Commons:Administrators

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Administrators and the translation is 3% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Administrators and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Shortcut: COM:A· COM:ADMIN

Other languages:
als • ‎asturianu • ‎български • ‎brezhoneg • ‎català • ‎dansk • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎فارسی • ‎suomi • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎עברית • ‎magyar • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어 • ‎Lëtzebuergesch • ‎occitan • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎Türkçe • ‎українська
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 Administrators' noticeboard.

There are currently 243 administrators on Commons.

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

What is an administrator?

Administrators as of de mai 2015 [+/−]
Listing by language
Listing by date

Number of Admins: 243

  1. -revi, ko, en-3
  2. 1Veertje, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1
  3. 32X, de, en-2, hsb-1, ru-1
  4. 99of9, en (bureaucrat)
  5. A.Savin, ru, de-4, en-2
  6. AFBorchert, de, en-3
  7. Ahonc, uk, ru-4, en-2, de-1
  8. Aka, de, en-3
  9. Alan, es, eu-3, en-2
  10. Alhen, es, en-2
  11. Alison, en, ga-3, fr-2, gd-1
  12. Alno, fr, en-3, es-2, pt-1
  13. Alpertron, es, en-3
  14. Amada44, de, en-3, fr-1
  15. Angr, en, de-4, fr-2, ga-2, la-2, cy-1
  16. Ankry, pl, en-2, ru-1
  17. AnRo0002, de, en-2, fr-2, es-1
  18. Anthere, fr, en-3
  19. Aude, en, ar-2, de-2, es-3
  20. Avenue, en, de-1, fr-1, it-1
  21. Avraham, en, he-2 (oversighter, steward)
  22. Axpde, de, en-4, es-1, fr-1, it-1, nl-1
  23. AzaToth, sv, en-4
  24. Badseed, el, en-3, it-1
  25. Barcex, es, en-2, fr-1
  26. Bastique, en, fr-3, es-2, la-2, ga-1
  27. Basvb, nl, en-3, de-2
  28. Benoit Rochon fr, en-4
  29. Beria, pt, en-2, es-2
  30. Billinghurst, en (steward)
  31. Blackcat, it, en-3, fr
  32. Blurpeace, en, es-1
  33. BrightRaven, fr, en-3, nl-2, es-2, zh-1
  34. Butko, ru, uk-2, en-1
  35. Cambalachero, es, en-3
  36. Captain-tucker, en
  37. Cecil, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, fi-1 (bureaucrat)
  38. Chris 73, de, en-3, ja-1
  39. ChrisiPK, de, en-3, fr-1
  40. Ciell, nl, en-2, de-1
  41. Cirt, en, es-2
  42. Common Good, en
  43. Cookie, es, en-2
  44. Courcelles, en, es-2, fr-2
  45. Coyau, fr, en-1
  46. DaB., de, en-1
  47. Dantadd, it, pt, en-3, es-3, fr-3, gl-3, ca-2, ro-1, el-1
  48. Darwinius, pt, en-3, es-2, fr-2, gl-2, ca-1, it-1, oc-1
  49. Davepape, en
  50. David Levy, en
  51. Denniss, de, en-2, fr-1
  52. Dereckson, fr, en-3, de-1, nl-1
  53. DerHexer, de, en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-1 (steward)
  54. Dharmadhyaksha, mr, en-3, hi-3
  55. Didym, de, en-2, fr-2
  56. D-Kuru, de, en-2, it-1
  57. Dschwen, de, en-3, fr-1 (bureaucrat)
  58. Ebraminio, fa
  59. Edgar181, en, de-1, fr-1, es-1
  60. Elcobbola en, de (checkuser)
  61. Elitre, it, en-3, fr-2
  62. Ellin Beltz, en
  63. Elya, de, en-3, uk-2, ru-1
  64. EPO, da, en-3, de-1
  65. Érico Júnior Wouters, pt, en-2, es-1
  66. Esby, fr, en-3, de-1
  67. EugeneZelenko, ru, be, en-2, bg-1, pl-1 (bureaucrat)
  68. EVula, en
  69. Ezarate, es-3, en-1
  70. Fanghong, zh, en-2, fr-1
  71. Flominator, de, als, en-3
  72. FunkMonk, da, en-4, no-3, fo-2, sv-2, de-1, es-1
  73. Geagea, he, ka-3, en-3, ru-1
  74. Geni, en
  75. George Chernilevsky, ru, uk-3, de-2, en-2, bg-1, la-1, be-1, fr-1
  76. Gestumblindi, als, de, en-3
  77. Gnangarra, en
  78. Golbez, en, ja-2
  79. Green Giant, en, de-1, fr-1
  80. grin, hu, en-3, de-1
  81. Gruznov, ru, en-1, fr-1
  82. Hedwig in Washington, de, en-4, nds-1
  83. Hekerui, de, en-4
  84. Hesperian, en
  85. HJ Mitchell, en
  86. Howcheng, en, ja-2
  87. Huntster, en
  88. Hystrix, de, en-1
  89. H-stt, de, en-4, fr-1
  90. Indeedous, de, en-3, fr-2
  91. INeverCry, en
  92. Infrogmation, en, es-1
  93. Jameslwoodward, en, fr-1 (checkuser)
  94. January, en
  95. Jaqen, it, en-2
  96. Jarekt, pl, en
  97. JarrahTree, en, id-1
  98. Jastrow, fr, en-3, de-1, it-1
  99. Jcb, nl, en-3, es-3
  100. Jcornelius, de, lt-2, la-2, en-2, pt-2, fr-1
  101. Jdforrester, en
  102. Jean-Frédéric, fr, en-4, es-1
  103. JGHowes, en, fr-2, de-1
  104. Jianhui67, en, zh-3, ms-1
  105. Jmabel, en, es-3, ro-2, de-1, ca-1, it-1, pt-1, fr-1
  106. Joergens.mi, de, en-3
  107. John Vandenberg, en
  108. Julo, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1
  109. JuTa, de, en-2, fr-1
  110. Jusjih, zh, en-3, fr-1, ko-1 (steward)
  111. Kaldari, en
  112. Kallerna, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1
  113. Kanonkas, no, en-4, nn-3, da-2, sv-2, de-1 (bureaucrat)
  114. Killiondude, en, es-3, ru-1
  115. King of Hearts, en, zh-3, es-2
  116. Klemen Kocjancic, sl, en-3, de-2, hr-1, bs-1
  117. Krd, de, en-3 (checkuser)
  118. Krinkle, nl, en-3, de-2
  119. Krzysiu, pl, en-2, szl-2
  120. KTo288, en, zh-4
  121. Kwj2772, ko, en-2
  122. Kyro, fr, de-3, en-2
  123. Leit, de, en-3, fr-1
  124. Léna, fr, en-3, es-1
  125. Letartean, fr, en-3
  126. Leyo, gsw, de, en-3, fr-3, es-1, la-1
  127. Lobo, es, ca-2, en-2
  128. Logan, en, es-3
  129. Lokal Profil, sv, en-4, pt-2, fr-1
  130. LtPowers, en, es-1
  131. Ludo29, fr, en-2
  132. Lupo, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, it-1
  133. Lymantria, nl, de-2, en-2, fy-2, fr-1, zea-1
  134. Magog the Ogre, en, es-2 (checkuser)
  135. Maire, pl, en-4, es-2, fr-2, de-2, ru-1
  136. Marcus Cyron, de, en-1
  137. Mardetanha fa, az, en-3, tr-2, ar-1 (steward)
  138. Martin H., de, en-2 (checkuser)
  139. Masur, pl, en-3, de-1
  140. Matanya, en, he (steward)
  141. Materialscientist, en-4, ru-4, nl-3, fr-1, es-1
  142. Matt314, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, zh-1
  143. Mathonius, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 (steward)
  144. Mattbuck, en, fr-1, la-1
  145. Maxim, ru, en-3, fr-2
  146. MBisanz, en (steward)
  147. McZusatz, de, en-3, es-1, la-1 swg-1
  148. Mentifisto, en, mt, it-2 (steward)
  149. MGA73, da, en-3, de-2, sv-1, no-1
  150. MichaelMaggs, en, fr-1 (bureaucrat)
  151. Micheletb, fr, en-3, it-1, es-1
  152. Mitchazenia, en, es-2
  153. Miya, ja, en-2
  154. Mmxx, fa, en-3
  155. Mono, en
  156. Morgankevinj, en, es-1, la-1
  157. Mormegil, cs, en-2, de-1
  158. M0tty, fr, en-1
  159. MPF, en, da-2, de-1, fr-1
  160. Multichill, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1
  161. Mys 721tx, zh, en-3
  162. Nagy, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, sv-1
  163. NahidSultan, bn, en-3, bpy-1
  164. Natuur12, nl, en-3, de-1
  165. Neozoon, de, en-4, nl-4, fr-2
  166. Nick, en, sco-2, fr-1
  167. Niklem, ru, en-3
  168. Nilfanion, en, fr-1
  169. NordNordWest, de, en-3
  170. notafish, fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2
  171. O, zh, en-4, zh-wuu-2, zh-hu-3, yue-1 fr-1
  172. odder, pl, en-3, de-2 (bureaucrat, oversighter)
  173. Okki, fr, en-2
  174. Otourly, fr, en-2, it-1
  175. PierreSelim, fr, en-3, es-1 (oversighter)
  176. Pitke, fi, en-4, sv-2
  177. Platonides, es, en-2, fr-1
  178. Pleclown, fr, en-3
  179. Poco a poco, es, de-4, en-3, fr-2, it-2, pl-2, pt-1
  180. Podzemnik, cs, en-2
  181. Polarlys, de, en-2, fr-1, no-1
  182. Powerek38, pl, en-4, fr-2, es-1, de-1
  183. PumpkinSky, en, de-2
  184. Putnik, ru, en-2
  185. Pyb, fr, en-2
  186. Pymouss, fr, en-3, de-2, it-2, he-1
  187. Ragesoss, en, de-1, fr-1
  188. Ra'ike, de, en-2
  189. Rama, fr, en-3, de-2, la-2, es-1, it-1, ja-1 (oversighter)
  190. Rastrojo, es, en-3, fr-2, eo-1
  191. Raymond, de, en-3, nl-1 (oversighter)
  192. Rehman, en, si-1
  193. Reinhard Kraasch, de, en-3
  194. Rillke, de, en-2, fr-1
  195. Rimshot, de, en-4, fr-2, it-1
  196. Rodhullandemu, en, fr-1, de-1, sv-1
  197. Romaine, nl, en-3, de-2, af-1, fr-1
  198. Ronhjones, en, fr-1
  199. Rosenzweig, de, en-3, fr-1, la-1
  200. Royalbroil, en, es-1
  201. Rubin16, ru, tt, en-3
  202. Sanandros, als, de, en-3, fr-1
  203. Sandstein, als, de, en-4, fr-3, it-1
  204. SarahStierch, en
  205. Shizhao, zh, en-1, ru-1
  206. Siebrand, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1
  207. Skeezix1000, en, fr-2
  208. Sphilbrick, en
  209. Spiritia, bg, en-3, ru-2, mk-2, de-1
  210. Sreejithk2000, ml, en-3, hi-3, ta-1, kn-1
  211. Steinsplitter, bar, de-4, it-3, en-1
  212. Stifle, en, ga, fr-2, de-1
  213. Tabercil, en
  214. Taivo, et, en-3, ru-3, de-1
  215. Tarawneh, en, ar, de-1
  216. Techman224, en
  217. Teles, pt, en-3, es-2 (steward)
  218. Thibaut120094, fr, en-2, ja-2
  219. Thuresson, sv, en-3, no-2
  220. Tiptoety, en (checkuser, oversighter)
  221. Tom, en, es-1
  222. Trijnstel, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 (checkuser, steward)
  223. tsca, pl, en, da
  224. Túrelio, de, en-3, es-1
  225. VIGNERON, fr, de-2, en-2, zh-1
  226. Waldir, pt, en-3
  227. Whym, ja, en-2
  228. Wikitanvir, bn, en-3, as-2, bpy-1 (steward)
  229. WJBscribe, en, fr-3, de-1
  230. Wsiegmund, en, fr-1, es-1
  231. Wutsje, fy, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1
  232. Wuzur, de, en-3
  233. wvk, de, en-4, fa-3, fr-2
  234. Yann, fr, en-3, hi-2, gu-1
  235. Yarl, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1
  236. Ymblanter, ru, en-3, de-2, fr-2, nl-2, it-1, es-1
  237. Yuval Y, he, en-3
  238. Zolo, fr, en-4, de-2, zh-2
  239. Zzyzx11, en, es-1, fr-1
  240. CommonsDelinker, (bot)
  241. CommonsMaintenanceBot, (bot) see request
  242. GifTagger, (bot) see request
  243. KrinkleBot, (bot) see request

The system currently recognizes 243 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
  • add and remove usergroups
  • configure Upload Wizard campaigns
  • delete and undelete specific log entries and revisions of pages
  • import pages from other wikis
  • merge the history of pages
  • modify abuse filters
  • not create redirects from source pages when moving pages
  • override the spoofing checks and title or username blacklist
  • send a message to multiple users at once (massmessage)
  • use higher limits in API queries

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 to

Further information: Commons:Administrators/Howto

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 an 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

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.

Wdwd

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 17:11, (UTC)

I like to present to you Wdwd as candidate for adminship. Wdwd is an active editor with more than 12k edits at Commons. He is a license reviewer and OTRS-agent. Admin-tools are surely a valuable asset for the latter. He has experience with the admintools since he is an admin at de-wiki where he deals with copyright related matters. At Commons he is mainly occupied with doing small maintains like license reviewing, adding categories and dealing with copyright violations or files that lack evidence of permission. He has a decent and stable activity level over the years so we don't have to worry that he will disappear any time soon.

Wdwd his native language is German but he also speaks English well enough. He runs a bot named Wdwdbot so he can transfer files semi automatic from the German Wikipedia to Commons plus he uses the bot for small maintains. In my experience he is patient and friendly in his communication. He can surely use the tools and help us reduce the workload. I believe he will make a valuable asset to the current team of admins. Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Natuur12, for the nomination and your initiative. I would like to confirm my application. As mention, my work may be sometimes slowly but continuously. Beside OTRS work (permission queues) my focus will be on copyvio-checks and new uploads. For the DR and backlogs I will start with simpler and clear cases. Vandal hunting and/or user blocks is not in my focus.--Wdwd (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Votes

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nom. Natuur12 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support without any doubt. --Krd 17:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no concerns raised, trusted nominator. Nick (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nothing against! --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 17:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC) go on
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, good candidate. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 17:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Rillke(q?) 17:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, keine Frage. --McZusatz (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leyo 18:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Green Giant (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Geagea (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 00:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. INeverCry 01:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose notorious logo-deleter--Kopiersperre (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ankry (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Emha (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best of luck :) ~ Nahid Talk 16:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Notorious logo deleter? Niceeee! Exactly what I need when I keep seeing spammer who keep spamming logo files on commons and using them crosswikis to promote their company.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 16:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rzuwig 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Trijnsteltalk 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk

The first page of contributions (50pp) for the Commons-namespace lists edits from Sept. 2014. Although I personally have no issue with that, is there any reason you avoid participation in discussions about policies or elections? -- Rillke(q?) 17:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no specific reason for that absence. Maybe because I'm acting - sometimes? - like a WikiGnome.--Wdwd (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

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

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

AFBorchert

Vote

Scheduled to end 2015-06-02, towards the end of the day UTC

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

Dear Commons community.

As announced at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard I'm going to nominate some users for Bureaucratship today. For all candidatures please see: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests.

Common reason for these nominations, as discussed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, is the apparent lack of active crats to fulfill their role as described in Commons:Bureaucrats#What is a bureaucrat?.

Candidates have signalized at their talk pages to accept the nomination, and are welcome to add a personal statement and formal acceptance below. Thank you, yours --Krd 00:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Krd, for the nomination which I accept.
At Commons, I'm active since 2005, got the admin bit in December 2008, and joined the support team in May 2009. I was continually active during the nearly ten years but never scored high in my activity levels due to my limited time. My main focus was in processing deletion requests with a particular interest in more complex cases, permission processes, and user problems. I strongly believe in community processes, i.e. beside trivial cases of copyvios and vandals, we should invite comments, listen to them, and, where possible and within our policies, try to find a consensus. I see the 'crats per Commons:Bureaucrats#Community role primarily in a role where the community and community processes are fostered. Only when people are respected, their voices heard, their opinions taken into consideration, we will have an inviting community from which we will find much-needed admins and OTRS agents who will competently help to work through the ever-growing backlogs. Copyright issues and permission problems can be complex and often very frustrating for newcomers. It is essential that we are inviting and welcoming to all the contributors coming from the other WMF projects, and that we guide them through these processes. This does not only help them to solve a particular problem but makes them subsequently part of this community where they get involved and start to learn all these things, which in turn allows them to help others. I am also familiar with other WMF projects including multiple Wikipedia projects (mainly de:wp where I am admin since July 2014) and smaller projects like Wikisource. The interaction climate between Commons and other projects is always one of my concerns. In this context I try to work against a “we against them” attitude by supporting a mutual understanding (see, for example, this presentation I made for an admin meeting of de:wp). --AFBorchert (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Votes

