (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Smallbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Smallman12q (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: To upload the NOAA Office of Response and Restoration Photo Collection. 4000 files of high-res JPG and PCD. I plan to convert PCD to 2048*3072 JPG for upload.

See User:Smallbot/source/NOAA Office of Response and Restoration Photo Collection for more details.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 5-10 (depends on upload speed)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): VBScript (Javascript, XMLHTTP, MSHTML, XMLDOM, COM).

Source: User:Smallbot/source/NOAA Office of Response and Restoration Photo Collection

Smallman12q (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

The extracted metadata is limited the galleries 1,2, and 3. (See the xml files of User:Smallbot/source/NOAA Office of Response and Restoration Photo Collection). I'm not sure how to name the files where there is no metadata.Smallman12q (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you give examples of how the file names will be constructed, and can you point us to an example of missing metadata? --Dschwen (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a table here. Some of the items have no description, some have a vague description ("??Oregon somwhere"), some have conflicting descriptions ("Roebling Steel, Roebling, NJ 4/4/90 Water treatment facility located on the banks of the Delaware River." and "Roebling Steel, Roebling, NY 4/4/90 Water treatment facility located on the banks of the Delaware River.") Should I upload with multiple descriptions?

Some are very good. From gallery 4, they follow this pattern: <incident>, <place>, <State>, <Date>. <Description>. such as "Powell Duffryn chemical storage tank incident, Savannah, Georgia, April 1995. Data from a berm chracterization overhead used during the Powell Duffryn incident."Smallman12q (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the bot includes all descriptions, and humans can work out which one is true. It looks like the directory structure has some info when there is no description. So how do you propose to construct filenames? --99of9 (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Gallery 4 is the most complete. I've created a table here. I'll take the first 230 characters of the description as the filename.Smallman12q (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to approve the gallery 4 upload. For the others, especially those without descriptions, I'd like to see an example of the proposed filenames before upload. --99of9 (talk) 11:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

タチコマ robot (talk · contribs)

Operator: とある白い猫 (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Bot will tag featured pictures from other wikis (main concern is ar.wikipedia) using {{Assessments}}.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised after the generation of the list of pages to be edited.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): infrequent runs to tag new promotions/demotions

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 60

Programming language(s): AWB, bot already has a flag

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 07:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Certainly. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems like someone has already manually tagged the images. I can demonstrate with another wiki if you approve. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      • A small test run from any wiki would help us to evaluate this. --99of9 (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• I don't quite understand this request. Is this about extending the scope of a previously approved bot request? For the description it sounds like this is a small one time task. Does this warrant a request? --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I doubt it would be one-time, since other wikis are going to be periodically featuring pictures and not marking them here. But it does seem like it would be infrequent. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • @Dschwen: It's quite common sense that small one time tasks (or small few times task) don't warrant a request, and I think such request basically give more work to bureaucrats, who have already a lot of work - judging by this page. Anyway, as far as I can see, bot policy is very strict about bots running without requesting, and there are no written exceptions in policy. IMO, providing some clear exceptions for low volume tasks would benefit bureaucrats, bot users and the project.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Four months and still no report of a test run. I will close this as stale within the next few days. --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What exactly am I supposed to test? I am merely trying to understand the nature you want me to run. How many edits would be sufficient? My plan is to grab a category off a wiki that has featured pictures and use a regex to apply it to the assessments template (or add the template if it isn't present). -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • 30-50 edits per step III of Commons:Bots/Requests. --99of9 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I might not be able to generate 30 edits due to people manually tagging which is why I was asking. I am processing all 3,345 files from and hopefully I have enough to reach that mark. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Yeah I only have 17 edits (edit summary: "adding enwiki fa assessment, replaced: {{Assessments| → {{Assessments|enwiki=1|)"). It is a simple regex in AWB. Is this sufficient? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Also, please note that 60 edits per minute is much higher than the normal maximum. --99of9 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed before. Is there any reason why we have to worry about such an arbitrary number bot operators disregard? It artificially creates a massive backlog as 1000 edits would take 16.66 hours to complete. I have placed a remark on the talk page of the policy to avoid duplication. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

1000 edits would take 100 minutes with recommended maximum bot speed. I think that is a reasonable speed fot this kind of task. Bots can make errors and if they do they should not do it at to high speed. This bot needs to be fixed so that it links to correctly named nomination pages at English Wikipedia, like this. It also needs to make sure that the pictures it tags really are featured pictures, eg File:Eastern Screech Owl.jpg does not seem to ever have been featured and File:Ebony Bones backup performer.jpg seems to have been delisted as featured picture. /Ö 19:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

FA Page ghosts on en.wikipedia
  Eastern_Screech_Owl.jpg
  Ebony Bones-01.jpg

Linking to nomination pages is a later issue. Not all of them are marked on en.wikipedia or on commons and crawling for them is a non-trivial task. That is a future task I hope to tackle.

The idea is also to sync enwiki (and other wikis) delistings with commons. The bot has no way of verifying if a file is actually featured or if it tagged without even being nominated. It can however check if files are in the en:Category:Featured pictures or not. The two mentioned files were in the category or at least en.wikipedia reported them as such (Eastern_Screech_Owl.jpg doesn't exist as a page on en.wikipedia despite appearing on category, Ebony Bones-01.jpg is a redirect on en.wikipedia to Ebony Bones backup performer.jpg which is the matching image which again shouldn't appear on category). On my second sweep I'd run a similar regex to en:Category:Wikipedia former featured pictures. Also not everything is nicely marked so catching problematic images is again a future development task.

The restriction is no faster than 1 edit/10sec according to the linked policy page. Simple math is 10sec*1000=10,000secs, 10,000/60=166.66... minutes, 166.66.../60=2.77... hours, provided bot does not spend any time doing anything. I do not want to add a 10 second counter between edits which would serve no purpose than waste my time. I do not see the point of a speed limit for bots. It was thrown in as an idea that servers couldn't handle such speeds. Developers disagreed and did not see a problem. The quicker the bot edits the better as edits would be rolled out quicker. That way I can change the parameters to work on the next wiki. This script would probably check for about 20 wikis that have featured pictures - of which most don't have that many files or new files. This task would take probably no more than 20 edits per month after the initial run. I do not believe the speed limit is based on consensus mind you. Let's discuss bot speeds on Commons talk:Bots as its a more general question if this is worth tracking and enforcing.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please notify me on my talk page if there are any developments here. I cannot watch a page forever. :/ -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Centralized discussion
Request for comment on enabling the DynamicPageList extension on Wikimedia Commons. (21 May 2013) Request for comment on enabling the Translate extension on Wikimedia Commons. (28 April 2012) Request for comment on enabling the UniversalLanguageSelector on Wikimedia Commons. (24 April 2012) Request for comment on enabling "article feedback" functionality for selected Commons images. (18 March 2012) Request for comment on creating a page to allow users to request others to upload files on their behalf. (14 March 2013) Request for comment on clarifying Commons' Project Scope, as laid down in COM:SCOPE. (11 March 2013) Request for comment on making Commons:Username policy an official Wikimedia Commons policy. (26 January 2013) There is a Request for Comment on hard category redirects #REDIRECT. (1 January 2013) Please help by translating these messages into other languages. Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch