Commons:Administrators

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

Alemannisch | asturianu | български | brezhoneg | català | dansk | Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch |
This page is considered an official guideline on Wikimedia Commons.
It illustrates standards or behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.
Commons Administrator.svg

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

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

There are currently 272 administrators on Commons.

An admin wielding the mop, a common symbol of administrators. See also: The good admin.

Contents


What is an administrator?

Administrators as of June 2013 [+/−]
Listing by language
Listing by date

Number of Admins: 272

  1. 1Veertje, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1
  2. 32X, de, en-2, hsb-1, ru-1
  3. 99of9, en (bureaucrat)
  4. á, fi, en-2, sv-2
  5. A.Savin, ru, de-4, en-2
  6. Adrignola, en
  7. AFBorchert, de, en-3
  8. Ahonc, uk, ru-4, en-2, de-1
  9. Aka, de, en-3
  10. Alan, es, eu-3, en-2
  11. Ala z, pl, en-2, ru-1
  12. ALE!, de, en-3, es-3, fr-1, it-1
  13. Alhen, es, en-2
  14. Alison, en, ga-3, fr-2, gd-1
  15. Alno, fr, en-3, es-2, pt-1
  16. Alpertron, es, en-3
  17. Amada44, de, en-3, fr-1
  18. Angr, en, de-4, fr-2, ga-2, la-2, cy-1
  19. AnRo0002, de, en-2, fr-2, es-1
  20. Anthere, fr, en-3
  21. Aude, en, ar-3
  22. Avenue, en, de-1, fr-1, it-1
  23. Avraham, en, he-2 (oversighter, steward)
  24. AVRS, ru, en-2, eo-2
  25. Axpde, de, en-4, es-1, fr-1, it-1, nl-1
  26. AzaToth, sv, en-4
  27. Badseed, el, en-3, it-1
  28. Bapti, fr, en-3, de-2
  29. Barcex, es, en-2, fr-1
  30. Bastique, en, fr-3, es-2, la-2, ga-1
  31. Bdk, de, en-2
  32. Bencmq, zh, en-3 (steward)
  33. Benoit Rochon fr, en-4
  34. Beria, pt, en-2, es-2
  35. Bidgee, en
  36. Billinghurst, en (steward)
  37. Blackcat, it, en-3, fr
  38. Blacklake, ru, en-2
  39. Blurpeace, en, es-1
  40. Butko, ru, uk-2, en-1
  41. Cambalachero, es, en-3
  42. Captain-tucker, en
  43. Cecil, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, fi-1 (bureaucrat)
  44. Chatama, ja, en-1
  45. Chris 73, de, en-3, ja-1
  46. ChrisiPK, de, en-3, fr-1
  47. ChristianBier, de, en-3
  48. Ciell, nl, en-2, de-1
  49. Cirt, en, es-2
  50. Common Good, en
  51. CommonsDelinkerHelper (bot)
  52. Cookie, es, en-2
  53. Courcelles, en, es-2, fr-2
  54. Coyau, fr, en-1
  55. DaB., de, en-1
  56. Dantadd, it, pt, en-3, es-3, fr-3, gl-3, ca-2, ro-1, el-1
  57. Darwinius, pt, en-3, es-2, fr-2, gl-2, ca-1, it-1, oc-1
  58. Davepape, en
  59. David Levy, en
  60. Dcoetzee, en, fr-2, et-1, af-0
  61. Denniss, de, en-2, fr-1
  62. Dereckson, fr, en-3, de-1, nl-1
  63. Didym, de, en-2, fr-2
  64. D-Kuru, de, en-2, it-1
  65. Dschwen, de, en-3, fr-1 (bureaucrat)
  66. Edgar181, en, de-1, fr-1, es-1
  67. Effeietsanders, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1, la-1
  68. Ejdzej, pl, en-2
  69. Elcobbola en, de
  70. Elitre, it, en-3, fr-2
  71. Elya, de, en-3, uk-2, ru-1
  72. EPO, da, en-3, de-1
  73. Érico Júnior Wouters, pt, en-2, es-2
  74. Esby, fr, en-3, de-1
  75. EugeneZelenko, ru, be, en-2, bg-1, pl-1 (bureaucrat)
  76. EVula, en
  77. Ezarate, es-3, en-1
  78. Fanghong, zh, en-2, fr-1
  79. Fastily, en, fr-2, zh-2
  80. Flominator, de, als, en-3
  81. Foroa, vls, nl, en-3, fr-2
  82. Funfood, de, en-2, bar-1
  83. FunkMonk, da, en-4, no-3, fo-2, sv-2, de-1, es-1