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Green Giant (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 01:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Simply because he was the responsible adult in many cases. Trying to mediate in admin conflict cases as like bureaucrat should do, even without being a crat. Geagea (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very well thought comments, always -- Rillke(q?) 06:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Always wise in heated discussions, I think you'll make a good addition to the bureaucrat team. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per PierreSelim and Geagea. A person who knows how to judge consensus and resolve conflicts is the best candidate to be a bureaucrat. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support AFBorchert is a fine admin, and their response to Rschen7754's topical question shows respect and maturity to dealing with sensitive issues while looking out for the interests of the community. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am very impressed by AFBorchert's careful analysis of difficult deletions. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Ch1902 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ankry (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have only good things to say about AFBorchert. Whenever I have seen his comments I have seen them as wise and cool-headed. I think you will be a great asset to the 'crat team. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support experienced and trustworthy administrator who will make an excellent bureaucrat. Nick (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the mediation has been noticed. --Abd (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We are not always on the same page. That's why. :-) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [1][2] [3][4] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I would not handle it by any unilateral action but by opening a community process regarding a particular case and by possibly defending the project at Meta against any action that appears to be out of process. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Krd: As nominator, please could you make the case that these people are suited to the position? (i.e. Why did you choose them in particular?) Alternately the candidates may wish to suggest reasons they are suitable to take up the position. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    The candidates are those suggested at the corresponding discussion at the BNB. My though as nominator was to not express my personal preference for any of those candidates by writing individual praise essays; this may or may not have been a good idea. Anyway I without any doubt can support all of those candidates. All are active and respected Commons admins, and the group to my opinion is well spread over timezones, home wikis and interests.
    If I'm not mistaken we currently don't have recruitment processes for the advanced roles besides self nominations, so we maybe should get some more active crats first to take care of such things. If there is a better approach, please advise. Thank you. --Krd 07:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz

Vote

Scheduled to end 2015-06-02, towards the end of the day UTC

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

Dear Commons community.

As announced at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard I'm going to nominate some users for Bureaucratship today. For all candidatures please see: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests.

Common reason for these nominations, as discussed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, is the apparent lack of active crats to fulfill their role as described in Commons:Bureaucrats#What is a bureaucrat?.

Candidates have signalized at their talk pages to accept the nomination, and are welcome to add a personal statement and formal acceptance below. Thank you, yours --Krd 00:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Votes

