Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.



To inaugurate our new board I have a proposal to make RfA/RfB and other votings more visible on Commons. On German Wikipedia we have a little announcements-template on the authors portal (see "Aktuelles"). As is visible from "Links to this page" it is included on many important pages and also user-pages so that people notice all the currently active stuff which they should/could vote for. Maybe we should introduce something like that (very general so that it does not need translation) to pages like the Help desk, Forum, Village pump. Maybe this would help getting more active Commons users, which would help lessen the influence(?) of us and also the influence of 'invited' people from other projects. Maxims last comment at Kanonkas RfB caused me feeling that he wants us to be banned from voting (suddenly I really feel special, not being allowed to voice my opinon anymore). -- Cecil (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the RfX pages are getting enough attention as it is. I don't think we should be giving the process more attention than it has now. This is my personal opinion. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/H-stt

Well, anybody willing to close this one? I guess we have clear consensus here. →Na·gy 09:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-write of Commons:Changing username

Dear fellow 'crats,
I have boldly replaced the text of this page with something more structured and easier for users to follow. As far as I can, I have stuck to existing procedures, some of which have not previously been written down. The only innovation is to set a 7 day period after which the request will be archived as not done if the user fails to respond to a query. Please feel free to edit/correct any mistakes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin rights

Hi, I resigned in December last year and wish for my rights to be restored, as I intend to be more active here. Thanks, Majorly talk 20:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, welcome back! Patrícia msg 20:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I need help here: Commons:Changing username/Current requests. FlaviaC (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Patrícia msg 09:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin rights, too

Hi, I resigned a year ago due to me going on a wikibreak, as I'm back now, restoring my admin right would be great :) thanks! — Timichal 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, welcome back! Patrícia msg 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-write of Bureaucrats page

I have made a proposal at Commons talk:Bureaucrats/Proposed. Please comment on the talk page there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I really like this... maybe we could move this from proposed to mainstream? ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

COM:HD#Need Help With Problem With Getting Replacement Password.

User is requesting new password, email probably not enabled in preferences but email written on userpage User:Cristellaria. --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a bureaucrat can do anything here. They can't edit another user's preferences to add/active the user's e-mail, nor can they reactive an account. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that, as AFBorchert has already commented on that section, the only people who could help him would be developers, it requires access to the database. And developers only do these things in very special cases. Patrícia msg 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot assistance for Wikimedia Hungary's picture competition

Dear Bureaucrats!

Wikimédia Magyarország, the WMF chapter in Hungary, is planning to open its Picture Competition into its assessment phase. During the community voting User:Asgardbot would be tasked to tally the votes on the 5 category pages every 15 minutes (about 20 edits per hour to our assessment pages in the Commons namespace). We were wondering whether the operation of the bot (operated by a trusted bot operator on would need a bot flag to perform this activity for our chapter or he can proceed for this task without a flag. In the first case, I hereby ask permission for the bot to run and receive the flag so that our chapter's competition can be conducted in an orderly fashion without unnecessary surprises. If you deem a bot flag necessary, we will make the appropriate request at the bot requests page, but we would ask for expedited handling, as the voting should begin on Wednesday.

Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Thank you,

--Bence Damokos (Board member for International relations, Wikimedia Hungary) Dami (talk)

Please add request on Commons:Bots/Requests and make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Name of the bot is AsgardBot (talk · contribs), not Asgardbot. Samat (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The bot was tested and run earlier in the Hungarian Wikipedia in a similar competition; we will make the necessary adjustments for bi/multilinguality, test it, and report it on the requests' page. Thank you, --Dami (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The request has now been made on the bot requests' page. --Dami (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow bureaucrats to revoke user rights

Hi everyone, current events (desysop of Dcoetzee by Lar) made me rethink something I had wanted to propose for a long time: Bureaucrats should be allowed to remove user rights, like they are able to grant them. I understand (and fully support) that user rights changes should normally only be done by community consensus following a vote or similar, but there are cases where immediate rights changes are neccessary. However, the only people with the ability to remove user rights are stewards and those should normally not be active on the wiki where they change the rights, making it very hard for a non-involved steward to correctly and fully understand the situation and its implications (which is why they usually require a link to community consensus before changing user rights). The call should be made by people who have been trusted with such power by the community of the wiki they are working on and I think the bureaucrats user group would be the ideal group of people to do this job. Please don't misunderstand: This is not to be a heavily used feature to allow bureaucrats to desysop randomly, but is only to be used in emergencies where immediate action is required. All other user rights changes should be backed up by community consensus, just like they are now. I'm inclined to start a discussion about this on the VP, just wanted to hear your opinion first and whether you would agree to take this task. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posted to COM:AN, please reply there. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA closure

Well, anyone willing to close this one? There's pretty clear consensus to promote :) →Nagy 09:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cecil has closed the request. Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 13:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) is a sock

Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) is a sock of Wapondaponda (talk · contribs) evidence 1. They are convicted sock puppets on English Wikipedia 2. They uploaded the exact same map with the same name on commons 3. He has confessed to being a sock Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the bureaucrat noticeboard, I think your message on the COM:AN and the message I forwarded to a checkuser will do enough ;-)
Best regards,
Huib talk 11:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi dear crats,

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

Best regards,

Huib talk 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list

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

List created. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a malfunction in the configuration? I just tested and I can subscribe myself to the list and I'm not a bureaucrat (Last time I checked)
I would suggest to disable subscibing and let only the listadmin add people to the list, and give a note of that on the mainpage.
I guess you will handle a lot of people trying to add them to this list this way.
Best regards,
Huib talk 12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
My views are as follows: why was the community not informed (if they were, I never saw it), and why is a mailing list needed? Bureaucrat issues should take place on the wiki, not elsewhere. Majorly talk 14:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Some things require off-wiki discussion. That's really not a debatable point. There have been and will continue to be off-wiki discussions, making a list means we don't inadvertantly omit folks. I'm not sure who the admins are, but make me one and I'll get the visibility and permissions sorted out if desired, I've done it enough times before. I have no interest in long term list adminship though. Gave all of mine up a while back. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Granting people adminship without Community consensus.


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

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

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

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

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

Where did you come up with the conclusion "a bureacrat isn't above a policies"? That's right, but nonetheless, did I really go above any policies? I do think you should reconsider your approach on this matter. I consider hasty actions on such matters to not be a good idea. Plus, I have replied to you on my talk page about this matter. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes you placed yourself above the policies on this matter by saying that a exdental removal of something.. (it was moved to Commons:Administrators/Howto) makes our policy old. So you decide that our policy isn't working anymore and our policy has been changed without consensus. Huib talk 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Why bother? He's already said he won't use them until the issue is resolved. Removing the rights simply so they can be granted again seems pointless to me. Incidentally, this whole incident has been blown too far out of proportion. Despite my personal opinion that this number requirement is unnecessary, the issue could've stayed at one venue (the bureaucrat's talk page or BN). It was hardly abuse, or deliberately against community consensus, so let's not go starting too many threads about this rather small issue. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your point. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree no need for a trip to Meta if Alperton will just state intent not to use them, best said on the RfA itself I think. Someone needs to undo the close and retransclude it. I'd prefer K do it but I will, if it's not done before I have to leave for the airport in 3 hours... Also, let's not squabble about where to squabble. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

It's policy, and if it's not marked as such, we need to make sure it clearly is, or whatever it takes. (although I think it's sorted now) But more importantly, let's not harp on this too much, it was a mistake, and bringing it up was the right thing to do, Kanonkas hopefully has learned a lesson and will in future consult more closely with other crats if there is any chance that what he is contemplating is likely to be controversial. But what's done is done, and it's fixed now and it all looks like it will work out. Everyone please mellow out. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd think a minimum 4 votes (we vote? I thought we discussed and came to a consensus!) is a bit archaic - while the community considers the subject, please consider whether Commons is still a small wiki or not, and whether that tidbit is still needed - perhaps something in the double-digits makes more sense these days?  — Mike.lifeguard | @meta 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. It should be like 10, but the way we've been voting lately, it wouldn't make much sense to raise it that much. I'm not sure what deal is with others, but I know I haven't been voting as much as normal because many of the recent requests I have not felt strongly about either way. I don't vote when I don't see anything that makes me want to support (some say that no reason to oppose = support, but that's not how most people vote, something usually motivates them). And yes, we vote, but as a clear way of showing where the consensus lies rather than comments by themselves. It's a vote, but not a simple majority vote (although every RfA that pass better have more than just the majority, 51% should never pass). Rocket000 (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Community consensus is not determined by numbers alone. Unanimous support with valid arguments should be enough to promote, regardless of the number of votes. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Three people does not a consensus make. Not at a wiki as large as this one, with close on to 300 admins, 5M images, thousands of edits a day, etc. If a proposal is put forward to raise the threshold from 4, I will support it, because 4 is also too low, but at least it is not 3. ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
If no-one has raised any objections, then what's the issue? We have plenty of people stalking RfA; surely the lack of opposes indicates that the user is sufficiently trustworthy to be promoted. Adminship should not be a bigger deal than it needs to be. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Because for some people (like me), not supporting is a less discouraging alternative to adding a vague "need more experience"/"give me a reason to support" type of oppose. Passive opposition is a less personal and less bureaucratic way of doing it. I feel that if you don't have anything useful to say (like, to the candidate, how to improve, or, to fellow voters, why to support/oppose), then don't say anything. Yes, sometimes, "per someone" type of votes are necessary to let others know you agree (i.e. help build consensus and show that it exists), but sometimes a lack of people commenting/voting is exactly the message that's appropriate. It's the same as when people propose major changes to the site. If there's little interest in it, it shouldn't be done. Only when it looks like some people want it is when the opposers start speaking out. Otherwise, it's unnecessary. surely the lack of opposes indicates that the user is sufficiently trustworthy to be promoted I kinda see it the other way. A lack of supports indicates that the user is not sufficiently trustworthy to be promoted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Julian, please think long and hard about this. Rocket, if you want to propose raising from 4, please do. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree completely with Eugene (not for the first time!). Equally some higher level of support at RfA seems very sensible indeed (10 sounds perfectly good to me). I also think a significant number of the supports should come from people who actually use Commons but that is another matter (: --Herby talk thyme 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think 10 is only a good idea if bureaucrats are allowed to extend RfAs to allow more people to vote. Closing an RfA with 3 supports as "fail" doesn't sit well with me at all. And I use Commons a lot, though I don't edit it an awful lot. Usage != edits. Majorly talk 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree with Majorly - there really is no rush to close any RfA. & I certainly would not wish to exclude people such as Majorly - however there are those who vote on add RfAs who really have been here (=edited :)) very little indeed! --Herby talk thyme 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think 10 votes (as 10 in total including support, oppose and neutral) would be a great idea, but we should work also on making more people active on the Rfa's since it isn't the most busy part of Commons.
I have seen wikis with on the watchlistpage a little note like:
Currently:1 rfa 2 rfb 0 rfo 0rfc
I would say it is a little change, and easy to translate but it makes more people see the votes so maybe more people would come and vote. Huib talk 17:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with those above who have suggested a level of at least 10. That really is very little for a wiki of this size. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I have created a proposal to change the 4 votes in to 10, I placed it Here, I would be more than happy to recieve comments about this or make changes in it before proposing it in the Village pump. Huib talk 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Flickr upload bot

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

My general feeling, that it's good idea to keep images appearing in recent changes for further human processing in case of none-uniform uploads. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It might have changed, but flag or not, I think the uploads still appear in RC. Most upload bots don't have one: Special:ListUsers/File Upload Bot -- User:Docu at 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Usurping a username

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

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

Bot flag temporarily granted to two users


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

For the record K copied this here... thanks!) ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Pages deleted. Thanks to Kanonkas for removing the flags. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Please take a look at Commons:Bots/Requests. A lot of these requests should be closed. Multichill (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I hope the community and bureaucrats will get more involved in this process. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I did this request so maybe I can help out in the future. Multichill (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Tiptoety's RFCU should be closed. -- Drini 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

linkJuliancolton | Talk 01:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Eusebius as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Usurpation request

There is a usurpation request from August—over six months ago—that requires a decision from a bureaucrat. See here. Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 23:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My OCD is kicking in... –Juliancolton | Talk 23:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
This request has been taken care of by Bastique (talk · contribs). Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Substitution of RfA archive templates

Dear crats,
Now that the templates {{rfap}} and {{rfaf}} are auto-translated, can you please stop substituting these (unless there's some reason for doing so I don't know of)? I also noticed not everyone uses these (e.g. Eugene). It would be nice if there was more consistency. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


I've closed the linked RfA as temp sysop rights granted. After three months, please request removal of the rights at meta if I forget. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Current inactive sysop check

Is the Inactivist sysop inactivity current check a regular one?

Previous run were Feb-Mar and next run were not planned before Augustus, as by policy all deadmin request must be done before a new run.

Furthermore, the bot don't have a user page and isn't clearly identified. --Dereckson (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It now has a userpage but clearly not a regular one as it doesn't state it's a bot (or an human-controlled account created for this purpose) nor who is performing the action. --Dereckson (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Reverted all messages. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK .....

I guess maybe it is time I had some tools again! If anyone feels like letter me have +sysop that would be fine. However given that it is 9 months or so I'll understand if it is better to put in an RfA again. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Click. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll tidy the garbage I just tagged at least :) --Herby talk thyme 17:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Review maybe

I do realise that one or two other issue are taking up time at present but could a passing 'crat (or two) decide whether this request is ok/requires more time/whatever? It will have been there about 4 days in an hour or two. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done See m:Steward requests/Permissions#Herbythyme@commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Eugene, regards --Herby talk thyme 15:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of rights

Adminship revoked without a notice: request for the restoration of rights

Hi, I'd like to notify you about what I perceive as a procedural error regarding my desysopping by an unknown steward in February 2010. I have been actively editing Wikipedia and uploading images here and also did quite a lot of work to localise the Commons for the Slovene-speaking users. However, I was on a pause recently. Three weeks ago, when I wanted to resume my work I found that I didn't possess the rights needed to edit the user interface anymore. The reason for the desysopping was my inactivity per Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2010. The linked page says: "These administrators have received a message on their user talk page on February 17 and have to respond within 30 days or will lose adminship." The COM:DESYSOP says the following: "A notice should be placed on the inactive admin's talk page linking to this policy and explaining that admin rights may be lost. An email should also be sent." I have never received either a notice or an email.[8] "The ex-admin should be notified by a talk page message." As evident from my user talk page history, I have not been notified. Therefore, I consider the correct procedure was not followed here and ask for the reversal of the action, especially as I did good work during my adminship and never abused the tools and am needing the status for my further contribution regarding the Slovene localisation of the project. The discussion at first took place at the Village pump[9], but I've been referred here. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:32 17 May 2010 (UTC)

According to my research, you were warned here, and I'm assuming you signed your name to retain your rights. Policy says "If the admin responds to the notice as required but then fails to make five admin actions within the following six months, the rights will be removed without further notice." Accordingly, "Administrators who have lost admin rights through inactivity but who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process." I personally don't understand the rationale for that part of the policy, but it's what's in place. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The underlying problem is defintion of an admin action.Eleassar carried out 3 logged actions [10] (a move in file: space, a deletion and a restoration), but he also performed several edits in MediaWiki: space, which also requires the admin bit (and is counted as an admin action by the activity tool. These would mean he reached the required activity level, and so shouldn't have been desysopped.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Fine, it makes sense to me. I'll restore his admin bit. Someone else can re-add his name to the list. I think the "5 actions or automatic removal with no notice" is a stupid policy anyway. Why not let people keep the tools if they're around? It's not like we are suffering from an abundance of administrators. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with restoration, FWIW. I also think users whose sysop bits were removed due to inactivity should be restored on request. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that restoration without regular RfA is good idea because of level of activity in this case. Will be good idea if administrators will remember about project in project without notices once in half of year. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally I agree with Eugene. Any admin working here can delete 10 items in a day (way more actually and if they can't work that out they shouldn't be here) - to ask for half that in 6 months doesn't seem onerous. --Herby talk thyme 14:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a case where reasonable folks can disagree and nobody be wrong or right. I understand your concerns that the sysop bit shouldn't be a lifelong appointment, and inactive admins are liable to have their bits removed. On the other hand, I feel that with the perpetual backlogs here at Commons (some of which I'm afraid to touch) any help is appreciated, even if only on the order of a few actions a month. Obviously existing policy should be followed whenever possible, but this case seems to be a bit different in that the sysop flag may have been removed in error (hence my endorsement of Bastique's restoration). In keeping with my belief that the sysop flag is no big deal, I would, as I mentioned above, prefer to see automatic reinstatement of previously removed rights if requested. This might not make any sense... just my thoughts... –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Herby, only admins can edit the MediaWiki interface. Nilfanion pointed out that this user made several (looks to be around 15) edits the the MediaWiki page after they were given the de-adminship due to inactivity warning. If we're going to wikilawyer about the topic, we can most likely call those edits "admin actions" (to quote Commons' policy on this) and say that they fulfilled that requirement. Killiondude (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
More than happy with that (Mediawiki edits) - similar applies on Meta with the SBL.
However - and re Julian's comment - while we always have backlogs the folk who are not actually here are not any help....! --Herby talk thyme 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that administrator rights is not big deal. But it's tool, not status. If tool is not used for a long time, so logical question: why this user need it? Similar concerns are raised in regular RfA and should be asked and answered in this case too. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No-one really "needs" the tools. If a user wants to help more, and has shown that they are still interested in Commons, they shouldn't have to deal with us tugging away their rights. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Nobody prevent this and any other user from helping Commons. I don't understand why administrator status is viewed as prerequisite for helping. And rights are not irrevocable award or something eternal. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


I have resigned my sysop tools. Please update the relevant lists or anything I've missed. I hope I've served well in the project. Best regards, — Dferg (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


Is there a chance to assign the bot flag sometime? There is only one minor issue left: Docu does not like the edit summary, because it is not “standard”. --Leyo 10:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you (or its operator) going to do anything about the edit summary? -- User:Docu at 10:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No use to re-start the discussion here. --Leyo 12:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it could just be closed as withdrawn as the operator didn't respond to bureaucrat feedback. -- User:Docu at 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No comment. --Leyo 13:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think will be good idea to make summary of perceived problems in nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The only problem was, that a German month name was used once instead of the English one. This problem has been solved quite some time ago now.
BTW: The bot has more than 400,000 edits globally. --Leyo 15:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly was the problem at de_wiki the edit summary is trying to solve? Maybe we can find a better solution. -- User:Docu at 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Why de_wiki? I do not understand what you mean, sorry. --Leyo 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
With "de_wiki", I meant "German Wikipedia" the operator mentioned. -- User:Docu at 10:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As a note, it looks like some additional time has went by but we haven't yet resolved whatever the issue is. I have to confess I'm lost. Eugene asked for a summary. Leyo gave one... is that an accurate summary? Is it correct that matters are resolved? Is this bot ready to be approved? Disapproved? Please comment, if you know more, at the approval page. Because this feels like it's dragged on way too long now. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Docu is the only person on Commons who is unhappy with the edit summary. Other users (like bot operator and I) either think it is good or does at least not think that it is a problem. I doubt we will ever find a description who makes everyone happy. I think it is time for the crats to decide if the concern Docu has should qualify to stop this request. --MGA73 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've read the thread and I'm not seeing the concern as a major one. I will so opine and give Docu one last chance to clearly, and politely, and thoroughly, explain the concern. If others are convinced we can stall but otherwise I agree. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A clear reason not being given in declarative form, the bot flag has been granted. Sorry for the delay. ++Lar: t/c 11:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)



[[Herby pointed me in this direction I guess it was so I could make this request.

I'm starting to use Commons more now, and I did some patrolling and reverting here and there and I would like my mop back. I don't think I will be as active as I was in the old days but I'm doing some work and it would be nice to help out on some parts of Commons. Every little bit helps right?

I don't know if I can just get my tools back, so if a crat grants them to me it would be cool, if a crat says do a new RFA its cool also...

Best regards, Huib talk 15:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No issues as far as I'm concerned, so ✓ Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I did some stuff already :) Huib talk 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I was wondering why Huib was making me delete all his copyvio tags. Delete them yourself!  ;) Wknight94 talk 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will do so now ;) Huib talk 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


On the AN, I was advised to go here to ask if I could have my admin rights back. So, would it be okay? --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Reinstated. You stepped down in good standing (not in controversial circumstances/under a cloud), so no issues there. Welcome back! Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 09:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yay! Rocket000 (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Let me know if there's anything else necessary to do. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:List of administrators

Greetings. I've been keeping an eye on the subject and its related lists in an effort to keep them up to date. I'd appreciate it when any of you change someone's status to or from Administrator that you would either insure that the three lists are up to date, or at least drop me a note. That would be a lot easier than having to compare the lists to find the missing or extra people. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for adding me there. I know that at least Eugene regurarly reads MediaWiki:Userrights-summary, so that might be worth a trial. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello. Months ago I resigned my sysop tools here and before that I think I was an active sysop. In the past weeks I have found that they would have been useful to delete some copyvios and blocking some (cross-wiki)vandals. For this reason I am asking here if I could have the tools again. If you consider that I need to go under a new RfA let me know. Cordially, --Dferg (talk · meta) 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Highly trusted, highly effective cross wiki user (IMO). --Herby talk thyme 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - without any doubts. Welcome back dferg. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 17:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason for a new RfA, or even an extended discussion here. ✓ Done without hesitation. Welcome back! –Juliancolton | Talk 18:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. Best regards, --Dferg (talk · meta) 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Please add him to the OTRS-member user group (and +autopatroll). I stumbled on my watchlist about his work and wasn't sure if he is an OTRS user or not. --Martin H. (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


Please add to an OTRS-member flag. He's repeat. triggering the abuse filter for adding permissions tickets. He's listed here. Thank you, --Dferg (talk · meta) 12:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hi, I'm now a member of the OTRS-team, can you give me the OTRS flag? Thanks in advance. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Kanonkas. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 05:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS membership

Please add Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry to the OTRS-member group. Listed on m:OTRS/personnel. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 21:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member flag for WooteleF

See meta table. –Krinkletalk 16:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done - Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 22:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


I'm an volunteer, I'd like to have this flag. Regards!!!--Esteban (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done by Bastique. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 07:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Inactivity section

It seems that Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2010 is over and should be closed (30 days where on September 10). Could you please have a look and act as needed? Thank you, --Dferg (talk · meta) 06:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. See m:Steward requests/Permissions#Inactive admins@commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Please see that question too. Regards, --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, removal has been done by steward Mercy. I'm updating that page accordingly to reflect the removal and will be messaging the users to inform them they've lost their rights and why.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dferg (talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm updating the three lists of Administrators. I note that User:Jcornelius is shown at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity_section/Aug-Sep_2010 as X mark.svg removed, but he or she still appears on the system generated list of administrators. Which is correct? The remaining seven have all had their status changed. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators/Requests. –Tryphon 19:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Aha. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

+sysop request

If someone could add +sysop back to my account, that would be great. I took a break starting in May. There was nothing controversial that I did prior to asking for -sysop on meta (diff), so I don't think I should have any issues getting the flag back here. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ MehJuliancolton | Talk 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tyvm. Killiondude (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Please flag this user as an OTRS-member. Keeps triggering the abusefilter for non-agents (I'm an agent myself, and can verify he is one). Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 18:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member flag for Wikitanvir

See here. That was added by me, but feel free to verify. Thanks! — Tanvir • 05:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. ✓ Done by Kanonkas. Thanks! :) — Tanvir • 01:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


Rlevse recently resigned. Additionally, he had his OTRS account closed. Could someone please remove his OTRS-member flag here? Thanks. Tiptoety talk 23:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


SarekOfVulcan has withdrawn. Can someone take care of closing? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 17:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 01:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

+sysop request

I would like my Commons admin bit back. RlevseTalk 17:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, welcome back! –Juliancolton | Talk 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
JC, thanks much. RlevseTalk 19:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Vanish request

Please vanish me, ie, rename me to a random vanished user name, blank my pages, protect the talk page, and even indef block me if you want. RlevseTalk 20:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is going on? Wknight94 talk 21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
For details about Rlevse's departure, see en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-01/Arbitration_report#Arbitrator_resigns. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I can blank and protect your pages, but make sure you're set on the rename. That'll be really hard to undo. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, rename me please. I'm certain. RlevseTalk 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Then ✓ Done. Best wishes in your future real-life endeavors. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Given you just granted admin rights back what is happening to them? A quick look at the Meta log shows me nothing to suggest they have been removed and they certainly should be in this case. --Herby talk thyme 08:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression Rlevse had requested removal of the rights himself, but it's been done now. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Please add this user to the OTRS-member group. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member for User:מתניה

His actions are clogging up the AbuseFilter log, please add him to the group a.s.a.p. –Krinkletalk 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Does this user have OTRS access? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he has access to the permission queues. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member for User:Ra'ike

(for the record) See also User_talk:Lar#User_rights just now. I've turned this on for Ra'ike. I admit I may not be totally clear on what this permission does or what the criteria are. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sysop return

I had requested that my sysop flag be turned off in August, mostly due to time constraints. With more time available now, if folks wouldn't mind, I'd like it turned back on so I can help with some of the backlogs. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 02:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any objections. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Then ✓ Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for File Mover rights

If it is possible, I would like to have File Mover rights in Commons (not admin though). Thank you. Hoverfish (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please use Commons:Requests for rights#Filemover (add request). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member for User:Sreejithk2000

I have newly joined the OTRS team and is planning to actively take part in looking after OTRS permisions. My user access can be verified List of accounts on the OTRS-wiki. Can I have OTRS-member rights in commons? Thanks. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It's true. Jcb (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS flag removal

Hi there. I have resigned from OTRS, could someone remove my flag? Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member for User:Kiran Gopi

Recently I joined in OTRS-Team, can I get OTRS membership access in commons. Thanks in advance --Kiran Gopi (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Add User:Rodrigo.Argenton to OTRS-member

On List of volunteers as m:User:R.T.Argenton. –Krinkletalk 01:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Add User:Taketa to OTRS-member

I noticed I require OTRS membership access in commons. List of volunteers, OTRS id 866 [11] - Thank you -- Taketa (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member for Fetchcomms

Verify, thanks. fetchcomms 22:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's true - Jcb (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-member for user:Heb

Per Commons:Requests for rights#Heb no. 2 I request adding him to the OTRS-member group. It has been verified that the user is listed at the OTRS wiki. Thanks, odder (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks for the heads-up. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 08:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-member for User:Meno25

Please remove me from this usergroup. I no longer have access to OTRS (due to inactivity). Thanks. --Meno25 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-member for VasilievVV

Please add me to this group (confirmation). VasilievVV (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It's true. Jcb (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done by myself a while ago. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Add user:Wvk to OTRS-member group

Please add Wvk (talk · contribs) as soon as possible. His edits are messing up the cvn-commons channel with false-positives. –Krinkletalk 11:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It's true. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin inactivity

Could somebody of you please take care of Aude's special case? That'd be really kind. abf «Cabale!» 16:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA closure

Please see [12] - candidate declines the nomination. The request may be closed I think. --Dferg (talk · meta) 16:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Is archived. Cecil (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Abuse filter tripping

It seems like I'm tripping an abuse filer every other edit here. I'm fairly sure I need the OTRS flag locally to stop annoying your vandal fighters here. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, and keep up the good work! –Juliancolton | Talk 11:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-member for Adrignola

I have access to the permissions/photosubmissions queues now. See diff and diff. – Adrignola talk 02:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It's true. VasilievVV (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS Member for NativeForeigner . I'm on the permissions list, and was told that I should come here to recieve the tag, so I don't trip any filters. NativeForeigner 토론 (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It's true. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done... power hungry n00b! –Juliancolton | Talk 18:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Two users requesting vanishment

Dempobizpro wishes to hide his name due to privacy (c.f.) and his one upload speedily deleted. Bob Bruno likewise wishes to stop contributing to Wikimedia as indicated on his talkpage as well as here. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bob Bruno hasn't edited since July... you sure it's an issue? –Juliancolton | Talk 10:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

De-admin bot?

User:MediaWiki Update Bot seems to have died since June 2008. Maybe time to remove the admin flag? Rehman 12:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support - btw bureaucrats cannot remove admin flag, so after discussion this needs a request on meta. - Taketa (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
If account is not used for a long, it should not have administrator status. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:EuseBotHelper is dead since February 2010, maybe desysop that bot too? Rehman 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should open a de-adminship request, to follow the process; but I do not object removing the flags if the operators do not plan to use those accounts in the near future. --Dferg (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for bot flag

I'd like my bot to receive the bot flag now. EugeneZelenko has approved of it running. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

He didn't officially approve it. –Juliancolton | Talk 10:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is only one in your request. Please ask other bot owners and administrators to express their. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Approved by Eugene. –Juliancolton | Talk 11:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for Morgankevinj

I am an OTRS member with access to the permissions queue (verify) MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true, Taketa (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 11:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Please do review Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2011 (now finished) and if possible please request removal of access of those that didn't singed at m:Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access. Thank you, --Dferg (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to avoid mistakes. It's necessary to remove status form administrators, who didn't request to keep it and still have it (basically empty status column). Am I correct? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as stated in point #2 at the policy page: Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. --Dferg (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done See m:Steward requests/Permissions#Inactive administrators@commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
And done by the stewards as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for Theo10011

Hi, I am an OTRS volunteer with access to permissions and photo-submissions queue. Can you please provide the appropriate flag. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is true MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 22:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Julian. Theo10011 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Appeal of adminship removal for inactivity

Hi! I'd like to appeal my recent removal of adminship based on inactivity. Although it wasn't counted by the inactivity tool, I've done a fair number of page moves with suppressed redirects in the last six months, which are technically an admin action (and which I have a lot more of to do, and have been gradually chipping away at). So I'd like to get the admin bit back, because I wasn't really inactive as an admin for the last 6 months. Thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of those moves were not really in line with policy though. Take File:Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Lewis Hine, Lilly O'Sullivan, 13 years old, Drayton Mills, Spartanburg, South Carolina, 1912.jpg for example. Why rename it? And given that it was uploaded some 4 months before you renamed it, I think suppressing the redirect was really not a good idea. –Tryphon 16:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Have to agree with Tryphon. I can see no reason for any those renames where you just removed the source and the source owner. Otherwise in the last half year there was just one rename and that was clean-up behind you own activity. So as a bureaucrat I recommend an RfA in a few month after showing that you actually are in line with policy and able to work in a way to not fall into the next inactivity-count again. -- Cecil (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason for the renames was that trialsanderrors was (and is) upset to have his name on all these public domain images that he either cleaned up or just collected, which we pulled from Flickr with a bot. I've been making sure they aren't in use before suppressing the redirects.--ragesoss (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
They could have been linked to from outside wikimedia though, which is why we usually do not delete redirects for older uploads. In any case, you should always give a clear and valid reason in the move summary; clean up after bot doesn't explain at all why you performed the move, and isn't a valid reason on its own. –Tryphon 17:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've been chipping away at these since they were first uploaded. But the main point is, I shouldn't have qualified for inactivity removal in the first place; I got de-adminned on a technicality because the tool didn't count the kinds of admin actions I had been doing. I'm happy to change the way I do things if other people think I should do them differently. I thought those summaries were appropriate, but I can go into more detail in the future. --ragesoss (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, ragessoss was only removed because of a technical error, and not an error made by him. While any advice on his continued adminship activities would be helpful, reinstatement in this case should be a clear given.--Pharos (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ragesoss, I was about to regrant you the sysop bit, but I noticed you haven't edited in nearly a month. Are you still interested? I don't see it as a huge problem, but I'm afraid others might use it against one or both of us. –Juliancolton | Talk 11:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am still interested. I haven't been that active, since I'm working for WMF right now and don't have as much time to spend on Commons except in spurts. But if I get the bit back, I'll pitch in with admin duties.--ragesoss (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a comment in passing, but per precedent could desysopped users go through another election? (Or else we'll end up being inconsistent...) -- Mentifisto 14:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Meh. I don't see a need... if nobody objects within a reasonable amount of time, I plan to carry out this request. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If we resysop every single user who asks then what is the point of the policy? Surely it would be better if they'd check to see whether the community thinks they're sufficiently active again? (It does say "admins [...] who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process".) As it is it's inconvenient for everyone, so if people don't really mind admins being inactive we could just remove the policy about inactivity. -- Mentifisto 19:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sage was desysopped on a technicality, as noted above. He was active with his admin tools at the time, and this clearly distinguishes him from other people desysopped for inactivity, who were not. A recent short period of inactivity isn't especially relevant. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking more generically; users desysopped for purely being inactive should ideally have another RfA, rather than simply asking here, in my opinion. -- Mentifisto 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Since your concerns are self-admittedly generic, I've gone ahead and resysopped Ragesoss. Since I'm short on time, could somebody please add him back on the relevant admin lists (or I'll do it myself later this afternoon – either way)? –Juliancolton | Talk 10:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much! --ragesoss (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, in order to not let this happen again (desysopping based on technicalities) can we perhaps add redirect suppressions to the list of admin actions the tool searches for? -- Mentifisto 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Other than that ability comes with the global rollbacker flag, I don't know why not- almost all the folks that can do it are admins. Courcelles (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member jeblad

OTRS member on the Norwegian queue, adds permissions at commons. Jeblad (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is true MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Erroneously removed as inactive

I was away from Commons for a few months, but recently returned and started using the administrative tools again (at least six deletions in the past couple weeks). I didn't notice the warning on my talk page that there was a list I had to add myself to, and it looks like I was erroneously removed as "inactive." Could a bureaucrat please correct this? Fran Rogers (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You have hardly ever been active on this project. Why would need this in the first place? --  Docu  at 10:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I see your recent 6 deletions on 16 March and 2 April, 2011, but you did not sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2011. I am asking other bureaucrats in our bureaucrats-commons list. Either we will restore your flag quickly or you may have to reapply.--Jusjih (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for Jimmy xu wrk

I'm an OTRS volunteer on the Chinese and permissions queue. Thanks.--Jimmy Xu (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true - Taketa (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


You guys are usually very quick with these. Am I missing something? Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Sorry, Commons had technical troubles when I tried to close first time. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
No apology needed -- I, too, had a frustrating day of technical troubles messages. I should have thought of that.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

De-admined without warning

I refer to my post at AN. A while ago I lost my admin rights due to inactivity. However, I did not receive any warning which would allow me to "confirm my adminiship" in order to retain my adminship. Because I was essentially powerless to prevent myself from losing my adminship, I would like to be re-admined. --Aqwis (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think right way to avoid such unpleasant situation - to use tools regularly. You was warned in 10 August 2010, but didn't use tools after that according to you logs.
Please start some maintenance works and re-apply for administrator if you are really interested.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The post on my talkpage in August 2010 was not a warning, it was simply a link to the discussion about whether inactive admins should in fact lose their adminship. The outcome of the discussion was that they should, but only after receiving a warning one month before their loss of adminship. I did not receive this warning, which means that process was not followed. I do not see why process should be circumvented in my case specifically!
For the record, the reason why I stopped being active on Commons was that I entered university. I was planning on being far more active this summer, however, having to reapply for adminship is not exactly encouraging. --Aqwis (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I support re-sysopping of Aqwis, on the grounds that the talkpage warning given was so unclear that I would not call it a "warning" at all: "Hello Aqwis, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)". The cited discussion contains nothing to suggest that Aqwis was, himself, at risk of losing adminship (and indeed, doesn't clearly appear to have reached any consensus). Dcoetzee (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was not a warning at all. User A9 simply asked (well, canvassed) several (quite a bit: [13]) admins to participate in discussion about admin inactivity policy. It wasn't a de-adminship warning in any way or form. De-adminship was a clear mistake. Trycatch (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get an opinion from a bureaucrat other than EugeneZelenko, please? --Aqwis (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you were never really active as an admin. It seems fair that you'd go through the usual process. What would you need the tools for anyways? --  Docu  at 15:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I was planning to be much more active this summer when I will have time off from my studies. As for what particular tasks I would do, I refer to my RfA (see the Comments section). --Aqwis (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
No serious issues at their RFA, nor was there any serious issues during the admin period. If this user performs at least a handful of admin tasks per month (which I am sure they would), I would definitely support a speedy re-admin without going through the usual process. Rehman 15:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Túrelio (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Trycatch (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The reason that there were no serious issues during the admin period is that Aqwis did not even look into any activity which could cause serious issues. In a period of 16 month there were 12 actions which required admin-rights, all of them simple enough that an active admin would be able to do all 12 in less than a minute. Looking at his contributions this lack is quite easily explained by his area of activity. 'Featured picture candidates' does not need admins nor is it likely to encounter problematic images. Sorry that I don't believe that Aqwis would suddenly change behaviour (400 contribs ago from now he wasn't even admin yet) and not only get active but also get active in areas that need admins. Procedure maybe wasn't followed properly but the whole rule was made to get rid of admins who are not doing admin-actions. I could see the necessity of the warning for somebody who was active and then for RL-reason had to stop for a few month and suddenly half a year was gone, but for somebody who was not active as an admin to begin with it would have only lead to the famous 5 pseudo-actions. -- Cecil (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove OTRS thingy

Can someone remove my OTRS flag thanks. --ZooFari 04:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

suggestions for the admin SOPs

Yesterday I did a full comparison of the names on Commons:Administrators to those in Category:Commons administrators, after I had stumbled over a discrepancy. I was astonished to find up to 10 percent of discordance, i.e. admins, who were not in the cat, because that had no admin-template, no admin-babelbox or admin-whatever on their userpage, and, on the other hand, users in the admin-cat who were no longer admins (some without any edit-activity for up to 3 years), who had been inactivity-de-admined but where not aware of it (see Aqwis two paragraphs above) or who had only claimed to be admin without ever being one, such as Pstoianov (talk · contribs) (see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Pstoianov (Diskussion · Beiträge) an admin?). To the former colleagues I have kindly recommended to add something to their userpage to be recognizable as admin for others. From the userpages of former admins, who had no edits since long, I've removed the admin-box/cat/whatever from their userpage. Those still edit-active I've asked to remove it by themselves.

To avoid such a situation from developping again, I want to suggest for the admin-"SOPs":

  • to new admins it should be recommened to put either the {{user admin}} template to their userpage or add the admin-entry to their babelbox, in order to be recognizabe as admin by other users.
  • when an admin is finally de-admined, he/she should be asked to remove the admin-box/babel/cat from his userpage.
  • Category:Commons administrators might be checked every no and then to detect users intentionally claiming to be admin without being it.

--Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Last August, I cleaned up the substantial discrepancies between the system list of actual admins and our three public lists and added the count at the bottom of the alpha list and date list that allows us to instantly see whether there are the right number of names in the lists. I've kept an eye on that subsequently and occasionally made necessary additions or deletions.
At the same time, I noticed that there were quite a few people claiming to be Admins that were not, but I just let it be, not wanting to roil potentially ugly waters.
As you say, there is a substantial discrepancy between the Category and the facts. Although I think your moves are entirely correct, I would, with consensus, go a little farther and say that any incorrect claim of Admin status -- Babel box, Category, or text -- is fair game for correction on sight. A polite request would certainly be good, but it should not have a very long deadline. I'd be happy to add this to keeping an eye on the three lists.
I've added your suggestion to my new collection of information for new Admins. Should we go further and say that all Admins are expected to have:
  • a babelbox
  • the admin tag in their babelbox
  • e-mail enabled and tagged in their babelbox
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Fully agree to your 3 points. However, the wording should avoid any compulsory impression. Any new admin should be helped to understand why this is helpful (being recognizable for other others). Though it is desirable for all admins, exceptions could be made, if they are few. --Túrelio (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to edit my sandbox. For the record, there are 24 people in the Category that are not on the system list of Admins and 43 Admins who are not in the category. I can easily post the two lists if you think it's helpful.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
There is also Special:ListAdmins. Killiondude (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I had a discussion with one of the admins with no user boxes (or user page, for that matter).[14] S/he said "if you absolutely must insist, I'd consider setting up a page for the infoboxes." I didn't insist, but I think it is a good idea and a helpful example for others. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. That's the same way, I did it. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, imo Rama issue is unrelated with babel boxes. It's just he deleted his user page for a few reasons. The problem is that the babel boxes are located in the deleted user page. That's why he talked of a separate babel page. Esby 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member flag for Brackenheim

Please add User:Brackenheim to the OTRS member group. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It's true. Courcelles (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --Brackenheim (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record: I do have OTRS access. ;) Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Edoderoo

As an OTRS member I confirm that this user is an OTRS member and needs the flag to not trip edit filters. – Adrignola talk 03:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Bennó

As an OTRS member I confirm that this user is an OTRS member and needs the flag to not trip edit filters. – Adrignola talk 12:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Tĥ. Bennó (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:MacMed

Can I please get the OTRS flag so my edits aren't tagged? Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 19:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 20:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Atluxity

I have been requested to ask to be added to the OTRS-member group. Regards Atluxity (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It's true. Courcelles (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Nanoxyde

I have been requested to ask to be added to the OTRS-member group and need the flag to not trip edit filters. Regards, merci, Nanoxyde (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I confirm that Nanoxyde is an OTRS member. Cheers, guillom 13:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

De-admin request speedy closure, please

Could you please speedy-close Commons:Administrators/Requests/Florent Pécassou (de-adminship), as Florent has voluntarily resigned and his rights already removed. --Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Administrator status was removed 06:44, 1 June 2011 by m:User:Avraham. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I knew. Thanks for closing the rfa. --Túrelio (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:HJ Mitchell

It's confirmed, and he's tripping the abuse filter. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
That'll teach me to pay more attention! Thanks guys! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member User:King of Hearts

Hi, User:King of Hearts posted this request to get the ORTS flag at the administrators' noticeboard instead of here. I can hereby confirm that he is indeed an OTRS member. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Hello. With regret I have to inform that Manuelt15 has voluntary relinquished his administrator tools here as well all his other permissions across the projects, included his OTRS access. As per this request, please remove his OTRS-member flag. I'd like to thank Manuel for all his work here and elsewhere. Thank you, --Dferg (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

RFA closing

Hi. This RFA needs closing. Regards, Rehman 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Aleposta

I have been requested to ask to be added to the OTRS-member group and need the flag to not trip edit filters. Regards, Aleposta (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's true. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Bencmq

Hi, I became a OTRS member recently. I noticed that I triggered the filter as well. Thank you. --Ben.MQ (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. odder (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

removing OTRS member for User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Please remove OTRS flag of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, this account has been globally locked. axpdeHello! 14:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI, he has now been globally unlocked. The en.wp drama has passed. Wknight94 talk 00:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Per Wknight94, if someone wants to re-add the user right it seems to be okay to do so. Killiondude (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Closure of De-sysop

Dear Crats,

I would like to request the crats here to speedy close a De-sysop. When we look at the De-sysop police we find the next text:

In the rare case that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing his or her status, it may seek de-adminship in the same way as adminship is sought. Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal; for individual grievances, please use Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible.

To start:

  1. There has been no discussion about de-sysop before the de-sysop is started
  2. There is no policy breach here on Commons, all stuff happend on Nl.Wiki and Meta
  3. The started was involved in the dispute
  4. The started is placing half quotes instead of the truth.

According to the policy a bureaucrat can close this De-sysop because it doesn't meet the policy.

Best, Huib talk Abigor @ meta 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. A link has been provided to the discussion at COM:ANU.
  2. At least two policy breaks at Commons have been proven and subject of the desysop request announced he would break policies. Also user abused his position as admin several times.
  3. User invited me to start the desysop request.
  4. The other part of the quote has been proven to be a lie, also it's irrelevant why you want to ignore policies. Admin rights are granted to serve the community, not to protect your family.
Jcb (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to support Abigor's request on the grounds of simple fairness. Jcb started the de-sysop by deliberately taking only half of a very strongly worded sentence, omitting the context that made it understandable. Several others have repeated the misquote, building their argument on it.
At the very least, this needs a week or so to cool down. I would not object to a new action then.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Jcb, could you please explain to me what policies he broke? I really cannot see anything in AN/U that specifies it through the 10,000 lines of argument. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, this somewhat surprises me, because the ANU discussion started because of a clear policy break (speedy keeping a file, while there clearly wasn't a reason for speedy keep, repeating that inappropriate closing several times) - Jcb (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  • No bureaucrat action is required anymore; Abigor has resigned his adminship rights on Meta; his request had been fulfilled and the deadminship request was subsequently closed. Marking this as ✓ Case closed. Thanks, odder (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please note that I have unblocked Abigor per his request. Tiptoety talk 17:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, you might then also change the current content of User talk:Abigor. --Túrelio (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Surya Prakash.S.A.

Hi, I became a OTRS member recently. Please add me in the OTRS members' group. Thank you. --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed - Taketa (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

RfA closure

Hello this should have been closed yesterday. Regards, --Dferg (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This was closed out-of-process and out-of-sequence from the currently open RfAs. --  Docu  at 03:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not involved in voting I reviewed the case, it's pretty obvious. a×pdeHello! 09:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Tommyang

User:Tommyang is an OTRS member now but triggering abuse filter. Please flag him as OTRS member because he's edits are being reverted. Thank you--Ben.MQ (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm the OTRS membership of Tommyang. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:XenonX3

Hi, I became OTRS member about 2 months ago (info-de and permissions-de). Sometimes there are permissions for files at de-wiki and commons in the same ticket (like [15]). I always trigger the filter when adding the OTRS template which is kind of annoying. So I would like to get into the OTRS member group to avoid the filter. Confirmation from another OTRS member is on the way. Thanks, XenonX3 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

confirmed by --Nolispanmo 15:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
i confirm this confirmation. —Pill (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Me 2. PDD (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Signed. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
✓ Goodness... –Juliancolton | Talk 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone! XenonX3 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Don-kun

Same as XenonX3, except that I am an OTRS member since nearly a year ;) --Don-kun (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by —DerHexer (Talk) 21:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
acknowledged. --DaB. (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
and most importantly, he needs to be in the group so that he can join us in mass-confirming other otrs members. —Pill (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 04:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:80686

Member since at least 2006 (several chapter queues, info-als, info-de). --Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 07:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This can be confirmed. However, User:80686 is not in any of the permission queues. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Raymond

Member since at least 2006 (OTRS admin, info-de, permissions). Raymond 09:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if anyone can clarify; from what I understand this group provides no advantages to users who are already sysops, as they already have autopatrol and the filter explicitly excludes sysops (I think)? -- Mentifisto 22:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it's more for identification purposes. Users who aren't in the OTRS-member group show up on the abuse filter, which attempts to highlight falsification of permissions. Therefore it's easier for everyone for all OTRS users active on permissions queues to be added to this group. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, sysops adding OTRS permissions don't show up on the abuse filter. The filter only looks for people who are not a sysop and not an OTRS member. But still, it makes sense to add sysops to the OTRS member group, so that they don't show up, should they have their sysop status revoked for whatever reason. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of user talk page

User:TCO has requested the deletion of their talk page, I've deleted the talk page but I restored it as I noticed that according to WP:RTV user talk pages should not be speedy deleted by admins. as it's suggested at WP:RTV, a bureaucrat should take care of this request.   ■ MMXX  talk  15:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS member for User:Mikemoral

This user has access to OTRS and is getting flagged. See the owner of ticket 2011080610000382, for instance. Account in OTRS created on July 31; see the admin log. – Adrignola talk 13:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


I would be great if a decision could been taken in the near future. Thank you. --Leyo 19:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS bit, please

Could you please add the OTRS bit to my Commons record? I became an OTRS member on March 5, 2011. As I understand it, it does nothing except make possible the correct result when a user clicks on "verify" in the OTRS box in my babel box. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
see or maybe just take my word for it? Lying on something like this would certainly be an immediate de-admin and there are easier ways to accomplish that. It would also be plain stupid to take such a risk for something that has no real effect and whatever you think of me, I hope it's not that I'm stupid.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This also prevents flagging under the edit filter as a non-OTRS member adding an OTRS verification, so it's not pointless. The Meta page can be modified by anyone. You could have added yourself to fool us. (I'm giving you a hard time.) :) I, as an OTRS agent already having been verified by an independent OTRS agent previously to gain my bit, verify that Jameslwoodward is listed on (the official and complete record). Soon we will welcome you into the circle of trust. – Adrignola talk 15:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Adrignola. There's got to be a better way to do this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
There is. Know how license reviewers can add the license reviewer bit to other license reviewers? Well, OTRS agents should be able to add the OTRS agent bit to people they know are OTRS agents, since we're already having existing OTRS agents on Commons vouch for new OTRS agents. Or remove the ability from license reviewers for consistency, since both groups are validating the licensing on files. – Adrignola talk 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Better still, my WP:EN Commons Administrator Babelbox points to Commons for verification. Why doesn't the Commons OTRS Babelbox point to Meta? Answer (I guess) is that the fact that I am an OTRS member is not public information unless I choose to make it so, so that no public process can verify it. Right?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Right. Though if you're handling the permissions queues it'll be hard to do anything without plopping an OTRS tag on pages and giving it away. – Adrignola talk 16:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. -- Cecil (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Could I get the OTRS flag so I'm not tagged with 'adding OTRS when not a member'? (Yes I am part of OTRS) -- DQ (t) (e) 02:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Confirmed, before someone asks. ;) Courcelles (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

otrs member for Lvova

She is back to OTRS now, so I am asking 'crats to assign her the necessary flag not to be marked by abusefilter in the future rubin16 (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Rubin16 has this access too; is this not a veryfication? Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed, just for the record. Courcelles (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Administratorrights for User:Raindrift

Please take a look at the discussion here and perform the required action. Regards, Trijnstel (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

rfa Saibo closure

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Saibo is due for closure since yesterday evening. Don't let him wait too long for his welcome cake. --Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Privileges for Jeroen De Dauw

I need additional privileges to asses point 2 of this bug, which I cannot reproduce locally. This is urgent, as WLM is right about to start. Ideally I'd get admin privileges to avoid such hassle in the future. If not possible, the upload campaign right will have to do. -- Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Requesting user is a Wikimedia Contractor according to his userpage at and wants for fix problems for commons. If he needs the rights I'm OK. However regarding the "Upload Wizard campaign editors" can only be set by stewards or by other users that have the "userrights" priv. in their global group which are Staff and system administrators as I don't see that any local group can assign them. On the other hand if you're working for the Foundation I'm sure you can get the rights you need for your work without asking here (see User:Raindrift above). Best, --Marco Aurelio (previously Dferg) (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I've given Jeroen temporary sysop rights on Commons through the interface on meta, to keep the log there. We prefer not to give "Staff" rights to too many people, esp. when they don't need it. guillom 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ORTS flag

Dear Bureaucrats. Please add OTRS flag to my account. Thank you. --Krd (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Trusted (let the de-OTRS-storm beginn ;-)). --DaB. (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
confirmed. please also add the flag to User:Suhadi Sadono, User:Marcus Cyron, User:Plani, User:Pfieffer Latsch, and User:Alupus, who have all five been granted access to permission queues this month. —Pill (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have been OTRS agent for quite a while but somehow never got the flag. Since it seems to be the day, would you mind? Thanks! Jean-Fred (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody with OTRS access verify? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Verified, Jean-Fred is OTRS member. --Krd (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Jean-Fred (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm in OTRS too; could you add the flag to my account? Thanks. - Laurentius (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Verified, Laurentius is OTRS member. --Krd (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

accelerating the procedure in a request for bot flag

Is it possible to accelerate my bot request for the flag?
I can wait a bit but it's been months since I asked for the flag and I still have no answer...
For reference Commons:Bots/Requests/esby-mw-bot. Esby (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn RFA

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Hoangquan hientrang has been withdrawn. Would someone mind formally closing? Courcelles (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove inactive OTRS members

The following are no longer active within the OTRS system and have been blocked from accessing the OTRS wiki and system interface. Remember that verification of OTRS tickets requires checking the actual ticket, not simply whether the individual who added the ticket was/is an OTRS member (unlike license reviewers). So this shouldn't be a historical list and inactive members need to be removed, especially if this proposal passes. – Adrignola talk 19:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  1. 555 (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  2. ABCD (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  3. Achates (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  4. Alexanderps (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  5. Antur (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  6. Badseed (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  7. Barcex (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  8. Blacklake (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  9. Bookofjude (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  10. Centrx (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  11. Dmitry Rozhkov (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  12. ESkog (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  13. Hmwith (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  14. Holger I. (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  15. KnightLago (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  16. Lecartia (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  17. Matanya (usurped) (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  18. Mwpnl (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  19. Nakor (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  20. Nick (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  21. Senpaiottolo (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  22. Sicherlich (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  23. Solid State (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  24. Witty lama (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
✓ Done. Please let me know if I missed somebody. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Request adminship back

Hi, I resigned my adminship on good standing about 2 years ago. Back then real world issues (particularly University) were getting me too busy hence why I resigned. I'd like to continue serving commons. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 15:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you will find instructions here: Commons:Administrators - Jcb (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
What instruction am I looking for? The word resign isn't even mentioned on the entire page. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 01:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a deficiency in current policies. So it's not clear whether your request should or should not be honored without a new RfA. – Adrignola talk 04:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The policies should be amended if needed as it has been in the past. :) I do not mind a second rfa if b'crats feel that it is required in my case. I'd like to point out that had I not resigned on my own, my admin mop would still be there. I would not want adminship if the community feels I cannot be trusted with such tools. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 04:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
According to your user rights log, it seems you were never promoted to adminship. —stay (sic)! 05:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
At least on enwp, user rights logs from more than a few years ago are empty due to the software changes since then. The requestor, does, however, have a deletion log going back to 2006, indicating either adminship or stewardship was once held. Courcelles (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you can just point out your original (successful) request for adminship? Multichill (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I should have properly re-introduce myself. I am user Cool Cat aka White Cat aka とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko - A Certain White Cat). My RfA was Commons:Requests and votes/Cool Cat (03). -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 11:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Cool Cat" became an admin on 29 October 2006 and resigned as "White Cat" on 10 May 2008. Trijnstel (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
"I'd like to point out that had I not resigned on my own, my admin mop would still be there." Actually, no. See the inactivity provisions at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, which we do have fleshed out. This is my primary concern regarding those who have been gone for some time—a knowledge of current policies. – Adrignola talk 13:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Despite being on vacation I check my wiki email and some user talk pages regularly. You can see my activity despite being inactive for two years. 5 admin actions per 6 months isn't exactly something challenging given I made hundreds of admin actions (generally elimination of copyright violations) a week. I could do that effortlessly just to game the system. Instead I feel I have done the responsible thing of resigning rather than letting inactivity take its due course as I knew I was going to be inactive. Also, it is not like current admins are required to be up to date on all policy changes. That said if there are any policies you'd like me to review, I'd be happy to do so regardless of the outcome here as policies are to be followed by admins and non-admins alike. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to be admin again, please start a RfA and stop bothering the bureaucrats with a request they cannot execute. Jcb (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe they are that easily "bothered". Hello to you too Jcb. It has been a while. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 02:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Since it is evident that at least some of the people are uncomfortable with my request I withdraw it. I will not nominate myself for RfA, but would not oppose someone else nominating me. I just do not want to be a "bother" to the community. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 02:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

New OTRS members

New OTRS members added, with access to the permissions/photosubmissions queues:

– Adrignola talk 17:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

de-sysop request


I have not enough time to make a good job as sysop. Thanks to de-sysop me

Friendly Oxam Hartog 13:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I added request on Meta and it was processed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS access changes

The following users have been removed from the OTRS system and should have the OTRS-member flag removed:

  1. Alupus‏‎ (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights
  2. Forrestjunky (talk · contribs) · removal log · change rights

The following users have been added to the OTRS system (and have access to permissions queues) and should have the OTRS-member flag added:

  1. Juandev (talk · contribs) · user creation log · change rights
  2. Gnumarcoo (talk · contribs) · user creation log · change rights

– Adrignola talk 15:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

New OTRS volunteer

I've just been added as an OTRS volunteer, so it would be quite useful if I could get the OTRS user right. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom Morris (talk · contribs) · user creation log · change rights
Confirmation. – Adrignola talk 16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New OTRS volunteer

I've just been added as an OTRS volunteer, so it would be quite useful if I could get the OTRS user right. Thanks. Ludo (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

confirmed. —Pill (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Not so much new as now having access to the permissions queues. – Adrignola talk 13:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2)

I think Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2) needs to be closed. It was originally scheduled to close on 3 November but extended for more discussion, including possible alternatives to a straight yes/no on deadminship. That discussion seems to be petering out, in both quantity and productiveness, and it looks like it's now just going to become a rehash of the reasons for deadminship, which isn't fair to the subject. I think it's time for a bureaucrat to draw a line under this, if not by an immediate closure, then by setting a new deadline. Rd232 (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Of six 'crats, only three are active. EugeneZelenko has become involved, so that leaves Cecil or Jusjih. I think en-3 should be high enough to make sense of the discussion. – Adrignola talk 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
And three days have gone by... maybe we need more bureaucrats. Is there some other way of handling this (someone from Meta?)? Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Juliancolton has edited this month. I left him a note on his talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sadly Commons has a history of inactive (almost totally in some cases) 'crats and one highly active and consistently productive one. It really shouldn't be a Meta matter - hopefully Julian will be happy to take a look at it. --Herby talk thyme 11:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm starting to read now. Any last comments or changes of opinion should be done now ;-) -- Cecil (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, its over and I'm now going to get rid of 5 cups of coffee. -- Cecil (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with it. Regards --Herby talk thyme 16:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS access removal

The following user has been removed from the OTRS system on 1 February 2011 and should have the OTRS-member flag removed:

Dolledre told me in person about it and he also said it onwiki. Perhaps an OTRS-member could confirm it? Thanks in advance. Trijnstel (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

log says "Account Dolledre closed by Cbrown1023: inactivity (#239)", so that should be correct. —Pill (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-bit back for User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Hi. Please add Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry to the OTRS member group again. His rights were removed in June 2011 after some problems, but everything is solved and restored now. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

confirmed. —Pill (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello. I'm an OTRS member. Could someone add the local flag to my account? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 21:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

confirmed. —Pill (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Micki

Hello. Please add OTRS flag for this user. He has been an OTRS for months but hasn't been added to the group yet. Thank you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access confirm? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. --Kiran Gopi (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Please also add AleXXw and Wnme. Thank you. --Krd (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this. Thanks anyway :) mickit 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag for MarcoAurelio

And also for this user. Thanks--Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access confirm? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. mickit 16:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Request closure

Hello. I think this is not going to succeed. Can we have an speedy closure of the candidature, saving the candidate from more opposes and the time of the project? Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no wish to usurp 'crat powers but there is plenty of work for those who are active to do so I have closed/archived this request. If 'crat disagrees they are welcome to revert my actions. Regards --Herby talk thyme 09:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks folks. There is no need to subject the contributor to further humiliation. When I came across this incomplete application (while researching a vanity article at a sister project) I might have let it die in quiet obscurity, but I felt really irked by the plagiarism and wanted to expose it. At least this exercise served to draw attention to cleaning up the copyvio/copyfraud files. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hello, these are two others OTRS volunteers, please add them to group: Ponyo, Mentifisto. Thank you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with OTRS access confirm? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I confirm that both Ponyo and Mentifisto appear on the definitive list of OTRS accounts. Although that information is normally private, both users have disclosed it, see User:Ponyo and User:Mentifisto.
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
That raises a question -- the OTRS team is careful to point out that some OTRS members do not want that status public. The first line on the page where I got the information reads:
"The contents of this page are confidential. They should not be given, in part or in full, to anyone who is not an OTRS volunteer. Please remember that some people keep the fact that they participate in OTRS private."
Should we be responding to third party requests to add the OTRS bit or should we respond only to requests from the OTRS member? If one or the other of the two above had not already disclosed their OTRS status, any response I made would either be a lie or an unauthorized disclosure.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
don't see a big problem here, that's more a relict of the past, isn't it? i mean, when do you get access to permissions queues? right, if you're willing to contribute there. and how do you contribute there? by inserting otrs tags to commons pages ... so if you do your job right, you'll necessarily have to disclose your otrs membership at some point. it's part of the system. it might not be a problem if you're working on some project-specific queue (such as the one for wiki loves monuments or sth. similar), but then there's also no need for adding these users to the otrs group here. cheers, —Pill (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


Will someone add the flag to Russavia‏‎ (talk · contribs)'s account please? I confirm they are an OTRS agent, and seeing as they added the template to their userpage the problem being discussed in the thread above is void. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 06:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Trijnstel

Hi all. Please add the OTRS flag to my account. Today I was granted access to the OTRS system. Perhaps someone else could confirm it? Trijnstel (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely could! And in my usual kindness, I confirm that Trijnstel, after going through all the usual fraternity pledge rituals, is now indeed an official OTRS member. —Pill (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"IKnowEverythingAboutAnything" blacklisted

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#"IKnowEverythingAboutAnything" blacklisted.


Symbol support vote.svg Support = 24; Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose = 0; Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral = 1 - 100% Result.

Please flag him admin, thanks! a×pdeHello! 22:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh... technically you're right, but please leave the closure and archiving of admin requests in the future to actual crats, thanks. Trijnstel (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Something seems to be fishy about this request. Several voters rarely participate at Commons. --  Docu  at 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Mabdul

User:Mabdul now has the OTRS, and notes it on his userpage. Can you please add the flag to his bit. Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm Mabdul is an OTRS member. Trijnstel (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving RfA

Hey Eugene (yes, I know there are other crats, but you're the only active one), can you please do what needs to be done with Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rd232 (de-adminship). I have closed it off and archived it due to the nomination being withdrawn (I hope that is fine), but I guess it needs crat action to properly archive it, etc? Cheers, russavia (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is withdrawn anyone can do it (an admin) - I certainly have in the past and will do it now. Eugene does enough I think. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 16:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS members flag for Magog the Ogre

Hello, could you please give the OTRS members flag to Magog the Ogre? I am an OTRS administrator, so I can confirm that he has access to the permissions queue and is actually on OTRS. Cbrown1023 talk 14:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Another OTRS members flag required

Please add me as well, thanks  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

confirmed. —Pill (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please check Commons:Requests for comment, thanks. a×pdeHello! 15:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS bit through community process?

