Commons:Administratorzy

Uprawnienia administratora przyznawane są znanym i zaufanym członkom społeczności, którzy znają politykę Commons. Uprawnienia administratora nie mają sugerować kontroli edytorskiej nad projektem.

Administrators as of May 2013 [+/−]

Listing by language Listing by date

Number of Admins: 271 1Veertje, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 32X, de, en-2, hsb-1, ru-1 99of9, en (bureaucrat) á, fi, en-2, sv-2 A.Savin, ru, de-4, en-2 Adrignola, en AFBorchert, de, en-3 Ahonc, uk, ru-4, en-2, de-1 Aka, de, en-3 Ala z, pl, en-2, ru-1 ALE!, de, en-3, es-3, fr-1, it-1 Alhen, es, en-2 Alison, en, ga-3, fr-2, gd-1 Alno, fr, en-3, es-2, pt-1 Alpertron, es, en-3 Amada44, de, en-3, fr-1 Angr, en, de-4, fr-2, ga-2, la-2, cy-1 AnRo0002, de, en-2, fr-2, es-1 Anthere, fr, en-3 Aude, en, ar-3 Avenue, en, de-1, fr-1, it-1 Avraham, en, he-2 (oversighter, steward) AVRS, ru, en-2, eo-2 Axpde, de, en-4, es-1, fr-1, it-1, nl-1 AzaToth, sv, en-4 Badseed, el, en-3, it-1 Bapti, fr, en-3, de-2 Barcex, es, en-2, fr-1 Bastique, en, fr-3, es-2, la-2, ga-1 Bdk, de, en-2 Bencmq, zh, en-3 (steward) Benoit Rochon fr, en-4 Beria, pt, en-2, es-2 Bidgee, en Billinghurst, en (steward) Blackcat, it, en-3, fr Blacklake, ru, en-2 Blurpeace, en, es-1 Butko, ru, uk-2, en-1 Cambalachero, es, en-3 Captain-tucker, en Cecil, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, fi-1 (bureaucrat) Chatama, ja, en-1 Chris 73, de, en-3, ja-1 ChrisiPK, de, en-3, fr-1 ChristianBier, de, en-3 Ciell, nl, en-2, de-1 Cirt, en, es-2 Common Good, en CommonsDelinkerHelper (bot) Cookie, es, en-2 Courcelles, en, es-2, fr-2 Coyau, fr, en-1 DaB., de, en-1 Dantadd, it, pt, en-3, es-3, fr-3, gl-3, ca-2, ro-1, el-1 Darwinius, pt, en-3, es-2, fr-2, gl-2, ca-1, it-1, oc-1 Davepape, en David Levy, en Dcoetzee, en, fr-2, et-1, af-0 Denniss, de, en-2, fr-1 Dereckson, fr, en-3, de-1, nl-1 Didym, de, en-2, fr-2 D-Kuru, de, en-2, it-1 Dschwen, de, en-3, fr-1 (bureaucrat) Edgar181, en, de-1, fr-1, es-1 Effeietsanders, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1, la-1 Ejdzej, pl, en-2 Elcobbola en, de Elitre, it, en-3, fr-2 Elya, de, en-3, uk-2, ru-1 EPO, da, en-3, de-1 Érico Júnior Wouters, pt, en-2, es-2 Esby, fr, en-3, de-1 EugeneZelenko, ru, be, en-2, bg-1, pl-1 (bureaucrat) EVula, en Ezarate, es-3, en-1 Fanghong, zh, en-2, fr-1 Fastily, en, fr-2, zh-2 Flominator, de, als, en-3 Foroa, vls, nl, en-3, fr-2 Funfood, de, en-2, bar-1 FunkMonk, da, en-4, no-3, fo-2, sv-2, de-1, es-1 Geagea, he, ka-3, en-3, ru-1 Geni, en George Chernilevsky, ru, uk-3, de-2, en-2, bg-1, la-1, be-1, fr-1 GeorgHH, de, en-1 Gestumblindi, als, de, en-3 Gmaxwell, en (checkuser) Gnangarra, en Golbez, en, ja-2 Greudin, fr, en-2, de-1 grin, hu, en-3, de-1 Gruznov, ru, en-1, fr-1 guillom, fr, en-3, de-1 Heb, da, en-2 Hekerui, de, en-4 Herbythyme, en, fr-2, es-1, it-1 (checkuser) Hesperian, en High Contrast, de, en-3, fr-1 HJ Mitchell, en Howcheng, en, ja-2 Hystrix, de, en-1 H-stt, de, en-4, fr-1 INeverCry, en, es-1, ru-1 Infrogmation, en, es-1 JDavid, pl, en-2, de-1 J Milburn, en Jafeluv, fi, en-4, fr-3, de-2, ru-2 Jameslwoodward, en, fr-1 (checkuser) January, en Jaqen, it, en-2 Jarekt, pl, en Jastrow, fr, en-3, de-1, it-1 Jcornelius, de, lt-2, la-2, en-2, pt-2, fr-1 Jdforrester, en Jean-Frédéric, fr, en-4, es-1 JeremyA, en JGHowes, en, fr-2, de-1 Jmabel, en, es-3, ro-2, de-1, ca-1, it-1, pt-1, fr-1 Joergens.mi, de, en-3 John Vandenberg, en Juliancolton, en (bureaucrat) Julo, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1 JuTa, de, en-2, fr-1 Jusjih, zh, en-3, fr-1 (bureaucrat, steward) Kaldari, en Kallerna, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1 Kanonkas, no, en-4, nn-3, da-2, sv-2, de-1 (bureaucrat) Killiondude, en, es-3, ru-1 King of Hearts, en, zh-4, es-3 Klemen Kocjancic, sl, en-3, de-2, hr-1, bs-1 Krd, de, en-3 Krinkle, nl, en-3, de-2 Krzysiu, pl, en-2, szl-2 KTo288, en, zh-4 Kved, es, en-3 Kwj2772, ko, en-2 Kyro, fr, de-3, en-2 Leit, de, en-3, fr-1 Léna, fr, en-3, es-1 Letartean, fr, en-3 Leyo, gsw, de, en-3, fr-3, es-1, la-1 Lobo, es, ca-2, en-2 Logan, en, es-3 Lokal Profil, sv, en-4, pt-2, fr-1 LtPowers, en, es-1 Ludmiła Pilecka, pl, en-2, ru-1 Ludo29, fr, en-2 Lupo, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, it-1 Luxo, gsw, de-4, en-1, fr-1 Lymantria, nl, de-2, en-2, fy-2, fr-1, zea-1 Magister Mathematicae, es, en-4, pt-1 (checkuser) Magnus Manske, de, en-2 Magog the Ogre, en, es-2 Maire, pl, en-4, es-2, fr-2, de-2, ru-1 MarcoAurelio, es, en-2, fr-2 (steward) Marcus Cyron, de, en-1 Mardetanha fa, az, en-3, tr-2, ar-1 (checkuser, steward) Martin H., de, en-2 (checkuser) Masur, pl, en-3, de-1 Matanya, en, he (steward) Materialscientist, en-4, ru-4, nl-3, fr-1, es-1 Matt314, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, zh-1 Mathonius, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 (steward) Mattbuck, en, fr-1, la-1 Maxim, ru, en-3, fr-2 MBisanz, en (steward) McZusatz, de, en-3, es-1, la-1 swg-1 Mentifisto, en, mt, it-2 (steward) MGA73, da, en-3, de-2, sv-1, no-1 MichaelMaggs, en, fr-1 Micheletb, fr, en-3, it-1, es-1 Micki, sr, bs-4, hr-3, en-2 Mitchazenia, en, es-2 Miya, ja, en-2 Mmxx, fa, en-3 Mono, en Moogsi, en, la-2, fr-1, grc-1 Morgankevinj, en, es-1, la-1 Mormegil, cs, en-2, de-1 Morning Sunshine, vi, en-3 M0tty, fr, en-1 MPF, en, da-2, de-1, fr-1 Multichill, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1 Mys 721tx, zh, en-3 Nagy, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, sv-1 Neozoon, de, en-4, nl-4, fr-2 Nilfanion, en, fr-1 NordNordWest, de, en-3 notafish, fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2 O, zh, en-4, zh-wuu-2, zh-hu-3, yue-1 fr-1 odder, pl, en-3, de-2 (oversighter) Okki, fr, en-2 Otourly, fr, en-2, it-1 PeterSymonds, en, de-1 (steward) Pharos, en, fr-1 Philosopher, en, es-1, zh-1 PierreSelim, fr, en-3, es-1 Pitke, fi, en-4, sv-2 Platonides, es, en-2, fr-1 Podzemnik, cs, en-2 Polarlys, de, en-2, fr-1, no-1 Powerek38, pl, en-4, fr-2, es-1, de-1 Pruneau, fr, en-4, de-1 PumpkinSky, en, de-2 Putnik, ru, en-2 ~Pyb, fr, en-2 Pymouss, fr, en-3, de-2, it-2, he-1 Ragesoss, en, de-1, fr-1 Ra'ike, de, en-2 Rama, fr, en-3, de-2, la-2, es-1, it-1, ja-1 (oversighter) Rastrojo, es, en-3, fr-2, eo-1 Raul654, en, es-1 Raymond, de, en-3, nl-1 (oversighter) Rd232, en, de, es-2, fr-1 Rehman, en, si-1 Reinhard Kraasch, de, en-3 Rillke, de, en-2, fr-1 Rimshot, de, en-4, fr-2, it-1 Romaine, nl, en-3, de-2, af-1, fr-1 Ronhjones, en, fr-1 Rosenzweig, de, en-3, fr-1, la-1 Royalbroil, en, es-1 Rubin16, ru, tt, en-3 Rüdiger Wölk, de, en-2 Russavia, en, ru-3 (bureaucrat) Sanandros, als, de, en-3, fr-1 Sandstein, als, de, en-4, fr-3, it-1 SatuSuro, en, id-1 Sfu, pl, en-2 Shizhao, zh, en-1, ru-1 (steward) Siebrand, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 Skeezix1000, en, fr-2 Spiritia, bg, en-3, ru-2, mk-2, de-1 Sreejithk2000, ml, en-3, hi-3, ta-1, kn-1 Steinsplitter, tir, de-4, it-3, en-1 Steven Walling, en Stifle, en, ga, fr-2, de-1 Sven Manguard, en Tabercil, en Tarawneh, en, ar, de-1 Techman224, en TheDJ, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1 Thuresson, sv, en-3, no-2 Tiptoety, en (checkuser, oversighter) Tom, en, es-1 Trijnstel, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 (checkuser, steward) Trixt, it, en-2, fr-1 tsca, pl, en, da Túrelio, de, en-3, es-1 VIGNERON, fr, de-2, en-2, zh-1 Waldir, pt, en-3 Whym, ja, en-2 Wikitanvir, bn, en-3, as-2, bpy-1 (steward) WJBscribe, en, fr-3, de-1 Wknight94, en Wpedzich, pl, en-4, de-2 (steward) Wsiegmund, en, fr-1, es-1 Wutsje, fy, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1 Wuzur, de, en-3 wvk, de, en-4, fa-3, fr-2 Yann, fr, en-3, hi-2, gu-1 Yarl, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1 Yuval Y, he, en-3 Zirland, cs, pl-3, en-3, sk-2, eo-2 Zolo, fr, en-4, de-2, zh-2 Zscout370, en, ja-3 Zyephyrus, fr, en-3, la-3, el-2 Zzyzx11, en, es-1, fr-1 KrinkleBot, Bot account; temporary adminship for testing, see also Commons:Bots/Requests/KrinkleBot (2). Brion VIBBER, Temporary adminship: "Temporary enable to look into UW campaign setup". No exact expiry date. The system currently recognizes 271 administrators. If that is not the last number in the list above, there is an error in the list.

Administratorami posługującymi się językiem polskim są:

Ala z Ejdzej Herr Kriss Jarekt Julo Leafnode Lestath Ludmiła Pilecka Lukasz Lukomski Maire Masur odder Powerek38 Sfu Szczepan1990 tsca Zirland

Administrator to po prostu zaufany użytkownik, który może:

• zabezpieczać i odbezpieczać strony
• usuwać i przywracać strony
• usuwać grafiki i inne przesłane pliki
• blokować i odblokowywać użytkowników
• edytować wygląd interfejsu i innych zabezpieczonych stron

Możesz poprosić o przyznanie uprawnień administratora na Commons jeśli spełniasz poniższe kryteria:

• Nie jesteś zupełnie nowy w projektach Wikimedia. Jesteś użytkownikiem od co najmniej 2 miesięcy oraz rozumiesz i zgadzasz się z celami projektu
• Posiadasz stronę użytkownika na Commons i jesteś aktywnym (dodającym i modyfikującym zawartość projektu) użytkownikiem
• Zgadzasz się przestrzegać zasad i respektować ustalenia zawarte przez użytkowników Commons
• Użytkownicy projektu zgodzą się na przyznanie ci uprawnień administratora

Zgodnie z polityką uprawnień administratorskich na Meta, nieaktywni administratorzy mogą zostać pozbawieni praw.

Requests for adminship

Create a subpage Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Username with the following text:

==[[User:Username|Username]]==
{{custom edit|Template:Administrators/Requests and votes/Username|text='''Vote'''}}

Reasons why you think you should be an admin. ~~~~

===Votes===

and list it on Administrators/Requests and votes.

This is the requests and votes page, a centralized place where you can keep track of ongoing user requests, and where you can comment and leave your vote. Any user is welcome to comment on these requests, and any logged in user is welcome to vote.

When requesting rights that do not need the support of the community (e.g. filemover) please go to Commons:Requests for rights‎!

How and where to apply for additional user rights on Commons

• Administrator: Commons:Administrators/Requests
• Bureaucrat: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests
• Checkuser: Commons:Checkusers/Requests
• Oversighter: Commons:Oversighters/Requests
• Bot: Commons:Bots/Requests

All applications made on the above pages are automatically transcluded onto this page.

How to comment and vote

Any logged-in user is welcome to vote and to comment on the requests below. Votes from unregistered users are not counted, but comments may still be made. If the nomination is successful, a bureaucrat will grant the relevant rights. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.

It is preferable if you give reasons both for  Support votes or  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.

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

Requests for adminship

watch

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

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

Alan

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 16:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to introduce User:Alan to the community for RfA. Alan has been active on Commons since November 2012 and has almost 7,400 edits. Since he has joined Commons, he has made an impression on me personally; I see him doing a lot of maintenance work including patrolling new files and DR/speedying problematic files, renaming files, licence reviews, participating in DR's etc. Alan and the community would benefit with him having the tools. russavia (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alan

I'd like to thank russavia and Steinsplitter for this opportunity. Also, I'd like to mention that I used to edit under my former username, User:Alan.lorenzo, and that I currently am an administrator and bureaucrat on Spanish Wikivoyage and OTRS member. --Alan ^(talk) 17:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support as nominator russavia (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support OTRS member, trusted user, excellent candidate.--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. --Ralgis (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - We are in need of more active administrators, especially those speaking Spanish. Feel free using your language skills to improve the experience of Commons for people only speaking Spanish. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And Euskara too. russavia (talk)
•  Support. I can not see any arguments against. --McZusatz (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. Very active and polite user. --Millars (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Do not expect problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Jcb (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. INeverCry 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, looks good. Trijnstel_talk 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support--Inefable001 (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support a×p_de^Hello! 12:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Despite russavia already mentioned some use cases, please write down in your own words a rough estimation here for what you will use your admin tools primarily. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rillke. I think it would be chiefly active "with tools" in DR, deletion categories and AN. And I will continue with the same thing that now. And of course: Where I'm needed :P --Alan ^(talk) 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• How would you respond if File:Fairphone.jpg was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "seems to be CC-BY-NC-SA [1]"? --99of9 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. Per commons:multi-licensing. Fairphone is a project of Waag Society and is the owner of rights. Alan ^(talk) 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done Ok, I didn't find that one. It's helpful if the source link points to a page with the correct license. I've corrected the unported to nl. --99of9 (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• How would you respond if File:Reyes católicos Wax Museum.JPG was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative, apparently fails FoP-Spain" --99of9 (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Per COM:DW. "Replicas of artworks: Exact replicas of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself.". This is a replica of a picture (it seems of Goya??) in PD. --Alan ^(talk) 13:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, I assumed from the filename it was a photo of some wax figurines. I'll add another question (next) which is like that. So in this case it should be {{PD-art}} but you don't know the source painting? --99of9 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, is a exact replica using wax. Sincerly, put the name in a , but I do not remember the exact name, sorry. --Alan ^(talk) 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
        • So you're arguing that wax figurines are exact replicas of public domain human bodies, and thus do not have sufficient originality to warrant copyright? Don't you think that the artist gets to choose the pose/expression/clothing/colours in an creative artistic process (as for most sculptures of people)? --99of9 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• How would you respond if File:David Bisbal - Wax Museum.JPG was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative, apparently fails FoP-Spain" --99of9 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• How would you respond if File:Urkiola_Sanctuary.jpg was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative, apparently fails FoP-Spain" --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • the image is to show the stained glass (In PD per antique, the wall is inevitable. I think that applies COM:DM. --Alan ^(talk) 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry I don't buy that. The photographer could have walked forward by about 10 meters if he wanted a picture of the glasswork. If anything DM would be the other way around (glass DM in the context of the wall). --99of9 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please have a look at File:Cartel de guía de viajes aprobada.svg. The code generated for attribution for re-using this file is:

Por Alan.lorenzo Este archivo se derivó de: UK_traffic_sign_2205.svg City_silhouette.svg Yes_check.svg (Trabajo propio) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)].

What does cc-by-sa (Creative Commons Genérica de Atribución/Compartir-Igual 3.0) demand from re-users? -- Rillke^(q?) 12:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• City_silhouette.svg have BY-SA 3.0 (ShareAlike) and because of this, must use the same license. Others let choose and BY-SA is supported. --Alan ^(talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fæ

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 11:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to put myself forward for admin tools. Over the last 3 years I have made significant contributions to Commons:

• 70,000+ images uploaded from a wide range of sources, including over 2,000 of my own photographs. A summary can be found on my user page.
• 680,000+ edits [2]
• ~1.4 million edits by Faebot.[3] Much of these have been part of my project to add place categories to uploads from Geograph, this being a comprehensive photographic record of the whole of Britain. Other projects have included identification of problematic mobile phone uploads by examining EXIF data, automatic categorization of identical duplicates using the Commons API for when upload tools have failed to do this for themselves, and a number of varied special requests raised on Commons:Bots/Work_requests that I found interesting to handle.
• Discussion and development of Commons policies and the presentation and promotion of Commons in 'real life' with GLAMs and other institutions over the last couple of years, such as the British Library, the Wellcome Trust and Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums.
• I am a founder of the GLAMtoolset project and represent the UK on the Steering Group. This is a large inter-chapter funded project in partnership with Europeana, to make available an easy to use set of Commons mass upload tools for GLAM professionals to apply to their institutional media collections and archives.

Though it would always be useful to have a "GLAM-knowledgeable" admin available to help out, more important would be my experience of helping with all types of admin tasks on Commons to inform these projects, as well as continuing the support I already give to the institutions on how to encourage Wikimedians to join in with making these projects a success, as well as promoting (and lobbying) on how to avoid copyfraud and the use of simple policies for copyright and attribution.

Declarations:

1. I am a founder of the proposed thematic organization Wikimedia LGBT. meta:LGBT
2. I am a trustee of the charity Wikimedia UK. wmuk:Board

--Fæ (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Oppose Too much GAMING commons community policy. Fails to read discussions prior to closing discussions. Penyulap ☏ 11:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --McZusatz (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose – Fæ neglects to mention past accounts and sockpuppets and neglects to mention past enwiki ban in his nomination statement. Would you trust a sysop who hides facts from you? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry. I supported another user here today because I felt they were suited to the stressful position of admin, but a look through the (vast) available history of the candidate (and his aliases/prior accounts) here and at my home wiki en.wp does not give me confidence that is the case here. I also feel the candidate often tends towards the letter rather than the spirit of policy in order to achieve an aim, and this is not a philosophy I'm comfortable with. Begoon - talk 14:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Alan ^(talk) 14:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted botoperator, I only know Fae as a reliable user and opponent in RD. :) I think Fae would make a good admin. Let's give it a try! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad character (humiliating and insulting comments in discussions to insult opponents in discussions), biased (which is against NPOV as shouldn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias). JKadavoor Jee 16:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Corrected per the command by Túrelio (He asked; not requested to correct this accordingly). My vote is based on Commons:Guide to adminship and Commons:Staying mellow; I'm not aware of any previous or EN:Wiki related issues that discussed below. I expect more matured and controlled behaviour from admins. (I didn't understand what A. Savin meant by some oppose voters do not seem really representative for the Commons community. Do we have separate classes of memberships like Blacks and Whites? JKadavoor Jee 10:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Oppose for many reasons. But to be honest, he is better than a lot of the admin we have now. That isn't saying much, though. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral I don't have reasons to oppose, but I don't feel comfortable supporting. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Didym (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support In hope of short, true and meaningful statements and the tools primarily used for GLAM work. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see any good reason not to support this nomination (and I think the comment immediately above is deplorable). Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not comfortable with this due to recent enwiki ban. --Rschen7754 20:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - I don't normally follow RfAs and my Commons experience isn't that extensive, but I'm voting here in response to the canvassing by those who are opposed to Fae for political/cultural reasons. Many of the oppose votes here, like my support, are extensions of the still-ongoing, years-old conflict about Commons censorship, which was the major underlying motivation for the appalling en.wiki ArbCom case. I know that Fae is a prolific contributor who has done work few others would have the patience for - and he was an admin on en.wiki so good that even in months of spewing politically motivated vitriol no single one of his detractors ever came up with a claim that he had misused his admin tools in any way (look at where I made this point, unrefuted, in the ArbCom pages if you don't believe me). Politically, Fae's position - that Commons should not be censored - is nothing unusual here or among Wikipedians as a whole, but it is very inconvenient to those whose mission in life is to change that. Wnt (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe that Fæ's free speech track record is dismal. Fæ sought to blacklist forums that he disapproved of. Fæ sought to restrict Penyulap's freedom to express his thoughts. Wnt, I don't believe that you fully comprehend Fæ's position on freedom of speech and censorship. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wnt, here is a link to the ArbCom case involving Fæ. Commons is incidental to the case and "censorship" is simply not a part of it. Please do not mislead people with your imaginings. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - per Hedwig, let's give it a try. In case of abuse it's possible to remove admin flag. Also, some oppose comments do not seem really representative for the Commons community to me. --A.Savin 21:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • We're all contributors to Commons. Of the six opposers, I believe that five of them aren't Wikipediocracy users. I never seen Penyulap, Begoon, Jkadavoor, or Rschen7754 participate in any discussion on Wikipediocracy, and Ottava Rima isn't welcomed on Wikipediocracy. Fearmongers and conspiracy theorists such as Wnt and others are exaggerating an issue that's pretty non-existent. Like Jewish people, Wikipediocracy users are a tiny minority that's constantly accused of controlling everything. I don't believe that it's fair to describe !voters as not being a true part of the community. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In regards to "let's give it a try. In case of abuse it's possible to remove admin flag." I don't believe the RfA process is intended to be a simple trial and error process, rather, qualities such as basic moral autonomy should be examined, it's less work for the community that way. Penyulap ☏ 00:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per A. Savin who has just hit the nail on the head! russavia (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Don't know yet, so  Neutral. Trijnstel_talk 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Per Hedwig, A.Savin and Russavia. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral - for now. I have some concerns, especially re. the previous sock accounts, but I've seen some good work on Commons too, recently. Need to think on this some - Alison ^❤ 23:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Vast contribution record. Fae declares above that he is a trustee of WMUK; his recent pushing for proper transparency and governance at WMUK convince me that he will make a strong contribution to the future of commons as as admin. TheOverflow (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Vast contribution record." Most of that is script based editing that can be done by bots, but is instead done by a lot of admin who have been criticized of using the scripts to hide some edits that are not agreed upon by the larger community. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Fae definitely does good and useful work here, but some of my encounters with him have left a rather bad impression, unfortunately. Here he derails a village pump thread about identifiable minors by claiming that, should the suggested change be enforced, Commons would need to a) de-admin every admin under 18, and b) hire paid staff to enforce the new policy. I'll leave it up to you to decide how silly those claims are, given the initial suggestion. And at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brief Skinny Lad (5989161662).jpg, he heavily implied that the deletion request (or some of the deletion votes) were solely based on homophobia ("Anyway, I'd better get back to my uber-gay Christmas décor.", "Of course, no homoerotic content there to excite anyone."), which I found particularly distasteful. --Conti|✉ 06:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• have you ever used sock-puppets outside of LEGIT sock-puppets such as robots Fæ ? Penyulap ☏ 11:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No. A long time ago I used some accounts for privacy reasons, this is perfectly acceptable within the policy you appear to be referencing. For the last 3 years I have only used User:Fæ and User:Faebot on Wikimedia Commons. --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • OK good enuf for me. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Privacy is no problem, just how many privacy accounts are you talking about ? Penyulap ☏ 15:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Two privacy accounts, making trivial numbers of contributions to Wikimedia Commons (as in fewer than 10 files uploaded) and retired more than 3 years ago. Fæ (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
        • That sounds ok. So what is your attitude to people double-voting (or more) in admin elections, under what conditions is it OK with you ? Penyulap ☏ 19:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't see how that question is relevant. I don't believe that Fæ was involved in vote-stacking. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Sorry to be confusing, I don't mean Fæ's alternative accounts, I mean his recent very strong support for burying all discussion of double voting in an admin election which had only just been uncovered. Seems there is a time limit, that if you get away with rigging elections for long enough before it's discovered, then that's all just fine and discussion should be stifled, I'd like to know if that's a good summary then or now. I'd like to know just how much of a complete blind eye two-tiered justice system we want on commons. Penyulap ☏ 22:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
              • If I suspected such a thing was occurring, I would raise it for investigation with our Bureaucrats who have the burden of responsibility for ensuring that the process for creating and removing administrators is properly managed. The particular case had privacy issues that dated from 8 years previous to the discussion you took part in. When someone admits to having made a serious mistake but points out a privacy issue, I would much prefer to leave it for proper full investigation by Bureaucrats or Oversight depending on the nature of the mistake/problem; it seems common sense and basic human respect to treat privacy matters conservatively, particularly for an admitted mistake made years ago. If you have any remaining concerns for the case you refer to, considering that the accused account retired due to the discussion and their concern and distress related to a potential invasion of their private life, you may want to raise the matter again on COM:BN rather than here or elsewhere. I had no personal connection to the account in question, in fact I cannot recall if we had interacted in any significant way before the date of the discussion on AN/U, certainly I have not interacted with them since they retired from Commons. --Fæ (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
                • I can see you are quite fast in finding an excuse to close community discussion, enabling the admin, who has not been de-sysopped, to at any time resume their tools upon making a request. The 'privacy issue' you speak of is, and correct me if I am wrong, that after they were caught, they claimed it was a family member, so if someone was caught out for making 12 votes 8 years ago, but after they are caught they suddenly remember they have 12 cousins, that's good enough a reason to censor all further community discussion, derail the de-sysop process, over concern for 'privacy', do you think that would be a fair balance between privacy concerns and proper functioning of the bureaucracy ?

The person has not been de-sysopped, the community is now divided between those who feel that the sysop was being hounded long after the fact and those who feel it is not appropriate to double vote in elections on principle alone, the process has been derailed, how do you count the cost to the community against the cost to the admin ? Penyulap ☏ 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Here you go -FASTILY 04:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

well that clears a few things up, and spells out the chilling effect Alison mentions. Penyulap ☏ 05:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"the community is now divided", on examination seems to be a parody of the discussion. COM:BN is the right place to ask for a Bureaucrat to investigate further, or take action. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

well I don't know what discussion you're looking at, but I do know you're sadly mistaken if you think rigged elections are a laughing matter to all sections of this community. The discussion was re-opened and re-closed at a guess a dozen times, and there are discussions devoted to the closure of that discussion itself. There is a difference between resolving differences and simply censoring, bullying, suppressing, and ignoring people. That is the difference which makes or breaks a volunteer community.

I've reminded you more than once you should listen to other people if you want them to listen to you, and that is pretty much the reason that this RfA is going to fail, (yes, let me be the first to break the news, it's going to fail) because you have to listen, rather than ignore other people, even those you disagree with. The community IS divided over the rigged elections and there is a huge difference between 'victory' and 'harmony'. Penyulap ☏ 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Info A link to this RfA, posted by Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs), appeared on Wikipediocracy, a site devoted to the criticism of Wikipedia. odder (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't believe that information should be hidden. Sharing news and information for discussion on a forum isn't a crime. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Noting for general reference that Michaeldsuarez is banned from the English Wikipedia [4] after the Arbitration Committee found that he had carried out off-wiki harassment against Fae,[5] which he attempted to justify in very similar terms to what he has said above.[6] This should be borne in mind when reading his comments. Prioryman (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict.) So ? everyone's been banned from en.wiki by arbcom haven't they ? Michael, Fæ, Jimbo and me. Oh, except for Jimbo and me. If Michael can't talk because he was banned by arbcom on en.wiki then why should Fæ be a sysop when he's been banned by arbcom on en.wiki ? doesn't make sense to me, I say 'who cares' lets just stick to what is here. Fæ is welcome to have an RfA and Michael is welcome to comment. Penyulap ☏ 20:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure why you think Fae is banned when in fact he is not. He's in a very different position to Michaeldsuarez, who is not only currently banned, but was banned for harassing Fae. You would think that Michael would have learned by now that he needs to stay far away from anything to do with Fae. Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
          • (Edit conflict.) I must be mistaken, you see I looked at his en.wiki talkpage, and it was kind of blank, well, compared to mine it is anyhow, so I looked in the history and the last few edits are all about arbcom bans and stuff, point is, none of it matters. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I didn't harass Fæ. That's just what Fæ and ArbCom believe. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
            • well I guess that is an open way to put it, and it seems I was correct about my guess. Still, I think both of you are good contributors here. Just that I think Fae doesn't have the moral direction other admins I support do, and his responses here aren't helping. Generally I like to predict what information people would like to know and give it to them before they ask, or straight away. Fae makes some admirable admissions, but leaves out so very much which is clearly relevant that it makes this whole RfA feel more like a cross-examination of a hostile witness. I like the way you put it Michael, that you're banned by people who are out of their minds, cause then we know. Simple. Hmm, I wonder what other new things will come out as the week progresses. sigh. Penyulap ☏ 05:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that information should not be hidden (actually, I opposed Michaeldsuarez' ban just as I opposed Fae's). It is apparent that those interested in having a Commons that is not owned and operated by Wikipediocracy will need to reach out and "CANVASS" in the future. One admitted strategy of Commons' opponents, as mentioned on w:User talk:Jimbo Wales right now, is to try to worm their own people into adminship in a sort of stealth jihad to take over the site. Since they keep their own forum and are lining up their rank and file to vote in things like this, they are having a disproportionate impact. The only way to counter this is if the regular Commons contributors who believe in wide-ranging, uncensored holdings make the decision to organize and get out the vote themselves for their RfAs in the future. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I only approached two users with offers of nominating them for sysop: WhatamIdoing and Stefan4. Neither of them are Wikipediocracy users, I first approached WhatamIdoing in November (long before Jimbo made his suggestion), and Stefan4 is a recipient of of the "Hot sex barnstar". Wnt, stop trying to scare people. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) I'm a Commons admin of some five years now, as well as being a moderator and one of the original founders of Wikipediocracy. These positions are by no means mutually exclusive. It sounds to me like you're suggesting people should not be open about such things, lest they be accused of all sorts of bad things. This will just lead to people going underground, and not openly able to speak on other sites as they see fit - a chilling effect, if you will. I'm definitely against that, which is why I'm standing up to be counted here - Alison ^❤ 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Come off it, Alison. We all know - and you better than most - that Wikipediocracy is Troll Central. You also know perfectly well that Michaeldsuarez is under a ban for harassing Fae off-wiki. Put the two together, and it's perfectly obvious that he is continuing the feud that was supposed to have been ended by his ban. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Are people forgetting that the off-commons mentions of RfA works both for and against a candidate ? I can see support for Fae stating 'I'm voting here in response to the canvassing'. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on now, stop being rational and analytical... It's much more fun to pretend there is a "stealth jihad" to "infiltrate" sleepers into the Commons administrative corps on account of Jimmy Wales recently suggesting that was the way to clean the festering Commons stable. Of course, that's silliness, the way that house will be eventually cleaned is through WMF intervention and a black-hooded executioner's axe... Someday, someday... Carrite (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I believe I am the only person who had commented in the section above who actually got here from WO and I did not vote. What I did is point out that the hefty contribution figures given by Fæ are misleading. See this instance where he made nearly 5,000 edits, mostly image uploads, within the course of two days, or this one where he makes 5,000 minor changes over the course of a single day and that is just what fits on the page as there were more of those edits that day if you look at contribution history before and after that page. Such edits are happening over time periods that make it highly unlikely these are anything but automated edits with the exception of a very small morsel. It is something he has been doing a while such as back in December when he made thousands of edits over the course of days adding categories for uploads by x user with very minor copy-edits in between. He made less than 15,000 edits prior to the arbitration case on en-wiki and less than 3,000 to Commons space, most of the latter also in the past year. That is not to suggest these recent contributions are not significant or constructive, but scraping image databases and minor copy-edits or categorization demonstrate little about his ability to be an admin and appear to have been a response to developments on a different project geared at puffing up his credentials.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are not a regular editor here, so let me break this down for you, and give you some insight on how Commons works:

• This edit is problematic why? You do realise that we are a repository of freely licenced media and to be a repository, you need to have the media. So uploading files is what we do, and we encourage all editors (new and established) to do this.
• This seems to be replacing a template used in images with a more suitable one. If a better information template can be used to provide better information to our reusers, then great.
• This and this were adding categories to an editors uploads, to make it easier for the community to deal with an issue it had at the time. I believe this was done at my request from memory. I also asked Fae to do exactly the same to my uploads, but only because I wanted to keep track of files I've uploaded over years. This is collaborative editing, which is what we are here for.
• His edit count is irrelevant in the over scheme of things, but given that he was banned from enwp, and still stayed dedicated to our projects by way of contributing here is fantastic, and should not be frowned upon.
• Other examples of how Fae has so-called inflated his edit include Category:Images from norden.org uploaded by Fæ and Category:Files from Imagicity.com (processing) -- both high valued streams that I personally asked him to upload -- not because I thought he needed to inflate his edit count, but because they are high valued streams that we need on this project -- one full of Scandinavian politicians photos that I told editors on the various WP that we have access to -- the other being the stream of an expat academic in Vanuatu who has captured that island nation and its people beautifully.

I hope you can understand why when someone with 93 edits since 2007 comes to this project (8 of them connected to this very RfA) and basically tries to bring unproven and somewhat outrageous insinuations into the equation, I sincerely hope you don't mind it when we tell you exactly why this isn't being "The Devil's Advocate" but something else completely, as I have done above. russavia (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not disputing whether those contributions were helpful or not, but whether they indicate anything of value regarding his desire for adminship. It does seem as if he has just been trying to pad his résumé since that case on en-wiki.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't use Wikipediocracy for canvassing. I use Wikipediocracy in order to inform people (informing is not the same as creating !voters) and to provide an alternative forum for people who can't speak out on Commons (i.e. banned people) to let their thoughts and feelings be known. I don't use Wikipediocracy as a pool to draw !voters. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel this is quite interesting, User talk:Jkadavoor#Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ2. Seems to raise the question, are people allowed to speak openly and honestly about their feelings in an admin request, Fæ, what do you think, do you feel that the oppose vote should be seen as a personal attack ? should people be free to say what they think without feeling hounded, or that they need to watch everything they say, lest admins appear upon their talkpage using threatening lanugage, what kind of an environment would you like on commons ? Penyulap ☏ 06:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

An allegation of "Bad character" is damning and requires unambiguous evidence. Túrelio states this "is an ad-hominem argument, a personal attack", I suggest you ask them to clarify that point. As the allegation is against my character, any view I provide you with on this would be called partisan.

I would like Commons to be a mellow and non-hostile environment. Part of the role of administrators is to work constructively towards this goal. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fighting fire with petrol doesn't seem the way to go. That editor seems quite gentle and polite from the contributions they make, so a confrontational approach is not called for and will be counter-productive. Personally, if someone calls me an idiot, I'm usually first to agree, and then if I care, I might ask in a friendly manner why they think so, or what is the most idiotic part of my repertoire of stupidity. That approach gets better results than going to war. But that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we can all agree I'm an idiot, right ? Penyulap ☏ 10:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question If you are appointed as an admin, and User:Pieter Kuiper is at some point unblocked by the community:

• How will you react?
  • I will stay clear of him.
• How will you relate to him?
  • I would not. I would leave any problem resolution to others.
• How will you respond if he nominates 10 of your files for deletion with rationales that he and some other members of the community think reasonable?
  • Pieter has raised many perfectly good policy based deletion requests on my uploads and when he is unblocked, I am happy to leave the outcome of requests to the community.
• How will you determine the difference between legitimate discussion and harassment?
  • As I would avoid any interaction, I would leave it to the community to decide.
• What will you do if you feel he is harassing you?
  • Seek independent advice or raise for alternative views in a neutral forum. --Fæ (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

--99of9 (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question Fæ, you said earlier that you have confined yourself to two accounts for the past three years but prior to that you had used alternate accounts (which you call privacy accounts). You state that there were "two privacy accounts, making trivial numbers of contributions to Wikimedia Commons". I realise that you may not have used these accounts for years, but can you take some time and confirm that there were only two alternate accounts? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

SarahStierch

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 17:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to present to the community User:SarahStierch. Sarah is known to many in the community; whilst I don't know her personally, I am familiar with her work and believe she would be a great candidate for Commons adminship. Sarah is an old-timer at GLAM-Wiki activities; she facilitated the massive donation by Commons:Walters Art Museum; she was Wikipedian in Residence of the Smithsonian Institution Archives of American Art and Smithsonian Institution Archives (both of whom have shared images with Commons). She also co-founded en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Public Art (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wsavespublicart/). So she is well qualified in terms of contributions to this project. In future Sarah will be participating in WLM US 2013 and is a trusted user with Upload Wizard rights.

Sarah is also an active OTRS member, and would definitely find the tools useful for OTRS work; with our semi-permanent backlogs she currently has to call upon other admins for undeletions and the like. She also holds image reviewer, OTRS member, file mover, rollbacker rights. I have no doubt that both Sarah and this community would benefit from her having the admin tools. russavia (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SarahStierch

Hi everyone. This is flattering, thanks Russavia for assuming good faith in my work and trusting me with this opportunity. I accept this nomination and I hope that the community will as well. I totally agree that this would be a *big* relief for me for my OTRS work, which is where I often am doing things Commons related - permissions, photo submissions, etc. It would be awesome to be able to have the mop so I could work quietly and efficently without having to beg people to undelete content (or wait for someone to handle a ticket with a note stating that I need help with that). I also have interest in helping with deletion. We have so many nominations, and so many that need to be swiftly and efficently handled. I'd be really happy to be involved in that. And I'd get to engage in a mission I care so deeply for - free knowledge and free open data - in an even more in depth way. Thanks for your consideration every one. Sarah (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support as nominator russavia (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support this OTRS member, trusted user, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - it's strange, some days ago two RfA were unsuccessfull, because "for OTRS you don't need Admintools/it's better not also have Admintools". Yes for her GLAM work. But please without gender politics here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Sure thing. I believe Sarah has clearly shown her dedication to Wikimedia Commons, and that she can be trusted with the extra-buttons. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Sarah makes a net positive contribution to every project she works on. She's sensible, reasonable and will use the tools to benefit Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. INeverCry 17:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, excellent candidate. Trijnstel_talk 19:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I like the "I don't know, I know less now" answers. Hopefully after being an admin for a bit, Sarah will become even more unsure. I'm voting as one of those "male Commonsists", but a massively gay one; if that makes any difference (perhaps waiving the gay card enough times might make it a non-issue ). As for the deleted Flickr account problem, I agree that is a problem - we should probably make more non-Admins licence reviewers, and be more open to staying sympathetic for cases of licence remorse. --Fæ (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, of course. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support; delighted to see the name on the watchlist. Tom Morris says exactly what I would have done. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support a×p_de^Hello! 21:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Alan ^(talk) 21:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I enjoy working with Sarah, and find she brings a strong work ethic, informed and interesting opinions, and a willingness to work things out. All of which are good qualities in an administrator. -Pete F (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Very qualified. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Rschen7754 00:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I am not a big fan of two ppl. having two accounts on the same project. But I feel comfortable with Sarah having adminship. Working on the OTRS Team certainly makes a very good impression as well. So, give her the big mop with the fancy buttons! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment Hey Hedwig! I'm actually one person with two accounts :) I am open about it, as you can see on both userpages. I have to admit: Missvain is my last bit of my "original" username I have. I changed my username a few years back on Wikipedia and now the Commons "Missvain" is the last remnant I have. So I'm a bit...sentimental. I surely won't be using "her" for anything out of the ordinary. Most of my work is done on this account, as evident on my contribs. Thanks for the support regardless. xoxoxoxo Missvain (aka Sarah (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC))

•  Support, thumbs up. De728631 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Glad I saw this, and happy to support. Sarah seems to have a cool head when addressing contentious issues. She will need that here. Begoon - talk 04:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Alison ^❤ 04:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - overqualified :) Kaldari (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - --Andreas JN466 06:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - per russavia and Fæ. Stanistani (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Great news! — Scott • talk 07:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Will be an excellent addition to the admin team here. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose odder (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Why? — Scott • talk 10:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Per [7]. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support — She's not one already? Great contributor, GLAM maven, OTRS handler. We need vigorous folks in the community of editors. Fuzheado (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted user. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted user, open minded, and capable of handling discussion on complex matters. She will be a great addition to the team. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Courcelles 03:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support One of the best candidates I've seen. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Valuable addition to the team! Welcome aboard the Commons AdminShip, Sarah. :) Rehman 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you guys please wait with casting more votes until Sarah agrees for this nomination? Thanks. odder (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Question On April 29, you wrote an e-mail to the gendergap mailing list, in which you wrote the following:

I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument – being made by male Commonists – trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.

• Do you mind explaining the background of this e–mail and those arguments being made by male Commonists? (As a sidenote, does the gender of editors who wrote that really make any difference?) Links to some exemplary DR nominations for those nudity and women's images would be appreciated. odder (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I haven't looked at any DR's related that type of content in a year at least now. It was a while ago. There were a few (presumed male) editors who really seemed to be triggered by me having interest in curating sexual content on Commons. It was something I went pretty crazy about a while back, so I don't even know what DR's triggered that conversation - and emotion wise I'd rather not revisit them. I've curbed that habit, that's for sure (now I just nominate things as I stumble across them, generally, and I'm not on witch hunts).

There is actually some psychological complexities to having men explain to a woman that she might not be able to "get a job" due to her behavior, so it was quite a hard experience for me to go through, and remains something I haven't forgotten. It has nothing to do with Commons, again, it's a psychological issuse that generally women have to deal with - having male colleagues or freinds tell you "you are too aggressive and vulgar, so you better be more well mannered or you'll never get hired," is something extremely painful to be told. It was really depressing for me. So yes, gender does make a difference. I know we'd like to think we live in a genderless world, but, we don't at this time. I thought I was doing important work, and shining light on something, and it turned out that people weren't happy with it. Again, anyone can look at my contributions for the past year or so. My contributions and interests have changed quite a lot (though I am a staunch advocate for certain policy change, I don't really have the interest in leading said changes at thist time). This is the reason I've been extremely nervous about going through adminship :( Sarah (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and just a side note: a lot of the conversations that took place about my "possible role as an admin," never happened on wiki. Sarah (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question What are the policy changes that you'd advocate for? (This question is partially related to the discussion ongoing on the said mailing list, which to me seems to be something less than the general Commons-bashing that is so popular among some circles.) odder (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see better policies - or more spelled out policies (and perhaps this has more to do with the Board in some ways) in regards to identifiable persons in private versus public. And again, this is where the board and the perhaps WMF legal can come in. It's a lot to unpack, and my feelings about things can evolve (i.e. my feelings have changed about an image filter - which I used to support, and I may still support a gadget, but not a permanent installation of one...the whole "Obama and gay marriage," thing :) ). I'm also pretty concerned about content being uploaded from Flickr where the Flickr accounts end up getting deleted. That is worrisome for me. That is all I can really think of right now. Sarah (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question Sarah, as you know I have participated a little bit on the gendergap mailing list in the last couple of weeks to try and bring some perspective to issues. Just the other day I posted this and this to the group in relation to the WMF board resolution and this generalised statement showing that things on Commons isn't as simple as one would think. Would you agree that the WMF board resolution as written is problematic in that it is trying to say something but instead skirts the issue it is trying to address and essentially it is possibly destructive resolution if it were to be implemented as written? russavia (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually stopped reading those threads as I've had other things I've had to focus on in my life and volunteer work. If the conversation has become that extensive and that "emotional" for many of the participants, then there are clearly some problems with the resolution. I'm sure we could break down every board resolution and say there are problems with them. But, like any part of the collaborative contribution world, every participant can read words differently and take policies to mean one thing. There is room to improve. I'd have to unpack it more and deliberate more to make a solid suggestion on how. Sarah (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In terms of my own thoughts it isn't so much "emotional" but more a bigger picture assessment. I do like your answer here :) russavia (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question I also posted to the list these thoughts on how to approach DR's on this project. What are your thoughts on this? russavia (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your response to Slim Virgin. Sarah (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And I like your answer here too, the agreeing with me part just sealed that lol russavia (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question Would you agree that there is a place for "sexuality" content on this project, so long as it is inline with our current policies and procedures. Take Category:Files from Sasha Kargaltsev Flickr stream as an example; many of these photos are in the so-called "ghetto" on Flickr, but that is because of their TOS, not because there is anything wrong with nudity. We don't have "safe search", "image filters", etc on this site, but if we did those images would be in a "ghetto" here. Would you agree that the photos from that stream are not problematic given that the photographer is published (both in galleries, books and film) and all necessary consent would be established, and they are within the scope of "homo-eroticism" and also general queer topics. If you agree with that, would you be of the same opinion if they were of females? russavia (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a place for sexuality on all Wikimedia projects - whether it's Wikipedia or Wikisource, as long as it is in scope (educational value), with an added plus if they are of good quality. Wow, I've actually never seen Kargaltsev's work. There are a lot of cool, high quality photos there (but I used to work in fashion for 10 years as make up artist, and did plenty of make up in my day for artists like him and beyond). Commons is a special place that doesn't have the same "search" level, as you noted, as Flickr or Google. That's okay. Maybe someday we will have a safe search - I'm open minded to discussing that idea. Anyway, I do agree that those images aren't problematic, but, if I was to ask Kargaltsev to send me the model release form for any of those people, I'd expect to see one in my email box or risk me to question the ethics of said photographer and the "safety" of the subject. But, I worked with thousands of photographers in my day, some you'd maybe know, to some you don't, and we always had model release forms. I don't care about peoples sexuality, let alone gender. Anyone close enough to me knows my own personal feelings, and my own personal state regarding my own gender and sexuality. Men, women, trans, queer, CIS, everyone can be a victim of slimey photographers putting their naked selves on the internet, and everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. Sarah (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good answer that gives editors an insight into what you think on these issues and should alleviate concerns that some editors may have. russavia (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question Would you mind telling us (links are not necessary) what kind of existing Commons pictures (files) make you puke, and how does this influence your decisions in, say, DR nominations? odder (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have severe motion sickness, so any images or videos that show extensive blurriness, or "roller coaster" style filming will make me physically sick, and of course anything that poor of quality should generally be deleted, unless it's intentional to show bumpiness, roller coasters, acid trips, or whatever. :) Not much makes me too sick though. I've seen it all (often times in real life) and I think the only thing that makes me totally sick to my stomach is the anus scene from Pink Flamingo's. So I probably won't be hanging out in any goatse category if we have one anytime soon. Oh, that, and Human Caterpillars. Whatever floats your boat, but, those are categories I'm good to stay away from! :) Sarah (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 Question How about penises, vaginas, naked males and lesbian sexual intercourse? odder (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea of a "hot sex" barnstar is pretty poor taste. I think a "human sexuality photography barnstar" would be a much better option, with a better barnstar design. Its the discussion that makes me "joke" about "puking" than anything else. I don't have to sit here and express my pro-sex stance in my personal life on a website like Commons. Trust me, good quality sexuality and good times don't make me puke (well, unless a human caterpillar or goatse are involved). I was merely joking about puking. Should I put a /jokes about puking action in my deletion comment? LOL :) Sarah (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And putting me in a corner and trying to shock me into "prudeness" probably isn't the coolest way to go through an RfA process. I'm feeling a little cornered about sexuality at this point in this discussion. No one wants to ask me about my work with GLAMs or Wiki Loves Monuments? Or how I could maybe do some projects to get more women engaged in Commons? Or how I can clean out an OTRS category with the right access to tools in a matter of hours? Or how I release 95% (5% being specific people photos) of my own photos under open licenses and upload them to Commons? Or how I'd love to see the French freed of their FOP shackles? Oh well :) I wonder how many other Commonists running for RfA get asked this many questions about sexuality. Sarah (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And how is activity in all those areas (except OTRS perhaps) even related to this RfA? People are active in GLAM, WLM and other projects and release 95% of their photos under a free licence without being admins, it's not like adminship is some sort of a reward. I'm not sure about other RfAs, but as far as I understand, you're being asked those questions due to your involvement in the gendergap mailing list — which, as you surely know, deals with sexuality-related topics all the time. If you're feeling cornered about having a discussion like this one, then there is very little I can do about it. odder (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point! And yup, just merely being associated with the gender gap list can open a whole can of worms :) Thanks for the questions! Sarah (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question What's your opinion of the Grandfathered old files guideline? Reasonable or dangerous? Kaldari (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as this is considered: "If there are other reasons to doubt the authorship or permission of the author, attempts should be made to communicate with the named author, to better establish the situation (and preferably obtain COM:OTRS evidence). The precautionary principle still applies – if real doubt remains, the file may be deleted in a deletion request. An example of a grandfathered old file (GOF) which was deleted and then undeleted based on this principle can be viewed here." then I'm OK with it. Sarah (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• How would you respond if File:Our Savage Manteo.jpg was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative"? --99of9 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The image of that Indigenous person utilized on the plague is public domain, as it was drawn by John White. I did some research and I don't see that the symbol at the bottom left is for the America's 400th Anniversary Committee. We'd probably have to inquire with the State of North Carolina to discover more about the status of that symbol. I'd trust the community to help with the research if its needed. I won't get bent out of shape. I'd rather be safe than sorry! Sarah (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I failed to respond to the derivative rationale. The illustration is derived from a public domain artwork by John White, so it fails any derivative copyright case, from what I know. Sarah (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the author to the description. What about the text? --99of9 (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue. We'd have to inquire with the State. I don't know who wrote or anything about it. Sarah (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Who is the author and copyright holder of the photograph File:Bear_Cubs_by_Laura_Swing_Kemeys_(1907)_SOS!_Control_IAS_76006639_b.jpg, and did they release it under the license you have listed? Is the file page compliant with their license? --99of9 (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

After some digging... the program they were part of has a handbook which insisted that (page 36) participants waive their photographic and data rights and place them in the public domain. --99of9 (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Turns out my response about the text was transposed here into this part, where you asked about that artwork by Laura Swing Kemeys. I posted a response about the text above, the John White/North Carolina piece and it posted here, so you can see I moved it up to respond there regarding the text from that North Carolina national historic landmark plaque. Anyway, I worked at the Smithsonian, and I worked with people involved in the Save Outdoor Sculptures project. As you discovered for yourself - yes, those images were released under PD - they are created by volunteers under a federal agreement thus making them public domain. I co-founded Wikipedia Public Art, and a large portion of my Master's work focuses around public art work and licensing, and image created of them. So yes, I'm quite confident in the public artwork images I have uploaded over the years - trust me! :) Sarah (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And of course, it depends on the artwork. But, I don't really feel like getting into the details on the artwork, the licensing, copyright, 1976 and before, etc :) I think I've had enough questions asked of me. I think even more than I had asked of me when I ran for admin on ENWP. LOL. Sarah (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll make a comment rather than a question then. This means the all the file pages from SOS currently have the wrong license (CC-BY-2.0 rather than PD) (or if I were to be more dramatic about it, I could call it en:Copyfraud). I presume as the responsible uploader who now wants to set an admin-example to the community, that you will fix the file pages. --99of9 (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Jcb (rights restoration)

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 21:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Jcb should be an admin again. They've been busy OTRSing and I want them to stop pestering me to undelete stuff! They lost adminship in November 2011 following issues regarding closing DRs without comment. I feel the tools would be useful to them, and that given the last fracas there are unlikely to be any more DR issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

See also Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb.

See also Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2) for de-adminship request. odder (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jcb

If the community decides they want to accept me as an admin again, I would be happy to receive the tools. It's true they would be useful for me at the moment, especially while processing OTRS tickets.

I think the main cause for what happened in 2011 is that I tried to do way more work than I could reasonably handle. That caused me to deliver bad quality on DR closures (mainly lack of explanation where needed) and made it difficult to receive critism. I'm sorry for that and I will do what I can to avoid making those mistakes again.

If you have any feedback/critism/question/whatever about something I did, please feel free to leave a comment at my talk page. I always read everything posted there. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support (as nominator). -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - I believe in Jcb. --Sreejith K (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I will miss Could somebody restore these files... We received permission. --Alan ^(talk) 22:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I think Jcb's statement above addresses the key issues that caused his de-adminship. --99of9 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support From everything I've read above, this sounds like a model example of how to respond when de-sysopped. OTRS is a great place to develop skills in handling requests in a sensible and communicative manner. (I don't think I have any direct experience to go on.) -Pete F (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Érico Wouters ^msg 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Agree with assessment, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Deserves another chance. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I hope you'll return to DR work. INeverCry 03:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Jcb, the behaviour that triggered your de-adminship went far beyond what you acknowledged above, and since you don't seem to have fully acknowledged your disruptive behaviour, I think it is very likely you never really understood what you were doing wrong. Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. It's been one and a half years, and Jcb's statement goes a long way addressing the concerns that led to the desysopping. Jafeluv (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Geagea (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support as per King of Hearts. --A.Savin 09:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Neutral I'm all for giving a second chance, so I am not opposing, but I can't quite convince myself to support resysopping as the current re-nom statement does not do a good job on recognizing past problems, or explain why these will not re-occur. My example DRs below were slippery, so I will not judge Jcb to harshly for not picking up on the deeper policy issues. Hopefully no admin would close DRs this difficult without more serious thought and a better explanation of policy, rather than being overly swayed with the votes (which in both these cases were extensively canvassed off-wiki and I would prefer this to be noted in any closure). In my view, Jcb's statement "a clear consensus in favour of deletion, so that will be the only possible conclusion" is incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of the responsibility to implement policy when reviewing a complex DR. I'll consider changing my vote before closure if the re-nom statement is revised, though this may not be necessary for the outcome that Jcb is hoping for. --Fæ (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You can't be serious, Fae. With such an overwhelming support for deletion, and especially due to lack of consent, the only possible closure of that particular DR is to delete those pictures. This is what I'm intending to do after the week passes. odder (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting anything for the particular DR, the principle however, is that admins have a duty to implement policy. There may be a DR where 10 votes all say to keep and just 1 to delete, but if this would lead to Commons hosting a copyvio, the correct closure would be to delete. When there is a visible record of off-wiki canvassing (or possibly off-wiki harassment that may put members of our community in fear of off-wiki retribution for even openly expressing a counter-view) admins should take particular care in considering policy, rather than an apparent "consensus". No, I'm not joking as you well know. --Fæ (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • And yet, whatever happens off-wiki should not have any influence on decisions that are being made on the basis of project policies; when there is no evidence of consent for pictures taken in a private environment — especially in case of nude pictures — the policy dictates their deletion. odder (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
        • If you carefully read my last statement, you will find us in agreement. The problem is understanding the meaning of "a clear consensus" when this has been manipulated by off-wiki canvassing. I fully agree that off-wiki material should not influence on-wiki decisions; when a apparent consensus has evidence of manipulation, this principle should apply and an admin closing a DR must take the responsibility to implement this principle. I suggest a longer discussion, if you want it, is held somewhere like AN rather than taking this request on a tangent. --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I think Jcb just meant to say, "this DR is obvious," and didn't really intend to make a blanket statement. I don't think we need to worry about Jcb not using his judgment; in fact, his desysoping was due to overuse of that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed to a support to demonstrate the power of the second-chance, and probably some peer pressure influence, after the longer discussion here, and a related commitment on IRC yesterday "if I get the tools, I will avoid DRs in which I not very sure", which I have no doubt that Russavia will keep an eye on. --Fæ (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. For having the guts to say sorry. And for all (good) hard work he did; I bet he could do much more. Plus, for such a long-time volunteer, it is very unlikely that he would do any harm intentionally. Rehman 15:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Given his commitment below, I can support this. russavia (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Russavia, sorry, but I think your short list of Jcb's lapses is seriously incomplete. I suggest Jcb routinely behaved in a highly misleading manner in 2011, and, as I commented below I suggest Jcb is being misleading here, in this current discussion today. If he can't or won't be candid here, where he is claiming he has turned over a new leaf, what confidence can any ordinary contributor who was at the receiving end of his counter-policy use of administrator authority have that he won't continue to abuse his authority, as if nothing had changed? Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • We are all entitled to our opinions. I don't think I commented at the de-adminship, but I was actually in favour of it -- even now we see some remnants of problems. However, I am taking Jcb at their word with their responses to my questions, and if there are serious relapses I would expect the community to be swift in action, and I think he would be expecting that too. russavia (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. --Túrelio (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Do not want to vote down, but still very bad memories.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support off course Ezarateesteban 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, very active and helpful user. Trijnstel_talk 19:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per above. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have seen cleanup of bad DR closings long after Jcb made them (example) and they were not the result of bad communication but lack of understanding. How do we know more difficult cases would be handled better now? I can't judge from inaccessible OTRS handlings. I have not read of Jcb's commitment to go through all of his/her past closings to fix errors - which should come before new DR closings. Hekerui (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support We are chronically short of active Admins. Jcb can help reduce that shortage. I am an incurable optimist about people, so I would like to think that the last year and a half have had an effect, but if he offends again, that can be fixed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support JCB certainly deserves a second chance, and did a lot of good work in his prior adminship as well (apart from the criticism, which I do understand). Lymantria (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - another experienced admin would be a big help. Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - As per statement by Jcb. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral if successful ... better to have a backlog than an error, though we also need to accept and learn from errors, not crucify  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#inappropriate canvassing against about re-admin of Jcb
   Neutral - sorry, against or about, obviously I missunderstood something. a×p_de^Hello! 10:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please can you further explain this vote? You haven't yet commented in that thread, and the thread is not about something the candidate did, but instead about something that one of his opposers did. --99of9 (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Vote changed, see above ... a×p_de^Hello! 10:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks for the clarification. --99of9 (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Neutral In 2011 I was strongly in favor of his de-adminship. To be honest, I rarely have such a bad memory of a user because I witnessed and experienced many problems with him (non-constructive attitude, despise, many mistakes, etc.). Nevertheless I also have to admit I don't know enough about what he's done and how he eventually evolved and behaved since that de-adminship. Therefore, even if I am always ready to give a second chance to people, I just don't have enough informations to decide anything about the present Jcb and I don't want to judge him from what he's done in the past. Thus I prefer a neutral vote for the moment, that I may change in a support vote if I see that Jcb had thought about his past behaviour and admitted that some of his attitudes were not appropriate for the project. Of course I may also change my vote to an oppose vote if, on the contrary, I realize that Jcb has learnt nothing from what happened in 2011. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support User appears to have learned from the past mistakes that led to the desysop, no reason to doubt their sincerity when stating they will not repeat them. Correctly interpreting the consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Austin photoguy50 is also a plus, as there is no possible outcome other than deletion there. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support with reservations. Although I have never had dealings with this former admin we are short on them. If they misbehave again then we can review the tools again. Being admin as well as OTRS will save time and efforts.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• OK There has been no point in removing his rights in that de-admin-request once before, so give him his rights as admin back. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose noo, very bad impression in the past; credit goes to user:saibo who had the nerves to correct some of his mistakes; better few admins than admins who suck --Isderion (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Hi Jcb. I refreshed my memory of what happened in 2011 and I voted for a de-sysop back then, as I was concerned that you had demonstrated some problems with making personal comments about other editors in DRs, and I thought you might have a particular issue with dealing with sexual content on Commons in an impartial way. Two years is a long time, and the examples I picked up on were unlikely to be your everyday behaviour, so I'm happy to think of those discussions as tucked away in the archives. Could you demonstrate where you have more recently dealt better with conflict but were still passionate about the issues? In addition, I would appreciate your thoughts on how you would summarise and close these two quite different and difficult DRs on sexual content:
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Austin photoguy50
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Hot sex barnstar

  --Fæ (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  • It's difficult to show a recent conflict situation, because most regarding Wiki are in OTRS (so confidential). Last weeks I responded to several angry emails and I have been able to achieve understanding by most of the mailers, staying calm and polite while explaining the situation. (e.g. people who saw their article nominated for deletion). In real life I've had to deal with a lot of conflicts in the past two years. Most of the time I wasn't one of the opponents, but I was helping to calm down the situation. Being the leader of a development aid organization, I spend every summer in a poor country with a group of young people to help building necessary buildings like schools. If you put a group together for 3 weeks, 24 hours a day, in an uncomfortable environment while working hard, it's inevitable that you will have conflicts in the team from time to time. But it's very important to resolve them as soon as possible, because there is no way to separate the opponents for the rest of the summer and an ongoing conflict will endanger the mission.
  • About the DRs you mentioned: The first one has a clear consensus in favour of deletion, so that will be the only possible conclusion. Lack of consent by the depicted women is the main issue here. I strongly agree with that concern. Another, weaker but still valid, issue is that they are out of scope. I also agree with that deletion reason. None of the files seems to be useful for any educational purpose within a Wikimedia project. The second DR seems to have a big majority in favour of keeping. Personnally I really don't care whether such a template exists or not. Nobody in the DR mentions any urgent reason for deletion (e.g. copyvio), so I would follow the majority and keep-close the DR, because the majority of the responders like to keep it and there is no forcing reason to delete. Jcb (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Just a note that the barnstar discussion has a number of improbable conditionals, plenty of sarcasm, proponents of the deterioration of Commons, etc. Non-native English speakers may want to be cautious about closure. --99of9 (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

      Indeed, a brave admin might find policy reasons to want to close either of these "difficult" DRs as the reverse of the apparent consensus. --Fæ (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Jcb, you invited interested parties to leave their questions on your talk page -- not here. But, don't you have a long history of erasing questions your don't want to address from your talk page, so they are not recorded in your talk page archive? [8], [9], [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] During your deadminship discussion you pointed to your talk page archive, claiming it showed you did not have a long history of ingoring good faith questions -- when you had misleadingly manually removed civil, good faith questions so they wouldn't be present in your archive? So I will ask my questions and make my comments here.