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Green Giant (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – calm, friendly, reasonable and as such someone I'd definitely entrust with leadership. I hope being a crat won't change your positive attitude :) .    FDMS  4    01:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 01:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 09:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong opposition against this user who prefers deletion of obvious free media to fixing problems. Sorry this can be ok for sysop, but it's not the leadership I'm expecting for this project. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
PierreSelim, can you show some filenames or diffs? Taivo (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The exemples don't matter for me, it's a question of personnality and leadership. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Pierre, I searched both our names and found [5] that you and I are on the same side of most of the deletion nominations on which we've worked together. I don't remember any situation with you that would cause you to claim I prefer "deletion of obvious free media to fixing problems" and I don't see any such discussion in these Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adoptaunfamoso.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blooblah, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Florencia Palombarini.6.jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hymalaya.jpg for only the top four examples where you closed nominations as "deleted". If you're referring to [6], I don't see that there was an issue after Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation fixed the file template. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes the Dan Garry thing is a good evidence of the leadership I don't want. You deleted legit images, with proof that author agreed to the publication under free licence, just to force someone to use OTRS and add burden to the few agents we have. Sorry, I can accept that for Sysop, not for Bureaucrat. Keep in mind, I appreciate the hard work you are doing. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, I don't see why not. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Ch1902 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not know Ellin Beltz terribly well, but I appreciate and agree with her answers below. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course, friendly and experienced user. Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support another experienced administrator with the right mix of knowledge and tact to make an excellent bureaucrat. Nick (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Trusted user. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stand in comments about "command structure," against autonomy of Commons, necessary for a balance of power. Stewards and the WMF, by design, serve the communities, not the other way around. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Slaunger -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I cannot in good faith do anything other than oppose this candidate given their reply to @Rschen7754's question below and their seeming lack of understanding of the relationship between Commons, Wikimedia stewards, and the Wikimedia Foundation. This just doesn't bode too well for the future. odder (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [7][8] [9][10] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Rs: I think it would be best to handle situations as they come up than to try to do a pile of Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking [11] after the fact. It is rarely productive to criticize from hindsight. At the time all this was happening, I read about it. As I had no involvement with any of those situations, I deliberately chose to stay out of it. Not every admin has to be involved in every situation and as I am nothing but an admin - I did not feel that my opinions on that situation count. If I had been a bureaucrat at that time; I would have waited for a request for involvement prior to butting into the situation. I don't think bureaucrat means "cowboy in white hat ready to leap into every discussion and have huge shoot out until cowboy is the only one standing". Rather, I think it means a quiet, careful thinker who is unlikely to be emotionally sucked into abusive situations, trolling and attempts to game the system. Specifically for your question about "removed globally by stewards or the WMF". In a similiar case, I would agree with the WMF and stewards due to their priority in the command structure of the project. In a real-life example... if a general in the army says "do this" and a sergeant says "no", the sergeant is wrong for having failed to work within the framework of the command structure to which he/she agreed by enlisting. As editors on Commons we've all signed up for accounts and agreed to work together within a framework of rules and guidelines. We here - as editors and admins - are in no position to revert the decisions of the WMF and the stewards without lengthy public discussions with all involved parties prior to reversion. Thanks for the query! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There are many ways to view the relationship between WMF and the volunteer community. I don't think the general/sergeant analogy you suggest is totally helpful, in the sense that WMF don't generally give commands that we then follow in order to do our normal activities. Nor is it the topsy-turvy illusion Abd offers. But yes, the "reality check" is that WMF do own the "OFF" switch and pay for the servers, and it is often said we have only two rights: the right to fork and right to leave. But they have devolved a lot of power to the volunteers. I don't believe Commons is a good example of "the wisdom of the crowd" since the vocal crowd here is rather small and mostly under-employed young men. Still, I hope you won't think you are now a god and can go about pressing buttons at will, and start reverting things merely because of who did it or that some process wasn't followed. I hope you will work towards us all viewing Commons as a team that includes both WMF and volunteers, rather than us-and-them battleground mentality that seems to have developed. One concern is your stated disinclination to get involved unless asked. I'd hope that a 'crat would sense when the community is dealing with a big issue, and not shy away from offering their carefylly-considered opinion, leading, and making constructive dialogue with all parties. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Krd: As nominator, please could you make the case that these people are suited to the position? (i.e. Why did you choose them in particular?) Alternately the candidates may wish to suggest reasons they are suitable to take up the position. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    99of9, let me answer you as the person who started the BN discussion and suggested these names. 1. As I mentioned there, we are facing some difficulties in handling difficult situations where admin opinions are well divided. URAA and Russavia case are good examples. As all admins have equal rights it is difficult to manage them when they themselves start edit wars and all other bullshits. We need a higher authority to handle such cases. One existing board is crats. ("Bureaucrats are expected to be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues. They also have to be able to deal sensitively with confidential information (occasionally disclosed to the bureaucrats as a group), and to be able to judge what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly on wiki.") But unfortunately only a few crats are active nowadays. Two of them recently resigned and their seats are vacant. We need to strengthen the team. 2. Regarding the names I mentioned: I checked the last years' activity list and select some names familiar in discussion who have a talent to solve issues than boost them. I consciously avoided people who involved in the two disputes mentioned above. I avoided people who have some extra rights like CU/OS etc to encourage decentralization of power. Hope I explained enough. Jee 02:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks Jee @Jkadavoor:. I am asking about your point 2. So here you offer: active, not in two particular disputes, not CU/OS, familiar, and "with a talent to solve". The first four of these points are not contentious, but IMO do not add up to crat-material on their own. It's the final "with a talent to solve" that I'd like to know more about. Please can somebody point to some specific diffs or conversations that demonstrate this talent for each candidate? Other points of interest to me would be demonstrations of the requirements you quoted: leading/guiding/sensitive-dealing. --99of9 (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    For Ellin Beltz, I remember how s/he helps to resolve conflicts through talk page discussions. I don't want to involve more in this discussion; prefer to leave it to others. Thanks. :) Jee 03:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    The candidates are those suggested at the corresponding discussion at the BNB. My though as nominator was to not express my personal preference for any of those candidates by writing individual praise essays; this may or may not have been a good idea. Anyway I without any doubt can support all of those candidates. All are active and respected Commons admins, and the group to my opinion is well spread over timezones, home wikis and interests.
    If I'm not mistaken we currently don't have recruitment processes for the advanced roles besides self nominations, so we maybe should get some more active crats first to take care of such things. If there is a better approach, please advise. Thank you. --Krd 07:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you write something about you? Like writing your own statements like what Steinsplitter and AFBorchert do?--AldNonUcallin?☎ 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Taivo

Vote

Scheduled to end 2015-06-02, towards the end of the day UTC

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

Dear Commons community.

As announced at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard I'm going to nominate some users for Bureaucratship today. For all candidatures please see: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests.

Common reason for these nominations, as discussed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, is the apparent lack of active crats to fulfill their role as described in Commons:Bureaucrats#What is a bureaucrat?.

Candidates have signalized at their talk pages to accept the nomination, and are welcome to add a personal statement and formal acceptance below. Thank you, yours --Krd 00:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Votes

Comments

Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [12][13] [14][15] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not like edit warring and do not like to revert, especially edits of admins. I accept, that other people can think differently and therefore act differently. Sometimes I simply say to myself: "Let it be. This is not so important."
When reverting edits of other admins, usually good explanation is needed. I think, that Odder's first reverts in Russavia and Jurgen case are justified, he explained his actions well. But instead of second revert, I would start to discuss the matter in Commons and/or meta to get broader consensus to my actions. I personally supported them both in unsysopping voting. Taivo (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Krd: As nominator, please could you make the case that these people are suited to the position? (i.e. Why did you choose them in particular?) Alternately the candidates may wish to suggest reasons they are suitable to take up the position. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The candidates are those suggested at the corresponding discussion at the BNB. My though as nominator was to not express my personal preference for any of those candidates by writing individual praise essays; this may or may not have been a good idea. Anyway I without any doubt can support all of those candidates. All are active and respected Commons admins, and the group to my opinion is well spread over timezones, home wikis and interests.
    If I'm not mistaken we currently don't have recruitment processes for the advanced roles besides self nominations, so we maybe should get some more active crats first to take care of such things. If there is a better approach, please advise. Thank you. --Krd 07:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

JuTa

Vote

Scheduled to end 2015-06-02, towards the end of the day UTC

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

Dear Commons community.

As announced at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard I'm going to nominate some users for Bureaucratship today. For all candidatures please see: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests.

Common reason for these nominations, as discussed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, is the apparent lack of active crats to fulfill their role as described in Commons:Bureaucrats#What is a bureaucrat?.