In this discussion I've made a proposal for establishing a community process (similar to admin candidacies) for giving the OTRS bit to non-admins at Commons. Your comments there would be appreciated. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag

Hello! I've recently been given access to photosubmission and permissions, and I've been told I need to get an OTRS flag. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Username rename request awaiting the bureaucrat's action. --Gleb Borisov (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do confirmation on your home project as you was requested. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I've already done that as required by the community regulations: "If you want to adopt the same name on Commons that you are already using on another wiki, you will be asked for evidence that you control the account on the other wiki". Obviously the name I want to adopt is Glossologist, not Gleb Borisov, which I want to replace. So please stop demanding me to do something that is not required by the regulations. --Gleb Borisov (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to remind you, but Russian Wikipedia is your home project. See there. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What username do I want to adopt? "Glossologist", right? So why does an account named otherwise need a "confirmation"? Please, re-read carefully the regulation quoted above. P.S. It is not mentioned anywhere that it's my home project. --Gleb Borisov (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please close the RfB of 99of9

The RfB of Russavia was closed after exactly 7 days. Please close the RfB of 99of9 (Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/99of9) also. It's now 10 days ago... Trijnstel (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggested to extend voting for a week. See comment there. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. I didn't see your suggestion overthere. Never mind then. Regards, Trijnstel (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Morning Sunshine

Hello. I have been given OTRS access. Pleas add me to the group. Thanks. Kind regards--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing OTRS flag

Hello. Please remove OTRS flag of Chaser as he revealed and no longer active in OTRS--Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Looks like the nominator himself has withdrawn his nomination at Commons:Administrators/Requests/ANGELUS. Do we need to keep this request open and let users to vote even when the voting is no longer valid? --Sreejith K (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Closed as withdrawn russavia (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS Flag for Steven Zhang

Hi, an OTRS user account has been created for User:Steven Zhang and has been given OTRS access. Please add him to the group (verify) Thanks and regards --Katarighe (Talk) 14:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Thehelpfulone

Hi, I have been given OTRS access, please can you add the appropriate flag to my account. Thanks, The Helpful One 18:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to confirm the above user is an OTRS user (although with a name like that, what doubt could there be!?) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 Not done – job collector. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I actually believed the evil red cross for a minute there. I guess I'll have to find somewhere else to collect jobs. ;) The Helpful One 05:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I know a few places..... –Juliancolton | Talk 21:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Алый Король

Please give the OTRS member flag to Алый Король (rights). I'm an OTRS administrator, so I can verify his access to the system. Cbrown1023 talk 19:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 21:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blackcat RfA

I think that Commons:RfA#Blackcat is ready for closure and promotion, isn't it?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Where are the new 'crats? ;-) Trijnstel (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Did it myself... us old guys gotta do all the work :) –Juliancolton | Talk 21:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I was waiting for someone else to close because I had been unusually involved in the discussion. But if you lot had been very slow, I would have taken matters into my own conflicted hands and closed against my own vote :). --99of9 (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't log in

Hi, I normally edit on English Wikipedia as wikipedia:en:User:Bazonka. I also have a dormant Commons User:Bazonka account. However I can't use this because I can't remember my password - instead I have been using this Bazonka2 account here. But this is a pain to use because every time I log in it automatically logs me in to Wikipedia under Bazonka2 which I don't want. I'm also trying to set up a unified login account for Bazonka, but I am unable to do so because (I think) my Bazonka account here is inaccessible.
I was advised on COM:HD to raise this here and ask for my Commons Bazonka account to be renamed so that a new one can be created, or for some other clever bureaucrat stuff to be done. Can you help? Thanks, Bazonka2 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that there is no email address associated with my Commons Bazonka account, so I can't use the Forgot Password option. (Yes, this is Bazonka, just not logged in...) 23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I renamed the Bazonka account. Please try to recreate it as soon as you can to avoid impersonation issues (although I doubt it'll come to that). This seems like the simplest solution in lieu of fancy tricks that could be done, so hope this helps a little. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Techman224

Hello, I just received access to OTRS, please give me the flag. Thanks. Techman224Talk 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnstel (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Madman

Could I please be put in the OTRS member usergroup? I'm a new volunteer. :) — madman 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Sven Manguard

Hi, I just received access with the above two users, so I'm requesting the flag be added to my account. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. The Helpful One 01:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ DoneJuliancolton | Talk 04:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unusual real name usurp needed

I raised a general policy real name usurpation discussion at Commons:VP#How to handle a complaint from someone with a rare name that happens to be the same as an uploader of sexually graphic images and would like to follow through on the specific request. The general discussion concluded that the principles of en:Wikipedia:U#Real names could apply to Wikimedia Commons.

This request is supported by email correspondence on OTRS ticket 2012022010002111 and to meet our values of transparency, I have confirmed they are comfortable for this matter to be raised on an open noticeboard. The issue is that the complainant has the real name "Tim Tight" and he is concerned that nude or sexual images uploaded under account User:Timtight might be assumed to be associated with him in real life, particularly as he appears to be the only person in the USA with this real name. He is not connected with the account in any way, this is a coincidence of naming. I have emailed the current owner of account User:Timtight who does not mind having his account renamed (his email reply available on the OTRS ticket) to avoid any distress to anyone with this as their real name. As well as the account rename, a number of images that include "Timtight" in the title would have to be changed (the file histories might have to be revdel-ed so as not to be associated with the old account name).

To simplify matters, the complainant has created the account User:Ttight which can usurp the Timtight account. The current owner of Timtight does not particularly care about the rename and I suggest they are moved to the available User:Tim111 as suitably anonymous (and without apparent SUL issues [16]). In summary User:Timtight → User:Tim111 and then User:Ttight → User:Timtight.

This is not a standard usurp, so I have not gone through Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests, particularly as the "from" account has only just been created (yet to make any edits) and this does not fit the normal criteria. Thanks -- (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal OTRS rights

Please remove Mercy (talk · contribs) in the "OTRS member" user group as his rights are removed, see also here. Trijnstel (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Any idea

Any idea how to empty special user categories such as Category:Galleries by Massimilianogalardi quickly ? --Foroa (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like useful extension of User:CommonsDelinker functionality or request for Commons:Bots/Work requests. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Hungarikusz Firkász


I'm a member of the Hungarian OTRS-team, please give me the OTRS flag.

Thanks. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Bennó (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Léna

Hello. Please give the flag for Léna. She has OTRS userbox on her userpage to show that she is an OTRS volunteer. I am also one so l can confirm that. Thank you in advance Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnstel (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2012

Admin rights removals have been requested at meta. Would a bureaucrat please sanction one of these two pages to indicate that this is the will of the community. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any requirement that the process by closed by bureaucrats in the policy. So unless I'm mistaken, no bureaucrat confirmation is necessary but will check again later. Snowolf (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, it is past practice that a sysop write the result, see Commons:Administrators/Inactivity_section/Aug-Sep_2011#Result, would be nice if we could have that :) Snowolf (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done I've added bureaucrat comments on the Steward reqeusts. --99of9 (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little annoyed with the billinghurst request (who is meta. admin) and the 99of9 action, as if such confirmations are generalized, it could become a precedent and create new traditions on meta. and increase the bureaucracy, increasing on all wikis the bureaucrats work. It always seemed clear to me, as hinted by Snowolf (who were by the way recently elected as steward), the meta. policy is the requested action should be documented with whether the relevant homewiki policy, whether the homewiki consensual decision process. So it would only require bureaucrat confirmation if the commons. policy would state it's to a bureaucrat to close the process. Could you confirm I'm right on the meta policy? --Dereckson (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC) P.S. I understand very well 99of9 you wanted to help and that we don't require our bureaucrats to weight each decision they make to see how it could THEORICALLY affect stuff like meta. requests following local projects decisions. The point of my intervention is to check if (i) I well understood the meta. policy (ii) think about how to close the next sysop inactivity confirmations in the future. --Dereckson (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Okey, a few things. First, no, we do not require bureaucrat to confirm the results, we go by local policy. Last time, a commons sysop (Axpde) tallied the results and posted in on meta, and a steward (Matanya) removed the userrights. I assume when you write of "meta policy", you're referring to how we handle the desysop, rather than meta's own procedure for desysop :) This time the tallying was missing and kinda threw us off a bit, but not to worry. While from a steward-point of view, it's much more immediate and simple if a 'crat closes the discussion says bam, desysop user X, Y and Z, I do not personally believe it is within our powers to ask for that. I have read the commons policy for inactivity and bureaucrats are mentioned only in one very specific instance, however I was just waiting for the tallying or the confirmation. Both work fine for me :) Once we received the confirmation from the 'crat, we proceeded to the removal, I would have done so even with the simple tallying but that came later. I'm unsure why you're referring to billinghurst as a meta admin, as that hat of his seems irrelevant to me here. He was likely asking for further clarification as a steward and commons sysop. Hope it clears stuff up a bit :) Snowolf (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's more clear, thank you. And you're right, I don't have to assume a meta. sysop has to know steward policies by hearth, so it's irrelevant. --Dereckson (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised about this requested clarification of a commons 'crat. As I'm a steward myself I knew what I did - I was planning to close it, but Morning Sunshine did it for me (thanks btw!). Wouldn't have made it any difference if I requested the removal instead of another local admin? If so, that would be very wrong... Trijnsteltalk 21:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not implying that meta require this. Please don't read anything big into my reply to this request. I was simply helping out after a request to check things over. It turns out (see below) it should have been checked earlier, because one of the de-sysops may have been mistaken, and I would have noticed that if he hadn't already been de-sysopped. --99of9 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Per Commons talk:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2012 (thank you, Nemo bis), at least one user — namely str4nd (talk · contribs) — has made more than the 5 required admin actions, all on February 3 (see log). Could a bureaucrat please resysop the admin in question, as this seems to be a human mistake that he had his bits removed? Thank you. odder (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    If you wish to know what happened, Str4nd received a message summarizing the inactivity policy telling him "If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.".
    Str4nd did immediately the 5 actions, but didn't signed to the table, and nobody saw that previously. This is currently under discussion under Commons talk:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2012. --Dereckson (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    Str4nd didn't make more than five admin actions on February 2. That was why he was on the list and that was why I send him the notice. The notice clearly asked him to sign on the inactivity page if he would like to retain his admin rights, not to make x admin actions before the beginning of March. Trijnsteltalk 21:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps the sensibility of what is clear or not depends of the language reading comprehension skill: he's en-2, while you're en-4. The message hasn't been translated into Finnish (his mother tongue) yet. --Dereckson (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    Hmm, yeah, good point. Didn't think of that. Trijnsteltalk 21:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reinstate admin flag of Str4nd

Please see this statement of Str4nd. I guess it would be good to give him the admin flag back. Trijnsteltalk 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear case when rights should be temporary giving away by owner. This life event is not something completely unexpected. I think will be good idea to give rights to user after his circumstances will be changed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done I reinstated his flag yesterday, per the spirit of the procedure, and the discussion on the talk page. He made a clear indication that he wished to retain his adminship, even though he failed to do one of the technical steps. --99of9 (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to re-add his name to Commons:List of administrators --Sreejith K (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I fixed it now. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


I think you can safely close this now ;-)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


Sorry, I must have missed the notice that my admin rights were being eliminated. Been quite busy with school and such, but really, I enjoy the work I've done on the commons and hope you can find it in your collective hearts to reinstate me!

