Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:BN

Bureaucrats' work area (archive)
Requests for bot flags
request | watch
To request a bot flag.
Requests for GWToolset and translation admin rights
request | watch
To request to become a GWToolset user or a translation administrator.
Other resources: Need administrator assistance? See the administrators' noticeboard. Need help? Try the FAQ, or the Help desk! Have an idea or suggestion? Tell us at the Village pump! Need a checkuser? See the CU request page!

This is a place where users can communicate with bureaucrats, or bureaucrats with one another. Please refer to the links above for specific bureaucrat requests.

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018

Expiration of GWT group memberships[edit]

In follow up to a note on the Village Pump, as GWT access is only granted by requests here, it is worth highlighting here that the following accounts are members of the gwtoolset group and have not made an upload to Wikimedia Commons for over a year, and in some cases for more than two years.

User Last upload
InfocollectieAM 20140808
Dan-nl 20150112
ACrockford 20150413
Neuchâtel Herbarium 20150616
Baugeschichtliches Archiv 20150630
DimitraCharalampidou 20150914
LizzyJongma 20150925
Rromir 20151104
Jan Ainali 20151215
Pietromarialiuzzo 20160204
Mmason23 20160405
Kelson 20161020
Fred ande 20161216
Eloquence 20170101
Ebastia1 20170302
Prolineserver 20170402
TeklaLilith 20170413

When we established the GWT group, there was an expectation that the right might expire if not used for a year, but this was never formalised in policy. I am considering putting a simple proposal that membership of this group will expire if any account makes no upload for more than 12 months. Even if the GWT is not itself used, the fact that an account is actively making uploads is a good indicator that they remain interested in upload projects and may have good reason to use the tool. As can be seen in the current list, some of the accounts are effectively retired or were only used for test purposes, so there is no good reason to have significant rights hanging around on unused accounts.

As with other expiring rights, it would be a good idea if users were notified in plenty of time before access is removed, and they can request an extension if they have realistic plans to make use of the tool.

I am not planning on making a proposal immediately, perhaps in a few days, and welcome feedback and ideas on what the proposal should contain, especially from 'crats or fellow GWT users. Thanks :-) -- (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Affected users should be notified on their talk page with instructions on how to re-apply for their rights. Maybe consider warning them before actually taking their rights. Otherwise I'm ok with this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I support the idea. The toolset can be requested back at any time, so this should not be any big deal. --Krd 11:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
+1 --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Good proposal Fae! Natuur12 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Good proposal, I'm all in favor of staying current. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@: As we're having the temporary rights feature now, another idea could be to generally grant this right for one year only, of course with possibility to request extension. This eliminates the task of reviewing the activity. What do you think? (I don't think this approach will work for other rights we have at Commons, but for GWT I think it happens quite often that this is needed for a year or shorter.) --Krd 18:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
An automated default 1 year term with easy renewal would seem a perfectly good way forward, thanks for the suggestion. Perhaps we should notify all the current GWT users listed here so they have a chance to comment before this is enacted. If someone wants to send notifications for this discussion that would be great, if not then I can look at those when I return from holiday.
Would GWT renewal requests be here, or is there a simpler way of doing those? -- (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any more simple way currently, but feel free to suggest. --Krd 05:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I prepared the list of people to be notified at User:-revi/MassMessage, but I need help with message text. — regards, Revi 09:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Notification sent. — regards, Revi 15:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
As long as notification time is plenty and there is a message on the users's talk page about the right being revoked, I don't see objections. This applies to the GWT on the Commons production environment only, or also to GWT on Commons beta? --OlafJanssen (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This proposal is only for Commons production. In terms of notifications, the process will be that access automatically expires after a year. A bot task can send out reminders that this is going to happen, though that has yet to be defined. This is pretty efficient in volunteer time as the only time humans would step in, is when a user requests an extension as they still want access. The beta site stays flexible and without any specific guidelines. On beta, GWT access might be removed in a very informal way, just as informally as it is handed out, there are no plans to do this sort of thing on Beta right now.
GWT users have invariably been well established accounts, or GLAM professionals like yourself. Neither of these types of user or their colleagues will have any problem requesting future access or extensions, if they have plans to use the tool. -- (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems fine with me. I haven't done a GWT upload in years and don't plan on doing so, so feel free to remove my rights. Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 17:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Revi for the heads-up. I also don't see a problem with this proposal. We might still use the GWT at a later date, but I don't mind requesting permission again. Best. 85jesse (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. +1. --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
It is said that the GWT right can be requested easily. I do think that we need to communicate very clearly to the affected users, requesting the right again can been seen as something that demotivates these users. I think we need to make it required that a message is posted on the user's talk page who is/are affected, saying something like: 1. It has been noticed that the right to use the GLAMwiki Toolset has not been used since ..., 2. On Commons we have set the policy to remove this right after ... time of not using it, because security reasons, etc etc ... 3. If you would like to do a new upload with the GLAMwiki Toolset, you can easily request it on ... . Or something like that, so that people know what is happening, why that is, and how to regain the right. Romaine (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
A +1 from me. --DivadH (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Per above discussion I have removed the rights from the accounts listed above and notified them on their talk pages. I'd also like to add the discussion result to any GW overview page, but I'm undecided which are relevant. Please feel free to assist. Thank you. --Krd 08:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The most appropriate place is mw:Help:Extension:GWToolset. I'll add a note to it, probably the "asking for user rights" section. -- (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The manual is now amended to mention the GWT right is for one year at a time, see mw:Help:Extension:GWToolset#Asking_for_user_rights. Thanks to everyone reviewing this minor change to improving management of rights and contributing to making it happen. :-) -- (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I think we're done here for now, and perhaps we should have a review in a year or so and summarize how this performs. --Krd 15:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for Bureaucrat review of sysop action[edit]

Hi, could a Bureaucrat please examine the user block and background under discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_appears_to_be_an_inappropriate_indef_block_of_User:Rowan_Forest?

Yann appears unable to respond positively to questions about their actions, preferring instead to accuse me of being a troll, regardless of being unable to supply any evidence that my one question, or my own actions anywhere else, is anything other than perfectly factual and intentionally polite and civil.

When the community is unable to ask questions of an administrator without getting personal attacks in response, there is a serious issue with our project governance. Thanks -- (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time to close those discussions. Any general discussions on how we should improve our communication can be continued in appropriate boards. Jee 03:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree and think our 'crats should have stopped it the moment Fae started his revenge poll. It is against clear policy, which requires a discussion, consensus-forming and not the settling of personal disputes. -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No comment from a bureaucrat even after nine days? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Still no update a week after the closure? Where's the accountability? Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact that a bunch of trolls end up disrupting the dicussion we were having doesn’t mean there’s no merits to it. It was abundantly demonstrated that some of Yann’s recent actions need scrutiny and that should be taken seriously. -- Tuválkin 11:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The original discussion has run its course and been closed, referring to bureaucrats for any further action. When can we expect to see a decision to pursue sanctions or to dismiss the matter? JFG (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The situation is difficult during the holiday season as many people are on vacation. Only few bureaucrats, including myself, have spoken with Yann privately, and there appears consensus that Yann does understand the issue and will make sure such incident will not happen again. I'm convinced no further action is warranted. As said before, I will not close this section as I already commented in the previous discussion, so this will be kept open for some more days for another crat to make the final comment or raise any different opinion. --Krd 05:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks Krd, if the crats here are happy that no further action is needed, that seems fine. The crucial thing, I think, is not that a mistaken block was made. It's that editors really should not be blocked with all avenues of appeal cut off except as a last resort - certainly not in the first instance. I think that's especially important on a project which has no equivalent of the UTRS system and no Arbcom - and from what you say, I guess that's agreed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    From what I've understood, your point is valid and important and has been addressed accordingly. --Krd 19:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for rights: interface administrator[edit]

Hello, Administrators will loos access to edit scripts in the MediaWiki namespace soon. In order to continue with editing and maintaining scripts in the MediaWiki namespace (including gadgets), please add me to the aforementioned usergroup. This will not add any new user rights (see Special:UserGroupRights) but keep status quo after the removal. For details see here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  • See also Commons:Village pump#New_user_group_for_editing_sitewide_CSS/JS, @Perhelion, Zhuyifei1999, Srittau, Ebrahim: The pingerd users (can you confim?) and maybe others wo are editing in MW namespace should be added as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Steinsplitter. I would like to be added as well. While I don't work on our scripts often (because they are frankly a bit intimidating), I am a professional software developer, so I can pretend to know what I'm doing. P.S. I also use 2FA for Wikimedia sites. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I too would like the interface administrator permission in addition to my existing administrator rights so as to continue editing these pages. I am familiar with JS/CSS, my account is 2FA enabled, and I edited a script in the MediaWiki namespace as recently as a couple of days ago. —RP88 (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I would like to request for this group as well. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I have to maintain my scripts around, so. 2FA here also. −ebrahimtalk 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind to give status that way to at least two requesters, but because interface administrator status is even more important /potentially dangerous then administrator status, should we make process at least like request for administrator rights? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please no. I rather trust the crats their judgement then having a popularity poll. Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Eugene, This is not about adding any new permissions to the interface. The rights are getting removed from the admin toolkit for security reasons, we got elected to use those tools. I don't see any community consensus here on commons to remove those tools from commons admins. Best :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that every admin in good standing who can make plausible any need should receive the right on request. If there is no objection shortly I suggest to implement this accordingly. --Krd 14:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I am biased, of course, but at least for existing, active admins I believe this right should be assigned unbureaucratically (no pun intended). Existing admins are already trusted with editing those pages and we need to ensure the maintenance for the time being. That said I am open for a tightened process in the future. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, take my opinion with a grain of salt as I requested this right above, but as I see it up to now the community has trusted every administrator with the ability to edit JS and CSS in MediaWiki namespace since their election, so this is mostly about limiting the scope of harm an account compromise can do. That is, if an administrator is not interested in editing JS or CSS, why not limit the damage their account can do if compromised? I'm of the opinion that any admin with the interest and ability to edit JS or CSS should be granted permission to do so, so long as they agree to take reasonable steps to protect their account against compromise. For that matter, I'd strongly encourage every admin to enable 2FA even after this right goes live as the damage a compromised admin account can do will still be excessive, even without the ability to edit JS/CSS in the MediaWiki namespace. —RP88 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Personally, I don't need the right now, so I will request when I need it (and relinquish it when I won't). Hopefully there will be a simple process for that. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Removal of the right is currently with the Stewards, as is the removal of admin flag. But we can grant the flag temporary on request. I'd prefer to gather some experience first how much fluctuation there is before we discuss every theoretically possible scenario, and combine are reasonable changes in one proposal, if possible. --Krd 15:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Strangely, it appears that on en.WP that bureaucrats can remove the interface administrator group but on Commons they can not. I wonder if this was an oversight on the part of developers when updating the Commons configuration for the new group. —RP88 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Because enwiki crats can remove sysop. --Krd 17:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This really shouldn't be a big deal especially because admins have been elected by the community for using those tools (See COM:A). I am not amused that tools are getting removed from the admin toolkit whiteout local community consensus or a poll. Editing the interface is the hearth of the sysop[sic.] toolkit. As far i can see this new user group has been introduced as a security measure and thus it should be a no-brainer to add admins who are editing in MW namespaces to this usergroup. If admins are unable to edit the interface, then bugs in tools (e.g. VFC, filemove interface, watchlist notice) etc. cannot be fixed and regular maintenance tasks such as updating dependencies and fixing deprecations is not possible. All of the admins who asked to be added to this usergoup are experienced with editing in the MW namespace, and needless to say that they haven't caused any issues in the past. I want to point out again: This user group does not add any new rights to the sysop toolkit, we have yet been elected for using those tools, it is only some sort of security layer. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
So … what about non-admins? I promised several kind people to accept a nomination for adminship in the not too extremely distant future, however, I don't feel comfortable doing so with a time budget that won't allow me to seriously help with admin backlogs in the near- to mid-term. However, I used a weekend worth of time to convert my OTRS release generator tool to JavaScript for use directly on a Commons page (a new home that would have many benefits I'd be more than willing to elaborate on) and would like to transfer the necessary pages to the MediaWiki (interface) namespace in order to set up and maintain the tool from there. Any chance those new technical "opportunities" developers just gave us could be used to allow long-term users who don't (yet) have the time for the full admin workload to work on tools and maintain them in the MediaWiki namespace?    FDMS  4    18:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Non-admins should be able to get it if they need it. My point above was it should be easily given and removed. To be really an effective security improvement, it should be only given when only when used, and removed when the use has gone. So I suggest that the right to be given for a six months or one year period, renewable on demand. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Almost one week is over, how we proceed with this? :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for the reminder. :) As discussed at the bureaucrats mailing list (with admittedly low participation) I'm going to propose as below, IMO the most simple rule set that catches every aspect. Feel free to comment, but please don't consider this as a vote. If it's going to be controversial and a vote is required, this has to be brought to wider audience. Please also don't consider it as a rule set to be carved in stone, but as a common sense solution that can be implemented with low impact. If problems arise it can be modified per discussion. --Krd 09:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


  • Every Administrator who can make plausible a need to edit the interface will be granted temporary or permanent Interface administrators right on request at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard per bureaucrats discretion.
  • If Administrator status is revoked as result of inactivity or result of a deadmin request, interface admin rights shall also be removed.
  • If Administrator status is voluntarily relinquished, interface admin rights may be retained if needed.
  • Non-Administrator users may request Interface administrators right via Commons:Administrators/Requests. The same criteria as for normal admin requests apply.
  • Non-Administrator users who hold Interface administrators right are subject to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship in the same way Administrators are.
  • A reasonable proposal, makes sense. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Reasonable, IMO. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not 100% sure about the FRA-requirement for non admins but it's the only proposal we have and it's my only doubt so I would support this. Natuur12 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds very reasonable. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with the others above. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. – Kwj2772 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


As there appears unanimous approval, I'm going to implement this as proposed. Please note again that this is not carved in stone but a pragmatic solution until the community agrees on anything different. --Krd 12:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Initial requests[edit]

Requesting translation administrator rights[edit]

Hi! Like last year, I would like to request temporary translation administrator rights in order to work on pages for the Norwegian WLM campaign. This time I'm starting a bit earlier (phew!), so I'd like to request the right for two months instead of one. Jon Harald Søby (WMNO) (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 18:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)