Commons:Bureaucrats

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎עברית • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어 • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎Türkçe • ‎українська
This project page in other languages:

Alemannisch | brezhoneg | Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | norsk bokmål | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | shqip | slovenčina | suomi | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Shortcuts
COM:BCRAT
COM:BURO
COM:CRAT
Bureaucrats as of May 2015 [+/−]

Number of bureaucrats: 7

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

If you want to request bureaucrat help, please post at Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

What is a bureaucrat?[edit]

Commons bureaucrat icon

Technical[edit]

Bureaucrats are administrators with the technical ability on Wikimedia Commons to:

These are collectively known as the bureaucrat tools.

Community role[edit]

Bureaucrats are experienced and trusted administrators who have agreed to take on additional tasks and have been entrusted with the bureaucrat tools by public consensus/vote.

Different bureaucrats have different areas of interest and expertise, but typical bureaucrat tasks include determining and closing:

  • requests for admin rights, bureaucrat rights, checkuser rights and oversight rights,
  • requests for permission to run a bot on Commons (including granting a bot flag where necessary),
  • requests for a change of username, and
  • ad hoc discussions/votes/polls relating to the operation of any of the above.

Bureaucrats are expected to be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues. They also have to be able to deal sensitively with confidential information (occasionally disclosed to the bureaucrats as a group), and to be able to judge what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly on wiki.

Apart from roles which require use of the bureaucrat tools, bureaucrats have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor. Any influence they may have is derived from their standing in the community. It is not that they gain special status by virtue of being a bureaucrat; rather, it is because bureaucrats are chosen from a pool of highly respected users, and highly respected users typically have some influence in the community anyway.

A bureaucrat closing a discussion or vote will do so on the basis of policy and if appropriate on the basis of consensus. Bureaucrats are trusted with a measure of discretion in all cases, and discussions/votes are never closed simply on the basis of a vote count. Bureaucrats may give more weight to well-argued opinions than unargued votes, and they may discount or partly discount votes and opinions of users who have made only a few contributions to Commons. Bureaucrats also have discretion to extend the period of a discussion or vote where they feel that would lead to a clearer consensus or otherwise improve the outcome.

It is allowed for a bureaucrat to close a discussion or vote on which they have previously expressed an opinion, but in such a case the closing bureaucrat should take care to close based on policy and overall consensus, and not on his/her own views. The bureaucrat's opinion/vote should be taken into account in the same way as that of the other voters, but with no special weight given to it. If the issue is particularly contentious, or the bureaucrat has become closely identified with one side of the argument, he or she may wish to ask another bureaucrat do the closing.

Mailing list[edit]

The Bureaucrat mailing list (bureaucrats-commons) is intended as a convenient way to notify bureaucrats about urgent matters, and on rare occasions to discuss private matters. To contact the bureaucrat mailing list, please e-mail bureaucrats-commons@lists.wikimedia.org. If you wish to notify the bureaucrats of an urgent matter, please include a link to any relevant on-wiki discussion. If you have a private request, please explain why it must remain private. If you prefer to contact an individual bureaucrat directly, you do not have to use the mailing list.

How do I become a bureaucrat?[edit]

First, read Commons:Bureaucrats/Howto.

When you are ready, make your request using the box below, replacing Username with your own user name.



For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Commons:Requests and votes page.

Voting[edit]

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

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

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

Requests for bureaucratship[edit]

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

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

AFBorchert[edit]

Vote

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

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

Dear Commons community.

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

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

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

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

Votes[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Green Giant (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 01:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Simply because he was the responsible adult in many cases. Trying to mediate in admin conflict cases as like bureaucrat should do, even without being a crat. Geagea (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very well thought comments, always -- Rillke(q?) 06:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Always wise in heated discussions, I think you'll make a good addition to the bureaucrat team. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per PierreSelim and Geagea. A person who knows how to judge consensus and resolve conflicts is the best candidate to be a bureaucrat. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support AFBorchert is a fine admin, and their response to Rschen7754's topical question shows respect and maturity to dealing with sensitive issues while looking out for the interests of the community. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am very impressed by AFBorchert's careful analysis of difficult deletions. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Ch1902 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ankry (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have only good things to say about AFBorchert. Whenever I have seen his comments I have seen them as wise and cool-headed. I think you will be a great asset to the 'crat team. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support experienced and trustworthy administrator who will make an excellent bureaucrat. Nick (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the mediation has been noticed. --Abd (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We are not always on the same page. That's why. :-) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Tiptoety talk 09:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No reason not to support. Trijnsteltalk 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

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

Ellin Beltz[edit]

Vote

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

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

Dear Commons community.

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

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

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


Votes[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Green Giant (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – calm, friendly, reasonable and as such someone I'd definitely entrust with leadership. I hope being a crat won't change your positive attitude :) .    FDMS  4    01:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 01:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 09:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong opposition against this user who prefers deletion of obvious free media to fixing problems. Sorry this can be ok for sysop, but it's not the leadership I'm expecting for this project. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
PierreSelim, can you show some filenames or diffs? Taivo (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The exemples don't matter for me, it's a question of personnality and leadership. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Pierre, I searched both our names and found [5] that you and I are on the same side of most of the deletion nominations on which we've worked together. I don't remember any situation with you that would cause you to claim I prefer "deletion of obvious free media to fixing problems" and I don't see any such discussion in these Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adoptaunfamoso.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blooblah, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Florencia Palombarini.6.jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hymalaya.jpg for only the top four examples where you closed nominations as "deleted". If you're referring to [6], I don't see that there was an issue after Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation fixed the file template. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes the Dan Garry thing is a good evidence of the leadership I don't want. You deleted legit images, with proof that author agreed to the publication under free licence, just to force someone to use OTRS and add burden to the few agents we have. Sorry, I can accept that for Sysop, not for Bureaucrat. Keep in mind, I appreciate the hard work you are doing. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, I don't see why not. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Ch1902 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not know Ellin Beltz terribly well, but I appreciate and agree with her answers below. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course, friendly and experienced user. Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support another experienced administrator with the right mix of knowledge and tact to make an excellent bureaucrat. Nick (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Trusted user. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stand in comments about "command structure," against autonomy of Commons, necessary for a balance of power. Stewards and the WMF, by design, serve the communities, not the other way around. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Slaunger -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I cannot in good faith do anything other than oppose this candidate given their reply to @Rschen7754's question below and their seeming lack of understanding of the relationship between Commons, Wikimedia stewards, and the Wikimedia Foundation. This just doesn't bode too well for the future. odder (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Suitable candidate, would be my choice. Trijnsteltalk 17:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [7][8] [9][10] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Rs: I think it would be best to handle situations as they come up than to try to do a pile of Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking [11] after the fact. It is rarely productive to criticize from hindsight. At the time all this was happening, I read about it. As I had no involvement with any of those situations, I deliberately chose to stay out of it. Not every admin has to be involved in every situation and as I am nothing but an admin - I did not feel that my opinions on that situation count. If I had been a bureaucrat at that time; I would have waited for a request for involvement prior to butting into the situation. I don't think bureaucrat means "cowboy in white hat ready to leap into every discussion and have huge shoot out until cowboy is the only one standing". Rather, I think it means a quiet, careful thinker who is unlikely to be emotionally sucked into abusive situations, trolling and attempts to game the system. Specifically for your question about "removed globally by stewards or the WMF". In a similiar case, I would agree with the WMF and stewards due to their priority in the command structure of the project. In a real-life example... if a general in the army says "do this" and a sergeant says "no", the sergeant is wrong for having failed to work within the framework of the command structure to which he/she agreed by enlisting. As editors on Commons we've all signed up for accounts and agreed to work together within a framework of rules and guidelines. We here - as editors and admins - are in no position to revert the decisions of the WMF and the stewards without lengthy public discussions with all involved parties prior to reversion. Thanks for the query! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There are many ways to view the relationship between WMF and the volunteer community. I don't think the general/sergeant analogy you suggest is totally helpful, in the sense that WMF don't generally give commands that we then follow in order to do our normal activities. Nor is it the topsy-turvy illusion Abd offers. But yes, the "reality check" is that WMF do own the "OFF" switch and pay for the servers, and it is often said we have only two rights: the right to fork and right to leave. But they have devolved a lot of power to the volunteers. I don't believe Commons is a good example of "the wisdom of the crowd" since the vocal crowd here is rather small and mostly under-employed young men. Still, I hope you won't think you are now a god and can go about pressing buttons at will, and start reverting things merely because of who did it or that some process wasn't followed. I hope you will work towards us all viewing Commons as a team that includes both WMF and volunteers, rather than us-and-them battleground mentality that seems to have developed. One concern is your stated disinclination to get involved unless asked. I'd hope that a 'crat would sense when the community is dealing with a big issue, and not shy away from offering their carefylly-considered opinion, leading, and making constructive dialogue with all parties. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Colin I would never become a "god"... your most puissant "goddess" perhaps but never a god.Face-wink.svg Agreed my analogy was not what it could have been, but as this is (as you say) mostly a male environment it was intended to appeal to male perspective. And yes, WMF do not "generally give commands" but the initial question was what to do following the WMF blocking a particular user unilaterally (and completely within their rights to do so) and all the fallout thereafter. I was thinking of that particular situation for the analogy. And also, for that situation, I would have waited to be asked for opinion as I had no involvement in any of it and I would have needed to research the issues and personalities to even begin to put forward an cogent opinion. I think we are all one team working together - and the times we forget that, we only make ourselves weaker. I hope these small remarks help your understanding, if not I will be back at a terminal later tonight or tomorrow and can answer again then. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Krd: As nominator, please could you make the case that these people are suited to the position? (i.e. Why did you choose them in particular?) Alternately the candidates may wish to suggest reasons they are suitable to take up the position. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    99of9, let me answer you as the person who started the BN discussion and suggested these names. 1. As I mentioned there, we are facing some difficulties in handling difficult situations where admin opinions are well divided. URAA and Russavia case are good examples. As all admins have equal rights it is difficult to manage them when they themselves start edit wars and all other bullshits. We need a higher authority to handle such cases. One existing board is crats. ("Bureaucrats are expected to be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues. They also have to be able to deal sensitively with confidential information (occasionally disclosed to the bureaucrats as a group), and to be able to judge what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly on wiki.") But unfortunately only a few crats are active nowadays. Two of them recently resigned and their seats are vacant. We need to strengthen the team. 2. Regarding the names I mentioned: I checked the last years' activity list and select some names familiar in discussion who have a talent to solve issues than boost them. I consciously avoided people who involved in the two disputes mentioned above. I avoided people who have some extra rights like CU/OS etc to encourage decentralization of power. Hope I explained enough. Jee 02:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks Jee @Jkadavoor:. I am asking about your point 2. So here you offer: active, not in two particular disputes, not CU/OS, familiar, and "with a talent to solve". The first four of these points are not contentious, but IMO do not add up to crat-material on their own. It's the final "with a talent to solve" that I'd like to know more about. Please can somebody point to some specific diffs or conversations that demonstrate this talent for each candidate? Other points of interest to me would be demonstrations of the requirements you quoted: leading/guiding/sensitive-dealing. --99of9 (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    For Ellin Beltz, I remember how s/he helps to resolve conflicts through talk page discussions. I don't want to involve more in this discussion; prefer to leave it to others. Thanks. :) Jee 03:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    The candidates are those suggested at the corresponding discussion at the BNB. My though as nominator was to not express my personal preference for any of those candidates by writing individual praise essays; this may or may not have been a good idea. Anyway I without any doubt can support all of those candidates. All are active and respected Commons admins, and the group to my opinion is well spread over timezones, home wikis and interests.
    If I'm not mistaken we currently don't have recruitment processes for the advanced roles besides self nominations, so we maybe should get some more active crats first to take care of such things. If there is a better approach, please advise. Thank you. --Krd 07:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you write something about you? Like writing your own statements like what Steinsplitter and AFBorchert do?--AldNonUcallin?☎ 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, and will do it as soon as possible, but not before tomorrow. I am enroute after the holiday. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Taivo[edit]

Vote

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

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

Dear Commons community.

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

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

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


Votes[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Green Giant (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 01:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 06:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 09:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Taivo is a very solid administrator and I think would do well as bureaucrat. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I am not so keen on supporting one of the admin who delete these files Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/01#All_Indonesian_government_pictures_are_copyvio, much less understanding Indonesian complicated laws. But I'm neutral because I believe in benefit of the doubt--AldNonUcallin?☎ 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ankry (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per positions at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat), Commons:Administrators/Requests/JurgenNL (de-adminship) and Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat), which I would not expect a competent bureaucrat to take. Эlcobbola talk 18:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find it surprising to see you cite @Taivo's vote in my de-RfB as a reason to oppose him becoming a bureaucrat since he hasn't written anything particularly controversial in his comment there. Is there something I am missing here? odder (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per especially Commons:Administrators/Requests/JurgenNL (de-adminship), which concerns me greatly regarding personal judgement, and the expectation to handle discretion as a 'crat. The other two examples mentioned by elcobbola are also of concern for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have exactly the same concerns as Slaunger. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Tends to oversimplify controversies (also shown by some of the links above).    FDMS  4    20:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I looked at the discussions cited above and while Taivo's comments there were not strong, they also were not reasons to oppose. --Abd (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per others above. Yann (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Basically per Elcobbola. --Rschen7754 00:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I took a look at the contributions of this user and the links above, the human qualities necessary for more responsibility are demonstrated for me. -- Christian Ferrer 19:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Unimpressed with the answer to the first question posed below. Tiptoety talk 09:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Trusted in general, but I am a bit worried about the comment in the Dutch de-sysop request. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Elcobbola. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not sure. Taivo is a good admin, but crats should be uncontroversial imho (which Odder isn't either indeed, but I chose not to vote then). Trijnsteltalk 17:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

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

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

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

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

JuTa[edit]

Vote

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

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

Dear Commons community.

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

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

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


Votes[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Green Giant (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 01:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Preliminary Symbol support vote.svg Support. Looks good at first glance. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm running out of unique statements, but yet another experienced user who can lead the community well. Nick (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stefan4 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Trusted and active admin but not involved in bot approval process, GWT and translation stuff. Also concerns because of mass unprotections in January 2015. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little controversial - I like that. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Rillke(q?) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wieralee (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ColonialGrid (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No reason not to support. Trijnsteltalk 17:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [16][17] [18][19] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    I would not start a wheelwar, if you think about that. If I would strongly disagree with such a desicion, I would complain on commons and/or on meta, I would take part or try to organize i.e. a poll against it, but i would not wheelwar. regards. --JuTa 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Krd: As nominator, please could you make the case that these people are suited to the position? (i.e. Why did you choose them in particular?) Alternately the candidates may wish to suggest reasons they are suitable to take up the position. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    The candidates are those suggested at the corresponding discussion at the BNB. My though as nominator was to not express my personal preference for any of those candidates by writing individual praise essays; this may or may not have been a good idea. Anyway I without any doubt can support all of those candidates. All are active and respected Commons admins, and the group to my opinion is well spread over timezones, home wikis and interests.
    If I'm not mistaken we currently don't have recruitment processes for the advanced roles besides self nominations, so we maybe should get some more active crats first to take care of such things. If there is a better approach, please advise. Thank you. --Krd 07:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • JuTa, what would you do as a bureaucrat. How do you see your role? -- Rillke(q?) 18:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    Mainly in the technical tasks: looking after Admin- and Bot-Request and grant or deny those user rights based on the poll/discussion. For the Bot part I have to have a deep a look arround before start deciding anything, because I wasn't involved in those request in the past. This means i.e. reading (a lot of) archived accepted an denied requests to learn whats the base to accept or deny. I Maybe, maybe not "grow" with time in a kind of "leadership" role discussed like here, I don't know yet. regards. --JuTa 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@JuTa: you also plan to work on GWT and TA requests on BN? --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, if I notice a (permanent) backlog there, I might to work in this as well. regards --JuTa 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, good luck with your crat request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Krd[edit]

Vote

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

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

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

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

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

Votes[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course -- Rillke(q?) 19:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like users holding multiple advanced permissions - admin, checkuser and bureaucrat. It makes separation of roles and activity difficult and means we lose a checkuser and a bureaucrat if the become busy in real life. No issues with the candidate and would have full support otherwise. Nick (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Um, what, he's not already a bureaucrat? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - hardworking admin and CU. I support users having multiple advanced permissions because if we can trust them with one, why would we not trust them with two or three. In response to the argument of "separation of powers", the original aim of that doctrine was to stop one person holding multiple reins of power over a nation, whereas in Commons there is no limit on how many people could hold these permissions, for example English Wikipedia (a project of similar size and complexity to Commons) has 30+ bureaucrats, 40+ checkusers, 50+ oversighters. If we have more users with such permissions, it will drastically reduce the opportunities for abuse (which is what I think is the real reason some users oppose multiple permissions being given to one person). Green Giant (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Absolutely not. His abysmal record as an OTRS admin is enough of a reason to oppose his candidacy, and I obviously agree with Nick's comment regarding the issue of separation of powers. His behaviour over the situation regarding CheckUser and OTRS accountability to Commons community (and related transparency problems) makes me very concerned about granting Krd any additional user rights. [edited] Plus his lack of understanding of what constitutes an office actions is one more reason. odder (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Geagea (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the idea "separation of powers". But the first thing to do if we want to implement it is to ask odder and Tiptoety to step down from one role. Jee 01:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jkadavoor: Voting in favour of more people holding multiple user rights is hardly consistent with that approach then :-) odder (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes; I'll strike off my vote if you show the path through deeds than words. Isn't it ironic if a man asks "no smoking; please" while keeping a burning Cigar between his lips? :) Jee 04:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Your metaphor is, sadly, not quite accurate. As stated in that RfC, I would be more than happy to drop my bureaucrat role if we agree that no one should hold more than one advanced user right; unfortunately, @Tiptoety was unwilling to move in that direction, and I see no point in me leading the way if there is no one to follow. odder (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Leadership demands courage. Who cares what others are doing? If I were in your case, I would have dropped one right in the first place; even before creating that RfC. But yes; people are different. Jee 01:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not because of "auto-grant crat to CU", but because I trust them through watching how they interact with others on this site and on OTRS. --Rschen7754 03:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that OTRS and CU experience are an asset to the 'crat team. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Already admin, botmaster, CU. I think Krd would make a good crat as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. INeverCry 20:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not a fan of combining various flags, but on the other hand Krd will certainly do fine as crat. Trijnsteltalk 18:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support trusted, experienced, long-term user, familiar with bot approval process. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [20][21] [22][23] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    I would not wheelwar against office actions, as this is hardly a reasonable approach. Opening a community discussion is always a good idea if there is some possibility that the action was unjustified or the actor could simply have been mistaken, but it should be discussed first. --Krd 03:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    I think you should familiarize yourself with the definition of what constitutes an office action as defined on Commons and Meta. I would expect any user holding advanced permissions to have that knowledge, and it is of grave concern to me that you are running for additional user rights while not being familiar with this crucial policy. odder (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward[edit]