Candidates have signalized at their talk pages to accept the nomination, and are welcome to add a personal statement and formal acceptance below. Thank you, yours --Krd 00:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Votes

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Green Giant (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 01:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Preliminary Symbol support vote.svg Support. Looks good at first glance. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm running out of unique statements, but yet another experienced user who can lead the community well. Nick (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stefan4 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Trusted and active admin but not involved in bot approval process, GWT and translation stuff. Also concerns because of mass unprotections in January 2015. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little controversial - I like that. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Rillke(q?) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wieralee (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [16][17] [18][19] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    I would not start a wheelwar, if you think about that. If I would strongly disagree with such a desicion, I would complain on commons and/or on meta, I would take part or try to organize i.e. a poll against it, but i would not wheelwar. regards. --JuTa 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Krd: As nominator, please could you make the case that these people are suited to the position? (i.e. Why did you choose them in particular?) Alternately the candidates may wish to suggest reasons they are suitable to take up the position. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    The candidates are those suggested at the corresponding discussion at the BNB. My though as nominator was to not express my personal preference for any of those candidates by writing individual praise essays; this may or may not have been a good idea. Anyway I without any doubt can support all of those candidates. All are active and respected Commons admins, and the group to my opinion is well spread over timezones, home wikis and interests.
    If I'm not mistaken we currently don't have recruitment processes for the advanced roles besides self nominations, so we maybe should get some more active crats first to take care of such things. If there is a better approach, please advise. Thank you. --Krd 07:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • JuTa, what would you do as a bureaucrat. How do you see your role? -- Rillke(q?) 18:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    Mainly in the technical tasks: looking after Admin- and Bot-Request and grant or deny those user rights based on the poll/discussion. For the Bot part I have to have a deep a look arround before start deciding anything, because I wasn't involved in those request in the past. This means i.e. reading (a lot of) archived accepted an denied requests to learn whats the base to accept or deny. I Maybe, maybe not "grow" with time in a kind of "leadership" role discussed like here, I don't know yet. regards. --JuTa 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Steinsplitter

Vote

Scheduled to end 2015-06-02, towards the end of the day UTC

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

Dear Commons community.

As announced at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard I'm going to nominate some users for Bureaucratship today. For all candidatures please see: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests.

Common reason for these nominations, as discussed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, is the apparent lack of active crats to fulfill their role as described in Commons:Bureaucrats#What is a bureaucrat?.

Candidates have signalized at their talk pages to accept the nomination, and are welcome to add a personal statement and formal acceptance below. Thank you, yours --Krd 00:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi all!
I am mainly active here on commons and it is a project i spend most of my free time on. I have been an admin on Commons since April 2013, you can find a statistic about my admin actions here. I would probably be mostly involved with approving bots and giving out GWToolset and translation admin status. I am familiar with GWToolset (also submitted some url-whitelist patch on gerrit), the translate extension and the bot approval process. I also operate a bot with near one million edits globally. I intend to follow community consensus and policies as closely as possible.
Thanks for your trust in advice --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Votes