  84. Geagea, he, ka-3, en-3, ru-1
  85. Geni, en
  86. George Chernilevsky, ru, uk-3, de-2, en-2, bg-1, la-1, be-1, fr-1
  87. GeorgHH, de, en-1
  88. Gestumblindi, als, de, en-3
  89. Gmaxwell, en (checkuser)
  90. Gnangarra, en
  91. Golbez, en, ja-2
  92. Greudin, fr, en-2, de-1
  93. grin, hu, en-3, de-1
  94. Gruznov, ru, en-1, fr-1
  95. guillom, fr, en-3, de-1
  96. Heb, da, en-2
  97. Hekerui, de, en-4
  98. Hesperian, en
  99. High Contrast, de, en-3, fr-1
  100. HJ Mitchell, en
  101. Howcheng, en, ja-2
  102. Hystrix, de, en-1
  103. H-stt, de, en-4, fr-1
  104. INeverCry, en, es-1, ru-1
  105. Infrogmation, en, es-1
  106. JDavid, pl, en-2, de-1
  107. J Milburn, en
  108. Jafeluv, fi, en-4, fr-3, de-2, ru-2
  109. Jameslwoodward, en, fr-1 (checkuser)
  110. January, en
  111. Jaqen, it, en-2
  112. Jarekt, pl, en
  113. Jastrow, fr, en-3, de-1, it-1
  114. Jcb, nl, en-3, es-3
  115. Jcornelius, de, lt-2, la-2, en-2, pt-2, fr-1
  116. Jdforrester, en
  117. Jean-Frédéric, fr, en-4, es-1
  118. JeremyA, en
  119. JGHowes, en, fr-2, de-1
  120. Jmabel, en, es-3, ro-2, de-1, ca-1, it-1, pt-1, fr-1
  121. Joergens.mi, de, en-3
  122. John Vandenberg, en
  123. Juliancolton, en (bureaucrat)
  124. Julo, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1
  125. JuTa, de, en-2, fr-1
  126. Jusjih, zh, en-3, fr-1 (bureaucrat, steward)
  127. Kaldari, en
  128. Kallerna, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1
  129. Kanonkas, no, en-4, nn-3, da-2, sv-2, de-1 (bureaucrat)
  130. Killiondude, en, es-3, ru-1
  131. King of Hearts, en, zh-4, es-3
  132. Klemen Kocjancic, sl, en-3, de-2, hr-1, bs-1
  133. Krd, de, en-3
  134. Krinkle, nl, en-3, de-2
  135. Krzysiu, pl, en-2, szl-2
  136. KTo288, en, zh-4
  137. Kved, es, en-3
  138. Kwj2772, ko, en-2
  139. Kyro, fr, de-3, en-2
  140. Leit, de, en-3, fr-1
  141. Léna, fr, en-3, es-1
  142. Letartean, fr, en-3
  143. Leyo, gsw, de, en-3, fr-3, es-1, la-1
  144. Lobo, es, ca-2, en-2
  145. Logan, en, es-3
  146. Lokal Profil, sv, en-4, pt-2, fr-1
  147. LtPowers, en, es-1
  148. Ludmiła Pilecka, pl, en-2, ru-1
  149. Ludo29, fr, en-2
  150. Lupo, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, it-1
  151. Luxo, gsw, de-4, en-1, fr-1
  152. Lymantria, nl, de-2, en-2, fy-2, fr-1, zea-1
  153. Magister Mathematicae, es, en-4, pt-1 (checkuser)
  154. Magnus Manske, de, en-2
  155. Magog the Ogre, en, es-2
  156. Maire, pl, en-4, es-2, fr-2, de-2, ru-1
  157. MarcoAurelio, es, en-2, fr-2 (steward)
  158. Marcus Cyron, de, en-1
  159. Mardetanha fa, az, en-3, tr-2, ar-1 (checkuser, steward)
  160. Martin H., de, en-2 (checkuser)
  161. Masur, pl, en-3, de-1
  162. Matanya, en, he (steward)
  163. Materialscientist, en-4, ru-4, nl-3, fr-1, es-1
  164. Matt314, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, zh-1
  165. Mathonius, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 (steward)
  166. Mattbuck, en, fr-1, la-1
  167. Maxim, ru, en-3, fr-2
  168. MBisanz, en (steward)
  169. McZusatz, de, en-3, es-1, la-1 swg-1
  170. Mentifisto, en, mt, it-2 (steward)
  171. MGA73, da, en-3, de-2, sv-1, no-1
  172. MichaelMaggs, en, fr-1 (bureaucrat)
  173. Micheletb, fr, en-3, it-1, es-1
  174. Mitchazenia, en, es-2
  175. Miya, ja, en-2
  176. Mmxx, fa, en-3
  177. Mono, en
  178. Moogsi, en, la-2, fr-1, grc-1
  179. Morgankevinj, en, es-1, la-1
  180. Mormegil, cs, en-2, de-1
  181. Morning Sunshine, vi, en-3
  182. M0tty, fr, en-1
  183. MPF, en, da-2, de-1, fr-1
  184. Multichill, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1
  185. Mys 721tx, zh, en-3
  186. Nagy, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, sv-1
  187. Neozoon, de, en-4, nl-4, fr-2
  188. Nilfanion, en, fr-1
  189. NordNordWest, de, en-3
  190. notafish, fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2
  191. O, zh, en-4, zh-wuu-2, zh-hu-3, yue-1 fr-1
  192. odder, pl, en-3, de-2 (oversighter)
  193. Okki, fr, en-2
  194. Otourly, fr, en-2, it-1
  195. PeterSymonds, en, de-1 (steward)
  196. Pharos, en, fr-1
  197. Philosopher, en, es-1, zh-1
  198. PierreSelim, fr, en-3, es-1
  199. Pitke, fi, en-4, sv-2
  200. Platonides, es, en-2, fr-1
  201. Podzemnik, cs, en-2
  202. Polarlys, de, en-2, fr-1, no-1
  203. Powerek38, pl, en-4, fr-2, es-1, de-1
  204. Pruneau, fr, en-4, de-1
  205. PumpkinSky, en, de-2
  206. Putnik, ru, en-2
  207. ~Pyb, fr, en-2
  208. Pymouss, fr, en-3, de-2, it-2, he-1
  209. Ragesoss, en, de-1, fr-1
  210. Ra'ike, de, en-2
  211. Rama, fr, en-3, de-2, la-2, es-1, it-1, ja-1 (oversighter)
  212. Rastrojo, es, en-3, fr-2, eo-1
  213. Raul654, en, es-1
  214. Raymond, de, en-3, nl-1 (oversighter)
  215. Rd232, en, de, es-2, fr-1
  216. Rehman, en, si-1
  217. Reinhard Kraasch, de, en-3
  218. Rillke, de, en-2, fr-1
  219. Rimshot, de, en-4, fr-2, it-1
  220. Romaine, nl, en-3, de-2, af-1, fr-1
  221. Ronhjones, en, fr-1
  222. Rosenzweig, de, en-3, fr-1, la-1
  223. Royalbroil, en, es-1
  224. Rubin16, ru, tt, en-3
  225. Rüdiger Wölk, de, en-2
  226. Russavia, en, ru-3 (bureaucrat)
  227. Sanandros, als, de, en-3, fr-1
  228. Sandstein, als, de, en-4, fr-3, it-1
  229. SarahStierch, en
  230. SatuSuro, en, id-1
  231. Sfu, pl, en-2
  232. Shizhao, zh, en-1, ru-1 (steward)
  233. Siebrand, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1
  234. Skeezix1000, en, fr-2
  235. Spiritia, bg, en-3, ru-2, mk-2, de-1
  236. Sreejithk2000, ml, en-3, hi-3, ta-1, kn-1
  237. Steinsplitter, tir, de-4, it-3, en-1
  238. Steven Walling, en
  239. Stifle, en, ga, fr-2, de-1
  240. Sven Manguard, en
  241. Tabercil, en
  242. Tarawneh, en, ar, de-1
  243. Techman224, en
  244. TheDJ, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1
  245. Thuresson, sv, en-3, no-2
  246. Tiptoety, en (checkuser, oversighter)
  247. Tom, en, es-1
  248. Trijnstel, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 (checkuser, steward)
  249. Trixt, it, en-2, fr-1
  250. tsca, pl, en, da
  251. Túrelio, de, en-3, es-1
  252. VIGNERON, fr, de-2, en-2, zh-1
  253. Waldir, pt, en-3
  254. Whym, ja, en-2
  255. Wikitanvir, bn, en-3, as-2, bpy-1 (steward)
  256. WJBscribe, en, fr-3, de-1
  257. Wknight94, en
  258. Wpedzich, pl, en-4, de-2 (steward)
  259. Wsiegmund, en, fr-1, es-1
  260. Wutsje, fy, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1
  261. Wuzur, de, en-3
  262. wvk, de, en-4, fa-3, fr-2
  263. Yann, fr, en-3, hi-2, gu-1
  264. Yarl, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1
  265. Yuval Y, he, en-3
  266. Zirland, cs, pl-3, en-3, sk-2, eo-2
  267. Zolo, fr, en-4, de-2, zh-2
  268. Zscout370, en, ja-3
  269. Zyephyrus, fr, en-3, la-3, el-2
  270. Zzyzx11, en, es-1, fr-1
  271. KrinkleBot, Bot account; temporary adminship for testing, see also Commons:Bots/Requests/KrinkleBot (2).
  272. Brion VIBBER, Temporary adminship: "Temporary enable to look into UW campaign setup". No exact expiry date.