Peace! Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

@'crats, see also his reply on his user talk. Please restore his admin rights here. Thanks! Trijnsteltalk 16:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please restore the admin rights of Andrew c (talk · contribs) too, see this and this edit. Trijnsteltalk 22:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored the adminship of both Bastique and Andrew c. Welcome back.--Jusjih (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Jusjih! Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be out of process. A new RfA is needed. --  Docu  at 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, deadminship seems to date from March not August last year [17]. --  Docu  at 17:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


I think it can be closed as successful RfA now.--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done by Russavia. Trijnsteltalk 11:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for TBloemink

I'm a member of the OTRS team. Could a bureaucrat grant me the OTRS flag? Thanks in advance, TBloemink talk 20:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed (permissions and info-nl). --AFBorchert (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Freaky Fries

I'm a member of the OTRS team. Could a bureaucrat grant me the OTRS flag? Thanks! Freaky Fries (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Whilst this is true Freaky Fries, you don't appear to have access to the permissions queue, please request that at otrswiki:Admin requests first, then you'll be granted the flag here. The Helpful One 15:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Judged by this edit, which contains an OTRS ticket of the queue permissions-nl, I assume he already has access to that queue... Trijnsteltalk 16:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed with an OTRS admin. The user's present level of access, although they're not explicitly in the permissions queue gives them access to permissions-nl. Please give Freaky the flag. The Helpful One 20:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I do indeed have access to permissions-nl :-) Freaky Fries (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Freaky Fries (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Temporary bot flag for Addihockey10

Hello! There are a few users who have great Creative Commons material on flickr. I was wondering if I could get the bot flag for a few hours to upload their files. Thanks! Addihockey10 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that I will be uploading above 1000 files. Addihockey10 (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Please can you link to the Flickr accounts you intend to upload? Are you sure every picture from their streams is in COM:SCOPE and satisfies our policies? Are the pictures already well described? How will they be categorized? --99of9 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Select sets of , and other sets here and there. I will be categorizing them myself. I find that they're pretty well described and if they aren't sufficiently described I'll expand on their descriptions. Addihockey10 (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Please can you be more specific. Can you post a list of all the sets you will upload in bulk? The full streams include plenty of out of scope files, old (still in copyright) family pics that were probably not taken by the author, derivative works, etc, etc... Basically I want to be able to verify that you are not going to instantly cause 100 deletion reviews. --99of9 (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, yes. I'd like to upload some of these sets (omitting useless photos ex. Uncle Steve waving) travel photos and photos of plants and places here again, omitting the odd useless photo. Addihockey10 (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
So the upload is not scripted? Or if it is, how will you be excluding out of scope pics? Sorry for all the questions, I'm not usually a bot reviewer, so if other 'crats want to step in and make the decision, feel free. --99of9 (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

closure requested

Could one of you please close Commons:Administrators/Requests/AleXXw, as AleXXw has withdrawn[18] his request for now. --Túrelio (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done as a non-'crat. Trijnsteltalk 19:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


We need to close Commons:Bots/Requests#BrooklynMuseumBot_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 at some point. It has been 2 years since the request and in my opinion user:BrooklynMuseumBot was one of the most robust mass upload bot. It does not matter if we approve or deny the bot flag, since the bot uploded images and stopped contributing over a year ago. :( --Jarekt (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Archived as stale. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Sphilbrick

Hello. Please give him OTRS flag as he has been given access. I am also an OTRS volunteer so I confirm this is true. (also see this). Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Kthoelen

Hi all. Please give Kthoelen (talk · contribs) the OTRS member flag. He is a confirmed OTRS volunteer and has access to the permissions-nl queue. Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 18:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Any 'crat available to grant this right to Kthoelen? :) Trijnsteltalk 09:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! - Kthoelen (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Wdwd

Hi, i would to ask for the OTRS member flag on commons. Thanks,--Wdwd (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Ralgis and Savh

They are new OTRS agents who have access to info-es and permission queue. I confirm this as I am also an OTRS members. Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And an OTRS flag for Igna (talk · contribs) as well please. He has also access to the queues info-es and permissions. Trijnsteltalk 15:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Antonorsi

He is a new OTRS agent who have access to info-es and permission queue. I confirm this as I am also an OTRS member. Thank you. Ralgis 15:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for User:Faebot

Hi, Faebot is used for various activities, mostly GLAM project related. I have added OTRS tickets en-mass by Faebot for certain uploads as part of my work as an OTRS volunteer, or by special request and would rather keep these automated actions under Faebot rather than Fæ. Future automated actions with OTRS tickets or corrections may be for large batch uploads for GLAM institutions. Can my bot have this flag to avoid being picked up by the abuse filter in the future? Thanks -- (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

End of RfA

Hello, I would just want to point out that my RfA is supposed to be finished, yet it keeps getting votes. Could someone please close it. Thank you very much for your time. Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response, I think everything is under control, except the fact that my status was not changed. Do not be shy to tell me if I do something wrong! Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, it was my mistake. Fixed now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot approvals

I hope nobody minds that I've started working on Commons:Bots/Requests. In my application for Bureaucratship I said I didn't have enough knowledge about bots, but having worked with one myself, I think I'm now roughly competent, and the backlog is very long. --99of9 (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Miss Manzana

Please give the OTRS flag to Miss Manzana (talk · contribs) as this is the newest OTRS member. See also here. I can confirm it as I'm one as well. Trijnsteltalk 22:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Nard the Bard

Please give the OTRS flag to Nard the Bard (talk · contribs). I can confirm he's one of our newest members and he already added a few licenses. Trijnsteltalk 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but can you really trust him? I hear he doesn't like kittens. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Only when Domokuns chase me. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Wpedzich

Please give the OTRS flag to Wpedzich (talk · contribs). He has access to the permissions queue for years now and added a few licenses recently. Trijnsteltalk 13:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Actullary this user had a OTRS status but it was removed after adding administrator one. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

closure of Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jameslwoodward (de-adminship)‎

Could one of you please speedy-close this desysop request, as it was retracted by the requester[19] resp. [20]. --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done I have performed a non-crat closure as it's withdrawn by nominator and clearly under Snowball clause. Feel free to revert it if I am wrong. Best regards--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding me to "OTRS member" usergroup?

I've recently become a member of the OTRS volunteer team, with access to queues including Permissions-Commons. At the Permissions-en-guide I saw a recommendation that I should make a request here to be added to the "OTRS member" usergroup, in order to be able to add OTRS confirmations like PermissionOTRS. So may I join the "OTRS member" usergroup too? Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I confirm Mikael Häggström has access to the permissions queues. Welcome! :) Trijnsteltalk 21:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More new OTRS members: Guerillero, Damzow, Jivee Blau and Hephaion

Please give Guerillero (talk · contribs) OTRS member rights too as I can confirm it and he added the OTRS template on his user page. Trijnsteltalk 21:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And last but not least, please give them to Damzow (talk · contribs) too. See he:User:Damzow for the on-wiki confirmation. Trijnsteltalk 21:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done and ✓ Done russavia (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Trijnsteltalk 21:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I checked the creation log and found Jivee Blau (talk · contribs) too within the last two weeks. See de:User:Jivee Blau for the confirmation. Trijnsteltalk 22:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Please add also Hephaion (talk · contribs), he is for three weeks OTRS-member. See de:User:Hephaion for confirmation. Wnme 18:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 19:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of OTRS member rights of ABF

Please remove the "OTRS member" rights of ABF (talk · contribs) as his OTRS account is closed. Thanks in advance. Trijnsteltalk 11:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OTRS-member flag removal perhaps

Hello. I continue to have access to the OTRS system however none of the queue(s) I have access too right now are about tickets or permissions (just office/steward tasks) as such I wonder wether it is still appropiate for me to have this flag set on my account as I'm no longer going to tag images with tickets nor can review tickets in the permissions queues any longer as I resigned those accesses two/three months ago. Shall I keep the permission or can it be removed? Regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 02:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't plant to work with OTRS permission for considerable time, it's good idea to give away related status. Anyway, it's not so hard to get it back, if you'll need it. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Eugene - exactly my thought. I don't plan to return to the permissions queue in the near future. Please remove my OTRS-member flag. I can continue doing OTRS stuff not related to permissions without the need of this permission. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Harold and Malatinszky

Please give Harold (talk · contribs) the OTRS member flag. I can confirm he has access to OTRS, which is also mentioned on his user page. Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 18:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment He triggered the filter (#69) a few times from March til June 2012, see here. Trijnsteltalk 18:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

One more user which is eligible for the OTRS member flag: Malatinszky (talk · contribs). He has access to OTRS as well and triggered the filter too (see here). Trijnsteltalk 18:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Same for User:MatthiasGor. --Krd 08:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done all three. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for PierreSelim

Hi, I've recently became a member of OTRS (with access to the permission queue), can you add me to the OTRS group ? Kind regards, --PierreSelim (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 12:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for APPER

Hi. Could you please add me to the OTRS group? I'm a member of the OTRS team for over seven years, but never got the flag here. --APPER (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 18:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS flag for Keilana

New OTRS member with access to the permissions queues: Keilana (talk · contribs). I can confirm that, but please see also the list of OTRS personnel. Trijnsteltalk 20:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi all,

Through private correspondence, User:PumpkinSky, formerly User:Rlevse (an elected local sysop) requested to be regranted his bit. Rlevse resigned of his own will quite a while ago, but given the fact that he had not been under any local controversy and he was a relatively long-standing and active admin, I took the initiative to fulfill his request. I plan to work with him to ensure that he becomes re-accustomed to the community's newer standards and expectations before diving into heavier administrative work.

With regards and the best intentions, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)