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Green Giant (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 01:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Highly active admin including all the aspects. Always helpful. In a cases of conflicts trying to help. -- Geagea (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very active, concerned about commons, helpful and now knows every commons policy -- Rillke(q?) 06:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 06:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support --Yann (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 09:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Chandres (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good admin and a good candidate, also buoyed by their response to Rschen7754's question; 'crats acting unilaterally during heated events is not useful in creating a calm collegial environment. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Prefers a dialog above cheap political statements. Natuur12 (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steinsplitter is dedicated to Commons and highly active. His experience in regard to bots, translations, and the GWToolset would be an asset in a 'crat team. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Taivo (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Ankry (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose I dare to go against the stream here. I acknowledge and appreciate Steinsplitter as a very productive and skilled user and admin. I am however not convinced about the ability of Steinsplitter to look at a situation, involving perhaps admin or 'crat collegues, in an unbiased manner and make a cool-headed analysis of the situation detached from personal alliances and relations. At least that is the impression I have gotten from his participation in a de-admin, and two de-crat discussions. Steinsplitters replies to comments below also indicates to me, that there is not a great deal of interest to build bridges with other parts of the WMF organisation, but rather advocate for silo-thinking. I may be proven wrong on that, and I hope so, as the support from other users is over-whelming. As a closing remark I would like to emphasize that I have nothing to complain about against Steinsplitter in his current role, nor do I recall I have ever been in personal conflict with Steinsplitter. I am just not overly convinced that Steinsplitter is among our best candidates in the crat community role. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A dedicated and extremely knowledgeable admin who puts in huge amounts of effort especially on the technical side. Steinsplitter has rather different strengths from some of the other candidates here, and although he's more than capable of engaging in reasoned community discussion he will no doubt (as he says) focus more on the technical aspects of the job rather than on the community aspects. His technical skills are very much needed on the 'crat team, as we are rather light in that area and tech issues do sometimes have to wait for someone to become available. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per MichaelMaggs above. He's someone I know well and trust their judgement and experience. Nick (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basically per Michael and Nick. Don't let the whiners bring you down. odder (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Always supportive, he/she has always been available for giving a hand (Italiano: pronto a sostenere, sempre stato/a disponibile quando c'era da dare una mano) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support No question here. Trusted, longtimer, you can find him in every corner of Commons. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Competent, helpful and friendly. Wieralee (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [20][21] [22][23] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I hope you would act in a similar fashion as Odder did. Perhaps little less confrontation and more dialogue with the stewards but in principle… -- Rillke(q?) 06:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rschen7754 and Rillke! I agree with AFBorchert's comment here. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I am concerned about the possibly part. Would you possibly defend the project against outside intervention, or would you definitely do that? odder (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Krd: As nominator, please could you make the case that these people are suited to the position? (i.e. Why did you choose them in particular?) Alternately the candidates may wish to suggest reasons they are suitable to take up the position. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    The candidates are those suggested at the corresponding discussion at the BNB. My though as nominator was to not express my personal preference for any of those candidates by writing individual praise essays; this may or may not have been a good idea. Anyway I without any doubt can support all of those candidates. All are active and respected Commons admins, and the group to my opinion is well spread over timezones, home wikis and interests.
    If I'm not mistaken we currently don't have recruitment processes for the advanced roles besides self nominations, so we maybe should get some more active crats first to take care of such things. If there is a better approach, please advise. Thank you. --Krd 07:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Some concerns were raised at your RFA on Meta last year, which was withdrawn. Do you believe they were valid? m:Meta:Requests for adminship/Steinsplitter --Rschen7754 13:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I tag copyvios on sight. I defended commons during the MediaWiever drama on bugzilla (please note, i am not native en-speker), here on commons was clear consensus not to implent this feature. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that misses the point - the concerns raised were that the action appeared to be retaliatory for some action that you didn't like. --Rschen7754 00:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I tagged the files and they were deleted. Clear copyvios, calling this retaliatory is ridiculous. I tagged a lot (thousands) of pages for deletion. This looks like a coincidence. Apart from that, a lot of users have voted oppose and i tagged only some copyvios uploaded by him. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned about the "I hope you would act in a similar fashion as Odder did" comment, since the last thing we need is another Odder, who seems to see WMF as the Evil Empire to be reverted on sight, making hasty actions rather than consideration and dialog. The comment above seems to indicate that won't be your response, but is "opening a community process" sufficient? As a leader, how would you help in areas where there is friction between WMF and the volunteer community? Rather than merely "follow community consensus", I'd hope for a 'crat who might do a big of guiding and setting an example that can be admired and followed. Are you really looking for such a leadership role, or just the ability to perform some more actions with the software? -- Colin (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought that my record of positive cooperation with the WMF on a variety of issues over a very long period of time would speak for itself, but apparently not, so thanks very much, @Colin, for making these ridiculous claims and providing us with free entertainment this lovely Tuesday evening. odder (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This kind of bitter sarcastic remark is endemic here (I've made plenty myself, and make no claims to be admin [never mind 'crat] material). But it isn't what we need from 'crats, who are expected to lead and guide the community, rather that become an example of its problems. This is why I'm concerned about the suggestion of following Odder's example as 'crat. Perhaps Odder has a long experience of positive cooperation with WMF, but this isn't my experience since he became a 'crat. If warm collaboration rather than open hostility is the general pattern wrt Odder's dealing with WMF as a 'crat, then I'd be happy to be corrected -- perhaps on one of our talk pages. Steinsplitter, a lesson is that people will remember your mistakes (particularly the whoppers) more than your quiet successes. Oh, and don't edit while grumpy. If you ever find yourself trying to convince someone, on your talk page or email, that you are in fact perfectly calm and cool while all the time appearing hostile and irritable, then it is time to take a break. I remember Russavia edit-warring to keep the "This user is mellow" badge on his user page. Don't be that kind of 'crat. -- Colin (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
At least a discussion with other crats is needed. However... As stated in the post above, i will mainly use the tools to "to perform some more actions with the software". Since odder is inactive, it takes a while until such a request is processed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Krd

Vote

Scheduled to end 2015-06-02, towards the end of the day UTC

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

It is with much pleasure that I present Krd as a candidate for the role of Bureaucrat on Commons. As regular editors will know, Krd has already been trusted with the checkuser tools and is an OTRS admin, neither of which I would expect to interfere much, if at all, with being a 'crat here. Both demonstrate a high level of existing community trust in the candidate, as would be expected of a 'crat. Krd is trustworthy, reliable and experienced. He involves himself in general policy and community discussions, copyright, and the potentially high drama areas of deletion requests and the OTRS noticeboard while keeping his cool and ”leading and guiding” very effectively. He would be an asset to the 'crat team.

For the background to this proposal see my comments here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Michael et al, thank you for the nomination, which I accept as indicated. I would like to note that I'm already a checkuser at Commons, and it was controversial at the last community discussion about local double roles if these are desirable. Also, since Dec 2014 I'm an OTRS admin which may once in a while lead to some bias or conflict of interest, which then will prevent myself from acting in the respective cases. Besides that, I'm happy to assist if welcome. --Krd 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Votes