• Jcb, weren't you an unforgiveable bully to regular contrinbutors, when you were an administrator? Isn't this one of the serious problems with your administratorship you have not acknowledged here?
  • To interject re: the line above -- the use of the word "unforgivable" makes this a pretty unhelpful comment. A central task of a nomination like this is to determine whether or not something can/should be forgiven; presupposing an answer one way or the other makes the question impossible to answer in a fruitful way. -Pete F (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Jcb, didn't you engage in deceptive, misleading practices, that give the strong appearance you did not want to be held accountable for your actions? Since you haven't acknowledged these deceptive, misleading practices, aren't you still giving the strong appearance you can't or won't be held accountable for your actions?

• In the previous discussion I described the problems posed by supervolunteers -- and how supervolunteers can be crippling for a project, because a large fraction of them start to act like their extraordinary commitment of time entitles them to act as if the regular rules no longer apply to them. Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship)#The dangers of volunteers who want to_do more than their share I feel very strongly that Jcb proved himself to be a super-volunteer, and this this is the root explanation of his deeply troubling use of his administrator authority to retaliate against good faith contributors.

• Towards the end of the deadminship discussion I wrote:

In my opinion we remain accountable for our actions, essentially forever. In my opinion, we can expect good faith contributors to extend to us an amnesty for past mistakes -- when we have fully demonstrated we recognize those past mistakes. This crucial demonstration that you understand the concerns expressed about your behavior is largely absent here. I don't think we can assume you do understand those elements of your problematic behavior you have not addressed. Since you haven't made an effort to show you understood our concerns I think we really have no choice but to assume you will continue in all the problematic behaviors you have not acknowledged were mistakes, if you are allowed to retain full or partial administrator authority. No one expects you, or any other contributor here, to be perfect, to never make mistakes. But, a corollary of our policies and conventions on civil and collegial communication, is that we have to tell our fellow contributors when we realize we have made a mistake. When we don't they have to assume we haven't clued in, and that we will continue to repeat the same mistakes, over and over again. Even though your talk page bears a promise that you will consider the possibility you may have made a mistake your record shows you an ongoing failure to acknowledge mistakes.

You still haven't made a meaningful effort to acknowledge the problematic behaviours you engaged in -- not even close. So I suggest none of us should trust you won't engage in exactly the same problematic behaviour all over again. Geo Swan (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why everyone who voiced an opinion in the original deadminship discussuion should have a neutral heads-up about this discussion left on their talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A few comments on your list of talkpage reverts:

• The list looks longer than it is, because you double-posted three of them, so in fact you provided 13 diffs instead of 16.
• In this revert I removed an automated notification, but you forgot to mention that ten minutes earlier Marac reverted the action that caused the notification.
• In one of the cases a complete discussion was moved to my talkpage and I moved it back, leaving a link to the original location.
• this revert (and I saw one other example of this issue in your list) was done because the comment had landed at the wrong place. I should have moved it to the bottom of the page instead, which I will do in future cases.

I disagree with your point of view about the danger of what you call a 'super-volunteer'. I know quite a lot of valuable small organizations that simply wouldn't be able to exist without one or to people really going for it. Jcb (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jcb, could you please mention some of the principles you consider (or will consider) when making a decision about whether or not to delete a message from your user talk page? In what cases do you feel it is justified, and in what cases should the temptation be resisted? -Pete F (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletions at my talk page have been exceptional. I think Geo Swan found most of them, compared to over 600kb stored in my archive. If I receive an automated notification because one of my uploads got tagged by mistake (like placing {no license} where a valid license was present), I may remove that notification after dealing with the tag. But in general comments will stay. Reverts like this won't happen again, I will move the comment to the bottom of the page instead. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I think there are plenty of circumstances where removing unwelcome comments is perfectly reasonable. It might be necessary for somebody in a position of trust to exercise more discretion in that kind of deletion, but I'm surprised that you would commit to preserving comments in nearly all cases. Anyway, thanks for the answer. -Pete F (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jcb, I apologize to you and other participants here for including three duplicates in the list of 16 misleading exisions to your talk page. I overstruck the duplicates above. However I am extremely disturbed by how you misleadingly characterized the remaining exisions, as if they were routine.

I seems to me that in characterizing the remainder as routine you have been highly misleading. It seems to me you are showing that basically nothing has changed since 2011, and that you are prepared to be highly misleading in your attempts to evade responsibility for your actions.

Several of the comments you excised were from User:Saibo -- someone I don't know: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. But even if, for the sake of argument, Saibo was considered a troll by some, his or her comments here were civil, and correct. You acknowledged above that you were wrong to close DRs without explanation, so his or her civil reminders that you were doing so was not "spam" and it was not "trolling". He or she was in the right to remind you or your responsibilities, and you were wrong to characterize them as trolling or spam back in 2011, and it is highly misleading of you to imply their excision was the routine kind of excision anyone would do. Rather it was an early and civil heads-up of one of the main issues that cost you your administratorship.

Three of the comments are similar civil and policy based concerns that did not merit excision: [29], [30], [31].

Three of the comments you excised were from me: [32], [33], [34], I too was addressing valid policy based concerns, and I believe my comments merited a civil and substantive reply. Your excision of them in 2011 strongly suggested to me that you were unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the actions you took as an administrator. I am afraid you still don't seem prepared to acknowledge that you gave the strong appearance of misusing your administrator authority to delete material I needed for work I was doing not out of a policy based concern but instead solely because my civil good faith question and concerns had pissed you off.

I don't think anything has really changed. Here we are, at your attempt to get your administratorship restored, and it seems to me you are still prepared to try to mislead people over the nature of these excisions. Geo Swan (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Question Jcb, one of the main concerns that people had was the lack of quality in your closes and a lack of communication with editors who had questions in relation to those closes. With a simple yes or no answer, do you acknowledge that they were amongst the issues that led to your de-adminship? I asked you this question on IRC and you acknowledged in the affirmitive, and mentioned you basically stated as such in your request. Given this, do you commit yourself to the following: 1) not to attend to DRs in a "robo-admin" way; 2) providing clear rationales for all closes (even if "as per nom" for simple, obvious DRs) to demonstrate that the DR has been read entirely; and 3) respond to all queries from editors whom query any closes (in a COM:MELLOW way). If you can commit to that here, I would both support you and hold you to it. russavia (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this was an important issue in 2011. I see the importance of your three points and I commit to it. Jcb (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Russavia, sorry, I think your list Jcb's lapses was incomplete. Over and above failing to leave closing explanations in DRs, over and above not answering good faith queries, Jcb engaged in misleading behaviour. As I noted above removing civil good faith comments from his talk page was highly misleading. As I noted above, trying to tell those participating in this discussion that his previous obfuscation of good faith policy based concern as routine maintenance strongly suggest to me at least, that he doesn't understand what is wrong with decpetively trying to evade responsibility for his actions.

Jcb used to disrespectfully fail to provide substantive answers to good faith contributors who had questions about his DRs on his talk page. And then, when discussions were initiated as to whether those files should be restored, he would sometimes weigh in -- but in a way that seemed to me to be misleading and indicative of a woeful unwillingness to be held responsible for his actions. He would weigh in to these discussions as if he were an uninvolved third party. He would leave these rather vague comments as if he was supporting the decision of the closing administrator. These vague supportive comments from an uninvolved third party fell far short of the specific, substantive comments the closing administrator should make. Some closing administrators don't weigh in during the undeletion discussions, trusting that the closing comments they left at the DR, and the explanation they supplied at their talk page, after the DR, were sufficient. But for closing administrators like Jcb, who didn't explain at the DR, or at their talk page, it seems to me that comments that look like he was trying to masquerade as an uninvolved third party while not as bad as employing sockpuppets were misleading in the same way as employing sockpuppets.

Rightly or wrongly Jcb lost the general community's trust that he was closing DRs related to human sexuality in an neutral, objective manner. He should have realized, months before his de-adminship discussion, that the could no longer close DRs related to human sexuality, and should confine himself to weighing in those discussions with a substantive policy based comment. Continuing to close these DRs, when his closures were so often challenged and so often reverted, showed bad judgement and disrespect for the community.

Jcb went beyond merely not measuring up to WP:MELLOW, he mocked newbies. That is terrible because it was abusive, and it was terrible because we need experienced contributors to set an example. We particularly need administrators to set a good example as newbies deserve to be able to trust that the example they should follow.

In my particular case he went beyond failing to respond in a civil, substantive way to my civil, good faith concerns. About a week or ten days after our first interaction he chose to delete material I was relying on in a DR with a pitifully flimsy justification for deletion. It was extremely inconvenient for me. It was extremely inconvenient for me over the course of 150 hours of my volunteer time. It was extremely inconvenient for me almost two months. I gave him several opportunities to quietly revert his actions. He blew me off and acted like I was a vandal.

Some of Jcb's supporters implied I was making a mountain out of a molehill to be so concerned over a single DR. But it was a DR that caused me to grit my teeth in frustration over his intransigence over 150 hours I worked on uploading the files related to that DR. I was reminded of his instransigence almost every day for almost two months. I have acknowledged that there may be some other reason for his maddening unwillingness to either explain his deletion, or to revert his deletion. But the longer he was instransigent the harder it has been to resist concluding the sole explanation for the deletion was malice, that he never imagine he had a valid justification for this deletion, but he thought he could get away deleting material I was relying on to retaliate against me for asking him tough questions he couldn't answer. I believe my questions and comments in 2011 were all substantive, and were all civil, and any resentment he felt was wildly misplaced.

Note, you won't find even an iota of acknowledgment on Jcb's part that he never had any justification for the delete conclusion of that DR.

All participants on the WMF projects are supposed to be civil and collegial at all times. I am used to encountering fellow contributors who fall short of that standard. The best thing to do is to try one's best and not respond in kind to uncivil contributors. I do my best to remain civil when other contributors aren't civil. But there is a level playing field there. I think it is essential that the community in general, and the corp of administrators, close ranks and rein in administrators who give the appearance of bullying. At this point I don't really care if Jcb has an explanation that would convince people he didn't close that DR as delete out of malice. His two years of unwillingness to explain the closure or acknowledge it was a mistake, made it look like he was acting out of malice. Geo Swan (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Geo Swan, if you have a genuine point to make, I think you have failed by making your own badgering the dominant theme here. I have no history with this user, but the only person who gives the appearance of badly needing to work on their collaborative skills on this RFA is…you. -Pete F (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think my record of interaction with Jcb, while he was an administrator, was a model of how to voice a policy based concern, and I think if you think I am "badgering" him now you might consider bearing in mind the possibility you don't understand how he has behaved in the past. Other administrators may see him as a generally cooperative team member, while ordinary contributors, who were at the receiving end of his behaviours can have a completely opposite impression. Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason why all the contributors who participated in the de-admin discussions shouldn't receive a neutral heads-up of this discussion?