Vote

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

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

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

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

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

Votes[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support incredibly diligent and long-term user, always a friendly response provided a friendly request -- Rillke(q?) 19:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just the person we need for the job. Natuur12 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like users holding multiple advanced permissions - admin, checkuser and bureaucrat. It makes separation of roles and activity difficult and means we lose a checkuser and a bureaucrat if the become busy in real life. No issues with the candidate and would have full support otherwise. Nick (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Highly trusted user. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above.    FDMS  4    20:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - hardworking admin and CU. I support users having multiple advanced permissions because if we can trust them with one, why would we not trust them with two or three. In response to the argument of "separation of powers", the original aim of that doctrine was to stop one person holding multiple reins of power over a nation, whereas in Commons there is no limit on how many people could hold these permissions, for example English Wikipedia (a project of similar size and complexity to Commons) has 30+ bureaucrats, 40+ checkusers, 50+ oversighters. If we have more users with such permissions, it will drastically reduce the opportunities for abuse (which is what I think is the real reason some users oppose multiple permissions being given to one person). Green Giant (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Absolutely. With no necessity, and wrongly, called a user a "liar," based on a flawed legal interpretation of a legal case that should have been irrelevant (this was "outing," as well).[24]. Holds and enforces views on bystander selfies that are at odds with WMF legal opinion, case law, and common sense. Not bureaucrat material at all. --Abd (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Abd, as I closely followed the situation he mentions, as well as due to his behaviour over the issue of CheckUser transparency and accountability raised by @. odder (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see why not. Jim is a knowledgeable admin in the area of copyright and knows how to resolve issues well. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 23:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Hard working admin for many years. Even though he is admin for many years he never forget treat properly to newcomers.-- Geagea (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the idea "separation of power". But the first thing to do if we want to implement it is to ask odder and Tiptoety to step down from one role. Jee 01:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see Jameslwoodward's CU experience as asset to the 'crat team. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. INeverCry 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Per Abd and per Jameslwoodward's treatment of Saibo in 2012. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – A strong contributor to Commons who has earned my trust and respect as an admin, and who I believe will make an effective bureaucrat. CT Cooper · talk 13:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not a fan of combining various flags, but on the other hand Jim will certainly do fine as crat. Trijnsteltalk 18:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Rillke --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I have added a comment there below the archived section. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [25][26] [27][28] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
First, consult with my fellow 'crats, just as the CU team now consults regularly on anything that is not cut and dried. If we thought that the stewards or WMF were definitely wrong, I think we would start by discussing it with them. I hope that if we create a solid team of well respected bureaucrats here, that the higher powers would pay attention when we called them on issues.
Note that I use "we" throughout the comment above. Unlike the Admin role, which almost always acts rapidly and usually alone, I see the role of a bureaucrat as one of a team that acts with deliberate care -- not necessarily slowly, but in minutes or hours rather than the typical Admin decision which is made in seconds.
Incidentally, I have deliberately not read or voted in any of the other Bureaucrat elections that are going on so that I can answer questions here without using words or thoughts from colleagues. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

See also[edit]