The system currently recognizes 272 administrators. If that is not the last number in the list above, there is an error in the list.

Technical

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

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

These are collectively known as the admin tools.

Community role

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

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

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

How do I become an administrator?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The public discussion and vote

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

As a guideline, promotion normally requires at least 75% in favour, with a minimum of 8 support votes. Votes from unregistered users are not numerically counted, although such users may still offer their opinions on the candidate. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.

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

The request for adminship

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

Suggestions for administrators

Please read Commons:Guide to adminship.

Removal of administrator rights

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

Apply to become an administrator

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

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



Voting

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

Promotion normally requires at least 75% in favour, with a minimum of 8 support votes. Votes from unregistered users are not counted. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers.

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral comments are not counted in the vote totals for the purposes of calculating pass/fail percentages. However such comments are part of the discussion, may persuade others, and contribute to the closing bureaucrat's understanding of community consensus.

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

Requests for adminship

Vector skin - page not in the watchlist.png 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.

Requests for bureaucratship

Vector skin - page not in the watchlist.png 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

Vector skin - page not in the watchlist.png 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.

INeverCry

Vote

Links for INeverCry: INeverCry (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo)

NOTE: CU requests at Commons run for 2 weeks minimum, this request will end no earlier than 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The rationale - People may wonder whether we need more checkusers. The simple answer is yes. We could use 1, maybe even 2, extra checkusers. We have 7 checkusers right now. We had 8, but our most active CU quit recently (Herby). To illustrate the big hole he left: I've looked at the statistics of the last 12 months & compiled a table which shows the activity of the checkusers. As you can see I'm the most active CU now, but Herby was more than twice as active as me. Martin H. does a lot, but never responded on the request page the past year. Which leaves Jim as the last active CU (& I love his help), but he never checks spambots and stuff & hardly replies on the CU mailing list. The other four are either semi-active or simply inactive as a CU.

My nominee - I've discussed with Herby about CU candidates and a few names came up. But we shared INeverCry in our list of candidates. INeverCry is an admin here since August 2012 and has been very active ever since. He frequently blocks users (in a good way of course ;)) which is very important to me as that's what checkusers do most of the time: deciding whether or not you should block someone. INeverCry has a good sense in discovering sockpuppets as he requested me and Herby multiple times to perform a CU. He is also an admin on the English Wikipedia so he's also aware of the global overview (cross-wiki) and possible problems. IMHO INeverCry is a very good admin overall and more than competent to be a CU.