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course -- Rillke(q?) 19:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like users holding multiple advanced permissions - admin, checkuser and bureaucrat. It makes separation of roles and activity difficult and means we lose a checkuser and a bureaucrat if the become busy in real life. No issues with the candidate and would have full support otherwise. Nick (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Um, what, he's not already a bureaucrat? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - hardworking admin and CU. I support users having multiple advanced permissions because if we can trust them with one, why would we not trust them with two or three. In response to the argument of "separation of powers", the original aim of that doctrine was to stop one person holding multiple reins of power over a nation, whereas in Commons there is no limit on how many people could hold these permissions, for example English Wikipedia (a project of similar size and complexity to Commons) has 30+ bureaucrats, 40+ checkusers, 50+ oversighters. If we have more users with such permissions, it will drastically reduce the opportunities for abuse (which is what I think is the real reason some users oppose multiple permissions being given to one person). Green Giant (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Absolutely not. His abysmal record as an OTRS admin is enough of a reason to oppose his candidacy, and I obviously agree with Nick's comment regarding the issue of separation of powers. His behaviour over the situation regarding CheckUser and OTRS accountability to Commons community (and related transparency problems) makes me very concerned about granting Krd any additional user rights. [edited] Plus his lack of understanding of what constitutes an office actions is one more reason. odder (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Geagea (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the idea "separation of powers". But the first thing to do if we want to implement it is to ask odder and Tiptoety to step down from one role. Jee 01:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jkadavoor: Voting in favour of more people holding multiple user rights is hardly consistent with that approach then :-) odder (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes; I'll strike off my vote if you show the path through deeds than words. Isn't it ironic if a man asks "no smoking; please" while keeping a burning Cigar between his lips? :) Jee 04:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Your metaphor is, sadly, not quite accurate. As stated in that RfC, I would be more than happy to drop my bureaucrat role if we agree that no one should hold more than one advanced user right; unfortunately, @Tiptoety was unwilling to move in that direction, and I see no point in me leading the way if there is no one to follow. odder (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not because of "auto-grant crat to CU", but because I trust them through watching how they interact with others on this site and on OTRS. --Rschen7754 03:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that OTRS and CU experience are an asset to the 'crat team. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Already admin, botmaster, CU. I think Krd would make a good crat as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. INeverCry 20:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [24][25] [26][27] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    I would not wheelwar against office actions, as this is hardly a reasonable approach. Opening a community discussion is always a good idea if there is some possibility that the action was unjustified or the actor could simply have been mistaken, but it should be discussed first. --Krd 03:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    I think you should familiarize yourself with the definition of what constitutes an office action as defined on Commons and Meta. I would expect any user holding advanced permissions to have that knowledge, and it is of grave concern to me that you are running for additional user rights while not being familiar with this crucial policy. odder (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward

Vote

Scheduled to end 2015-06-02, towards the end of the day UTC

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

It is with much pleasure that I present Jameslwoodward (Jim) as a candidate for the role of Bureaucrat on Commons. As regular editors will know, since 2012 Jim has already been trusted with the checkuser tools which I would not expect to interfere much, if at all, with being a 'crat here. Checkuser demonstrates a high level of existing community trust in the candidate, as would be expected of a 'crat. Jim is trustworthy, reliable and experienced. He is one of the most knowledgeable admins who are involved in copyright issues, including deletion and undeletion requests, where he invariably displays a cool temperament with an infinite capacity to be kind, helpful and educational, while not being afraid to take action when the occasion demands it. His mellow approach would be an asset to the 'crat team.

For the background to this proposal see my comments here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael. I accept. User:Jameslwoodward summarizes my relevant background and experience. I've been a registered user since 2008, starting mostly on WP:EN, then doing a lot of work on lighthouses and National Register of Historic Places sites, including uploading around 500 of my own photos. I've been an Admin since 2010 and a Checkuser since 2012.
I see the formal role of Bureaucrat as an extension of my ongoing effort to be the voice of calm and reason in our sometimes contentious and difficult atmosphere. I think that the close collaboration of the Checkuser team has made checking sockpuppetry easier. I think that having a team of bureaucrats who have mutual respect and a desire to make Commons work for all but the trolls, can only benefit our project. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Votes

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support incredibly diligent and long-term user, always a friendly response provided a friendly request -- Rillke(q?) 19:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just the person we need for the job. Natuur12 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like users holding multiple advanced permissions - admin, checkuser and bureaucrat. It makes separation of roles and activity difficult and means we lose a checkuser and a bureaucrat if the become busy in real life. No issues with the candidate and would have full support otherwise. Nick (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Highly trusted user. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above.    FDMS  4    20:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - hardworking admin and CU. I support users having multiple advanced permissions because if we can trust them with one, why would we not trust them with two or three. In response to the argument of "separation of powers", the original aim of that doctrine was to stop one person holding multiple reins of power over a nation, whereas in Commons there is no limit on how many people could hold these permissions, for example English Wikipedia (a project of similar size and complexity to Commons) has 30+ bureaucrats, 40+ checkusers, 50+ oversighters. If we have more users with such permissions, it will drastically reduce the opportunities for abuse (which is what I think is the real reason some users oppose multiple permissions being given to one person). Green Giant (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Absolutely. With no necessity, and wrongly, called a user a "liar," based on a flawed legal interpretation of a legal case that should have been irrelevant (this was "outing," as well).[28]. Holds and enforces views on bystander selfies that are at odds with WMF legal opinion, case law, and common sense. Not bureaucrat material at all. --Abd (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Abd, as I closely followed the situation he mentions, as well as due to his behaviour over the issue of CheckUser transparency and accountability raised by @. odder (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see why not. Jim is a knowledgeable admin in the area of copyright and knows how to resolve issues well. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 23:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Hard working admin for many years. Even though he is admin for many years he never forget treat properly to newcomers.-- Geagea (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the idea "separation of power". But the first thing to do if we want to implement it is to ask odder and Tiptoety to step down from one role. Jee 01:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see Jameslwoodward's CU experience as asset to the 'crat team. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. INeverCry 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Per Abd and per Jameslwoodward's treatment of Saibo in 2012. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I have added a comment there below the archived section. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [29][30] [31][32] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
First, consult with my fellow 'crats, just as the CU team now consults regularly on anything that is not cut and dried. If we thought that the stewards or WMF were definitely wrong, I think we would start by discussing it with them. I hope that if we create a solid team of well respected bureaucrats here, that the higher powers would pay attention when we called them on issues.
Note that I use "we" throughout the comment above. Unlike the Admin role, which almost always acts rapidly and usually alone, I see the role of a bureaucrat as one of a team that acts with deliberate care -- not necessarily slowly, but in minutes or hours rather than the typical Admin decision which is made in seconds.
Incidentally, I have deliberately not read or voted in any of the other Bureaucrat elections that are going on so that I can answer questions here without using words or thoughts from colleagues. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Requests for CheckUser rights

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.

No current requests.

Requests for Oversight rights

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

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

No current requests.

Archives

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

See also