Last but not least: CU is all about trust and INeverCry can certainly be trusted imho. I hope the community agrees with me. Trijnsteltalk 20:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Acceptance: I gratefully accept the nomination. INeverCry 20:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Votes

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom. Trijnsteltalk 20:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Strong candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Trusted colleague. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support good candidate. --Rschen7754 21:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course! --Didym (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support I may as well voice my support, it's a comparison-based support, I would still like my concerns properly addressed though. Penyulap ☏ 21:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support russavia (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support good candidate--Steinsplitter (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support, per nom. Savhñ 22:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't always support requests for higher wiki office, but when I do, I drink Dos Eq..., err I mean, I make sure they are very good candidates. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support Alan (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Mathonius (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support -FASTILY 01:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Érico Wouters msg 02:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain JKadavoor Jee 04:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC) It seems something going wrong here. Why our admins/crats are so intolerable to a few negative votes? JKadavoor Jee 13:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Back to Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks Toby for your understanding. JKadavoor Jee 03:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg Support of course. TCN7JM 09:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  19. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stryn (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  20. Symbol support vote.svg Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  21. Symbol support vote.svg Support--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  22. Symbol support vote.svg Support Taivo (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  23. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Commons already has much too much Checkusers. There should be only very few very trusted Authors with these rights. I don't see a cause for a new one. Sorry @ Trijnstel - but only to write we need some is not enough for me.But your Statistics tells me, we should take away the Rights from Gmaxwell and Mardetanha. And we have to talk about the extensive use of this "last to use" tool! About 8.500 CUs is pure horror. I don't know if we can argue against Pipa, Sopa and Acta - and PRISM - and use this tool so unbeleavable often! Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    Because of this reply of Marcus Cyron, I believe I should clarify a few things:
    1) Yes, I believe we should take away the right from Gmaxwell & Mardetanha too. I even asked them both if they would drop the tool themselves: here and here.
    2) Regarding the "extensive use" of the tool; maybe it helps if I say I use it 90% of the time for checking spambots (the other 10% are regular requests etc.)? Also (I know I shouldn't mention it maybe, but still it's important imo), on the English Wikipedia the tool is used even more... So frankly we *do* need more checkusers now Herby quit.
    And yes, we should take it away from inactive ones, but that doesn't mean INeverCry shouldn't be a great asset for the team. Trijnsteltalk 18:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    The terible often use at en:WP is not a cause for me. A de:WP we have only very few uses. I hate the Big-Brother-Structure here and I don't feel safe any longer with you handling this tool so extensive. Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    If you don't do anything wrong that might look like sockpuppetry, I have absolutely no reason to CU you (and I never have either ofc). :) Trijnsteltalk 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry - but here's my problem: If you don't do anything wrong that might look like sockpuppetry - I never ever use Sockpuppets. But what happens if you think it looks like? You decide to Checkuser. But "I think there could be something" is for me not enough. The possibility "there could be something" is not enough for a CU. We need real good causes - because it's a very hard way into the privacy of the people who work here - in a free project. They are volunteers! Until we checkuser them, really a lot has to happen. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    That's a very poor argument. It's like "If you do'nt have to hide anything, you could show us pictures of your bedroom and of your underwear drawer in the closet". If you do not care of another privacy, you should publish your name and your full address on your user page and your usual IP address, otherwise you apply double standards for me. But you did'nt do that all until now. Your privacy seems to be "worthy" than others. Morty (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    I never said I don't care about the privacy of others (which I do care about ofc). I only said I won't CU without a valid reason. Trijnsteltalk 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  24. Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent choice - thanks for helping - despite Marcus's comments the spambot invasion/attacks require continuous work sadly. --Herby talk thyme 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  25. Symbol support vote.svg Support Trusted, responsive and very diligent user. -- Rillke(q?) 20:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  26. Symbol support vote.svg Support I have done some work with INeverCry and he/she seems responsive in deleting clear copyright violations. I think we do need a new active CU after Herby retired and that perhaps Gmaxwell and Mardetanha should resign as CUs--from the very low level of their activity here. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  27. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Until there is no control of his acting. Morty (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    I don't get this statement. Are you talking about me or INeverCry? Trijnsteltalk 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    It's not personal. But i miss any independent control and/or public accessible log file of the commons CUs. And until there is no check and balance i deny to vote pro to any candidate. Morty (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Right, well, we're not dewiki which logs everything, but we control eachother. And in case you don't trust us, you always have the OC. Trijnsteltalk 14:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Please tell me: Is there a list of provable reasons why a CU is made or is such a decision is commonly based on a simple feeling in the stomache? I am a little bit scared of the enormous amount of 8.500 CUs in a year. That looks to me as if there is no self-imposed barrier to use this instrument of controlling the community. Morty (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    I guess you came here because of the post of Marcus on dewiki? If so, yes, I would be frightened too if someone just gives a number without any background. But I'm happy you've asked for a clarification. Yes, there is a list of reasons: see the CU policy. I stick to that. And again: we're not dewiki which requires a consensus to be able to CU. It's a tool to fight vandalism and I use it that way. Here I obviously only use CU to check for sockpuppetry, that is *abusing sockpuppets*. As I said before, 90% of my checks are spambots or attack accounts. The spambots are mostly from China and have a clear pattern. So I definitely don't randomly check accounts. And the attack accounts are pretty clear too (can't go into detail). Sadly Commons receives a lot of spam and an abuse filter alone won't help. I am a steward thus I also cross-wiki check them and afterwards I globally block the IP so other projects won't be affected by the spam from that IP anymore either. I've never checked a regular editor and won't do that either unless I have a very strong reason to do so. I don't understand why people are so scared to be CU'd. CU is just a tool to fight vandalism. It's not something we use to 'control the community' as you suggest. Trijnsteltalk 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Well said, Trijnstel. I never afraid of the tools; only those who operates. Honestly, many admins are not very trustable. But here your choice is good. :) JKadavoor Jee 17:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  28. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  29. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Hubertl (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC) as Morty and Marcus. If the discussion about possible excessive misuse of data should begin here, then it is not the wrong place.
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A discussion about possible misuse of CU data is appropriate on another forum. Not on an existing CU request. Besides, if there are not enough CU's, then Commons risks being inundated by spammers and copyright violating accounts. Who wouldn't want to upload copyvios or spam on a highly visited website like Commons or Wikipedia? When a spammer or copyright violater finds one account is blocked, he/she immediatedly creates another. No one can tolerate this situation--unless we want to risk a lawsuit from the real copyright owner. That is why we need a more active Check User in the first place--now that Herby who did half this task has retired and Mardetanha almost never uses this tool. The possible misuse of CU data I cited on another thread was on English wikipedia, not WikiCommons. I respect INeverCry's judgment. He follows Commons procedures. Even when I pointed out a massive copy vio account case on his talkpage, he waited almost 7 days here before acting. To me, this was a speedy delete case. That tells me a lot on this Admin's respect for Commons laws. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  30. Symbol support vote.svg Support MoiraMoira (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  31. Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't compare Commons with the German Wikipedia.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  32. Symbol support vote.svg Support policy has not to be discussed here. I'm sure INeverCry will do a good job. IW 19:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  33. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Go ahead, Mr. Bureaucrat, refactor my vote to a section of your liking. Stefan64 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    This is just blatant trolling. If you wish to give your opinion on the candidate, go ahead, but this does not contribute to the discussion about the candidate. Savhñ 20:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  34. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rosenzweig τ 21:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  35. Symbol support vote.svg Support -mattbuck (Talk) 22:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  36. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Geitost diskusjon 22:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I wish Commons wouldn’t have any checkusers anymore. So, are you checking me now also, cause you think I would be the same person as another German user, such as there has also been checked the Commons and de-sysop User:Saibo last year because someone who was harrassing other users on an external blog (which is well-known for its harrassing character) claimed Saibo would be the same person as User:Niabot? Or will Fastily now just block me, because discussing wrong checks on Commons are leading to blocks here? Please, no checkusers anymore here. I don’t trust them in any way and I don’t trust the lots of checks here, since I’ve seen how easy it is to check a longtime user just because of a rumour in an external blog. If this is the way, that checkuser tools are used on Commons and the Community thinks it’s all ok, even if the Commons rules itself are another way than the tools are used, then Commons shouldn’t have checkusers at all. And perhaps the only active checkuser Jim who performs such kind of checks which are against Commons rules lays down the tools.
  37. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Liliana-60 (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  38. Symbol support vote.svg Support I am his nominator on en.wiki and I regret not making this CU nomination--Morning ☼ (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Trijnstel suggests that "INeverCry has a good sense in discovering sockpuppets[...]", perhaps can you tell me did you see anomalies in the contributions of this editor ? If so, why were you silent, if not, why would you be good at the job ? What does 'turning a blind eye' mean to you ? Penyulap ☏ 21:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting about Moogsi (don't know much about him), but having sockpuppets itself isn't forbidden. *Abusing* sockpuppets is wrong. Trijnsteltalk 21:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
If you can't spot them in the first place it's a moot point isn't it. Ditto being happy to vote them into positions of trust without knowing who they are. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Moogsi indicated that he hasn't edited with any other accounts. I see no indication that Moogsi has done anything but constructive editing. I assumed good faith in regard to his RFA, and so far I haven't seen him do anything but good work as an admin. When looking for sockpuppets, I look for direct evidence of disruptive editing, as can be seen in cases like this, or this, or with most of the cases brought to COM:RFCU, COM:AN/U, etc. If somebody comes to me with credible evidence of disruptive socking, or if I see it, I have done and will continue to do my best to deal with it in the appropriate way, through discussion with other editors, and with blocks when necessary. INeverCry 22:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I won't give my own thoughts on that editor in public, and I won't call you particularly great at spotting socks, but I will commiserate with you that you'll be doing the lion's share of the drudgery in both the CU and DR departments. Say it with me, "Woo Hoo", come on, say it with me, give me a "Woo".... just a "Woo" erm, yes, never mind.
Let me be the first to say "Sorry to hear you got stuck with even more work to do". hmm. Wait a sec, I know something I can say that is sure to cheer you up ! "I'll shut up now." Penyulap ☏ 22:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You are one interesting person. Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

general discussion about CU/Commons:

  • User:Marcus Cyron wrote the following at de:Wikipedia:Kurier (the de-Wikipedia equivalent for the Sign Post). I think everyone here, and especially the candidate has a right to know what he wrote there, thereof, here is a rough (and possibly not always correct) translation which Marcus is welcome to improve:
    • Currently there is a Checkuser-election at Commons. It is arguable whether the writer of these lines is right with his demand keeping the number of people who have access to these sensitive right low. He is more interested or even alarmed by the statistics of the eight checkusers at Wikimedia Commons during the past year: About 8.500 check user actions were performed. Half of them during the last half year. Especially two collaborators — of which one just threw in the towel (retired) — excelled with a four digits number of actions, each. And it doesn't grasp to the author [of these lines] how such a thing could happen. Are there really so many violations that have to be treated with a CU (where there is hardly a Community with “socking”) – or are the buttons carelessly used? And how can we then complain about spying by ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and PRISM, if we ourself created such a surveillance structure in our project. A comment by M.C. //
  • Note by the translator: The checkuser policy at de.wp is stricter. Also, I am going to add a translation of Trijnstel's reply to the Kurier. -- Rillke(q?) 20:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I support INeverCry's request to be a CU because he is reasonable and looks at the evidence before acting but I agree with Trijnstel that a user with 2 accounts should Not be blocked unless there is evidence of abusive sockpuppetry/spamming. So, I think I understand Marcus Cyron's concerns about the CU process. In this English wikipedia case, a user was temporarily blocked for 1 week because he had 2 user accounts, not because of any abusive sockpuppetry. The user appealed the block and it was lifted Later on, the person who lifted the block Admitted/Admitted 2 that he didn't know why the user was blocked in the first case when there was no evidence of abuse on either account. (just something to do with English wiki policy) That is why I believe Trijnstel's standard should be Common's standards here--act only if there is clear evidence of abusive sockpuppetry or spamming. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Discussion of vote refactoring (which has now been undone)

Bureaucrat Note: I have refactored this section to highlight that the rationale used in these votes is not about the candidate, but is explicitly about the position in general or external factors. If any of you wish to make comments about the candidate, you are welcome to add them and move your vote back into the other section. RfX is not the place for policy reform, nor is it for attacking those currently or formerly serving in the position. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You cannot simply suppress an opposition in the community. If a part of the community does not wish more CUs, they also do not wish to have INeverCry as a CU. Besides, since when does an opposing comment need to fulfill criteria, for being counted as valid? Vogone (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Seconded. @99of9, please revert your changes to the votes, they are just as valid and valuable as all the supports that had been cast. odder (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have not "suppressed" these votes. I have divided the votes into two sections that are categorically about two different things. Please note that I did not only split oppose votes. I'm sure the closing Bureaucrat will consider them for what they are worth. --99of9 (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I see only one category: INeverCry's request for CU permission. Vogone (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Or shall we start to sort them into sections like "votes without comment" etc.? Vogone (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
99of9, how can you say Stanzilla's vote is not related to the candiadate? The comment can be just an add-on opinion plus the vote. (It is like that in most cases; unless specified.) JKadavoor Jee 15:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course it is. I suppose 99of9 is a bit unclear about how he manipulates this RFCU, at the moment. Currently, it looks like the opinions below are wrong and unrelated to the RFCU and one more result of this change is visible in this diff. I fail to see what justifies this overreaction to a few comments. Vogone (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I hereby strongly Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this refactoring. A very, very bad move, especially for a bureaucrat who should always be neutral upon elections and thus should abstain from any editorial change. Please revert it immediately. Thank you, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have undone the refactor according to the feedback above, and an IRC discussion with some of you. My general warning at the top of this section stands. RfX is not a forum for policy change or to bash current practice or users. If your vote is based on a disagreement with existing consensus policy, you are likely to be ignored by the closing bureaucrat (not me). I was hoping to give some voters early warning, so that you could adjust your vote and stick closely to the topic. But I understand that it created a perception of manipulation, so to ensure the integrity of the vote, I have reversed it. I will also not get involved in the closure of this RfCU. --99of9 (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    When was the last time you read the m:CheckUser policy? Must be a long time ago, I bet. It pretty clearly says that Checkusers must have "at least 70%-80%" consensus. It says nothing about the validity of votes, and given that Checkuser status is granted by stewards, not by Commons bureaucrats (I am so glad!) no bureaucrat has the power to discount votes just because he feels like it. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • But stewards won’t close discussions about user rights here on Commons. They only will grant the rights or not. --Geitost diskusjon 00:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Stewards are not retards. They will notice if a vote has been falsified. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • @ 99of9: It has always been said that these kind of requests for user rights (sysop, bureaucrat rights especially) would be discussions with arguments and not votes (despite the fact that 70 % of support must be reached at least according to the policy). So, if the arguments are going to be ignored, because they are about checkuser tools use on Commons, and e.g. I just don’t want the only really active Commons CU to advise any new checkuser to use the tools the same way as he himself does cause I fear that there will be more checkuser misuse in the future than it has been in the past, I think that should be argument enough for opposing. I’ve no other chance to oppose the current CUs and the current system here, have I?
  • I’ve got one more question about refactoring and accepting or ignoring "votes" – I understand the intention of the refactoring thing, but not the result of the refactoring or the criteria for accepting/ignoring "votes": If all opposers without arguments are to be ignored and all opposers with arguments probably also are to be ignored, because the bureaucrats think that the arguments would not be the right arguments for opposing, then no opposers are to be counted at all (and therefore, you moved all opposers from the above section before, and there really wasn’t left any opposer at all anymore in the first section). So, aren’t opposers ok in such a request and are only supporters to be accepted? Will or would you (or another bureaucrat later) also ignore the supporters without comments or not – why weren’t they also moved away and refactored? And will only those "votes" (with comments) be counted of which the bureaucrats think that these would be ok? In a discussion like this request support votes without comments can‘t be counted at all, cause they haven’t posted any argument for their support. And there are lots of those kind of supporters without comments. Would it be better to oppose without any comment, and then the bureaucrats won’t ignore those opposes?
    This system seems to be really questionable to me, cause the opposers will probably not be seen at all just because of such kind of criteria. If this is the way that checkusers tools are given to users, then I’m not wondering anymore about the results with the use and misuse of the tools in the past. I don’t mean the refactoring thing, but the kind of procedure with which users who comment or don’t comment at all in such a request are taken into account for the closure of such requests, or not. --Geitost diskusjon 00:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Oversight rights

Vector skin - page not in the watchlist.png 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.


Archives

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

See also

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators&oldid=95787534"