I repeat, is there any reason why all the contributors who participated in the de-admin discussions shouldn't receive a neutral heads-up of this discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No. If you want to do so, and might phrase something neutral, then knock yourself out with posting heads-ups. At the moment there have been reasonable and direct questions pitched about concerns, so there should be no last minute surprises. --Fæ (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I propose a message like the following:

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges. I think you are entitled to be informed that it has been proposed that his administrator privileges be restored. While there were various suggestions at the de-admin discussion that he be allowed conditional access to administrator privileges, the proposal at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is for Jcb to have unconditional access to the administrator privileges restored. Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

At a first attempt 61 people weighted in -- User:Cecil User:Jcb User:Saibo User:Mattbuck User:Geo Swan User:AzaToth User:Hekerui User:ANGELUS User:Léna User:Wsiegmund User:Trijnstel User:Blue Marble User:Fæ User:Blue Marble User:Herbythyme User:Ymblanter User:S Larctia User:Rd232 User:Pieter Kuiper User:Pill User:Beria User:AFBorchert User:CT Cooper User:Ajraddatz User:Fry1989 User:Geagea User:ABF User:Lymantria User:Yikrazuul User:Ezarate User:Neozoon User:A.Savin User:VR-Land User:Yann User:Jafeluv User:Olivier Bommel User:Kaldari User:Missvain User:Dcoetzee User:Amada44 User:Courcelles User:Niabot User:WizardOfOz User:Nevit User:Fastily User:TwoWings User:Wknight94 User:Pymouss User:SarekOfVulcan User:WJBscribe -User:Schwäbin User:PierreSelim User:Jastrow User:NVO User:Adrignola User:MoiraMoira User:Túrelio User:Skeezix1000 User:Jameslwoodward User:EugeneZelenko

Ten people who voiced an opinion here also voiced an opinion at the de-admin discussion.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• The "various suggestions" sentence is unnecessary and selectively chosen to support your agenda, please leave it out. I also think that replacing "I think you are entitled to be informed" by "This note is to inform" will make it more neutral. --99of9 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about:

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges. This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored. Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th. Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Sorry for the slow reply. I was asleep. The new version is ok, except you got the nominator wrong. --99of9 (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is. This is clearly canvassing. As soon as I became aware of this action, I have opened a discussion on COM:AN. --Túrelio (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It was suggested to Jcb in his de-adminship coming back so this RfA is no surprise and the canvassing not required. Whoever wants to prevent that Jcb is granted administrative tools could have used a browser extension that regularly looks up whether a certain string appears at Commons:Administrators/Requests. I wonder that even retired users received this "heads up". -- Rillke^(q?) 08:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't the term canvassing usually reserved for selectively informing only those you think will agree with you of a discussion?

As for special browser extensions ... who the heck knows how to do that? Geo Swan (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

re 1) In my understanding, any sort of "drumming". But I think this discussion should continue (eventually) at COM:AN, not here. --Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

watch

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

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

Requests for CheckUser

watch

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

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

Requests for Oversight rights

watch

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

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

Requests for permission to run a bot

watch

Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.

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

Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.

SamoaBot 3 (talk · contribs)

Operator: Ricordisamoa (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: internationalize file description pages, using apposite templates (like {{original upload log}}) and MediaWiki system messages (like {{int:license-header}})

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic unsupervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): intermittently, at the operator's discretion

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 20-25 EPM

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (already flagged)

Programming language(s): Python (with PWB)

--Ricordisamoa 01:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Some test edits: Revision of File:Signator.jpg and Revision of File:Emerald spring in yellowstone.jpg --Ricordisamoa 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another: Revision of File:Hospital-quiron-san-sebastian.jpg (at the moment I'm checking every single diff before saving, later I could run it "bot-like") --Ricordisamoa 05:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• The edits look fine to me. I know other bots do work like this, but I don't see much harm in redundancy, especially since you're making a few changes at once. Which portion of the file database do you plan to run it on? --99of9 (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For example I can start from a search, or from pages that transclude {{ImageUpload}}: most times they are old, low-frequency-edited pages, and often contain superseded/superfluous syntax structures. --Ricordisamoa 13:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine by me. --99of9 (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks OK for me, but will be good idea to borrow other trivial clean-ups ideas from similar bots. Like {{Location}} place, etc. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Xqbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Xqt (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Running through Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags and fixing invalid {{Location}} template coordinate parameters to the right form, e.g. fixing {{Location|51|58.8|0|N|0|12.92|0|E}} to {{Location|51|58|48|N|0|12|52.2|E}} per request

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic run

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): every day if needed

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 5-12

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python (using mw:Pywikipediabot framework)

 @xqt 12:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please use more descriptive edit summaries. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot follow.  @xqt 14:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think something like Fixing/normalizing coordinates will be much more descriptive then Wikipedia python library; cosmetic changes. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that comment will become more meaningful. But I didn't made test edits yet for this request. That message was done while preparing the last run requested at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Category:Pages_with_malformed_coordinate_tags to touch these pictures because I found some problems with access rights until re-login the bot.  @xqt 04:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• The proposal looks fine. Go ahead and run test edits for this request. --99of9 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  Test edits done [35].  @xqt 04:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  Looks OK for me. Could you please disclose full list of cosmetic changes? I noticed section headers standardization and excessive empty lines removal. May be another fixes could be proposed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  The source of cosmetic changes is listed here. I changed the commons specific parts in pyrev:11534 today which is from Commons:Tools/pywiki file description cleanup because I saw some differences while reviewing the bot's edits.  @xqt 18:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Smallbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Smallman12q (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: To upload ~500k files from the US National Archives and Records Administration based on a database dump provided in partnership with the Digital Public Library of America.

Example

JSON source

{ "id": "nara--1693425", "key": "nara--1693425", "value": { "rev": "1-a8e9cee50a8cea9d1724c12a0d0d69e5" }, "doc": { "_id": "nara--1693425", "_rev": "1-a8e9cee50a8cea9d1724c12a0d0d69e5", "hasView": [{ "url": "http://media.nara.gov/Public_Vaults/14755_2006_001_a.jpg", "format": "image/jpeg" }, { "url": "http://media.nara.gov/nwl/berryman/H-009_7-1-1928_Yes_We_Have_No_Ambitions_print.pdf", "format": "application/pdf" } ], "sourceResource": { "date": { "begin": "1928-07-01", "end": "1928-07-01", "displayDate": "07/01/1928" }, "description": "This cartoon plays off a line from a popular 1923 song (\\" Yes, We Have No Bananas!\\") to characterize car maker Henry Ford\'s Presidential ambitions--or lack thereof. Ford blames his busy schedule for his hesitation to jump into the \\" Presidential contest pool, \\" while eager supporters encourage him to \\" come on in !\\" Berryman was correct in his prediction: Ford chose not to pursue the Presidency.", "title": "Yes, We Have No Ambitions Today!", "rights": "Restrictions: Unrestricted; Use status: Unrestricted", "collection": { "@id": "http://dp.la/api/collections/15e82b12ef89a63d03737461e2440df8", "id": "15e82b12ef89a63d03737461e2440df8", "title": "Records of the U.S. Senate, 1789 - 2011" }, "stateLocatedIn": { "name": "DC" }, "creator": "U.S. Senate. Office of Senate Curator.\\t(? -)", "isPartOf": "Series: Berryman Political Cartoon Collection, 1896 - 1949", "type": "image" }, "object": "http://media.nara.gov/Public_Vaults/14755_2006_001_t.jpg", "ingestDate": "2013-04-11T21:27:25.187803", "originalRecord": { "access-restriction": { "specific-access-restrictions": null, "restriction-status": "Unrestricted" }, "contributors": { "contributor": { "contributor-display": "Berryman, Clifford Kennedy, 1869-1949", "contributor-record-type": "PER", "contributor-type": "Artist", "standard": "Y", "num": "1", "contributor-id": "3119843" } }, "hierarchy": { "hierarchy-item": [{ "hierarchy-item-inclusive-dates": "1896 - 1949", "hierarchy-item-id": "306080", "hierarchy-item-lod": "Series", "hierarchy-item-title": "Berryman Political Cartoon Collection, 1896 - 1949" }, { "hierarchy-item-id": "375", "hierarchy-item-lod": "Record Group", "hierarchy-item-title": "Records of the U.S. Senate, 1789 - 2011", "hierarchy-item-record-group-number": "46" } ] }, "production-dates": { "production-date": "07/01/1928" }, "created-timestamp": "1/20/2013 4:36:49", "arc-id": "1693425", "use-restriction": { "specific-use-restrictions": null, "use-status": "Unrestricted" }, "title": "Yes, We Have No Ambitions Today!", "title-only": "Yes, We Have No Ambitions Today!", "general-records-types": { "general-records-type": { "num": "1", "general-records-type-desc": "Photographs and other Graphic Materials", "general-records-type-id": "4237050" } }, "scope-content-note": "This cartoon plays off a line from a popular 1923 song (\\" Yes, We Have No Bananas!\\") to characterize car maker Henry Ford\'s Presidential ambitions--or lack thereof. Ford blames his busy schedule for his hesitation to jump into the \\" Presidential contest pool, \\" while eager supporters encourage him to \\" come on in !\\" Berryman was correct in his prediction: Ford chose not to pursue the Presidency. ", "parent": { "parent-title": "Berryman Political Cartoon Collection, compiled 1896 - 1949", "parent-lod": "Series", "parent-id": "306080" }, "edited-timestamp": "[g_x128_110, g_x32_443, g_x64_221, g_x2_7090, g_x16_886, g_x8_1772, g_x4_3545, b_x1_14180]", "objects": { "object": [{ "thumbnail-url": "http://media.nara.gov/Public_Vaults/14755_2006_001_t.jpg", "object-sequence-number": "1", "file-size": "579687", "mime-type": "image/jpeg", "num": "1", "file-url": "http://media.nara.gov/Public_Vaults/14755_2006_001_a.jpg" }, { "description": "Download PDF", "object-sequence-number": "2", "file-size": "209895", "mime-type": "application/pdf", "num": "2", "file-url": "http://media.nara.gov/nwl/berryman/H-009_7-1-1928_Yes_We_Have_No_Ambitions_print.pdf" } ] }, "title-date": "07/01/1928", "subject-references": { "subject-reference": { "subject-type": "SRT", "display-name": "cartoons (humorous images)", "num": "1", "subject-id": "4170951", "standard": "Y" } }, "level-of-desc": { "level-id": "NAVI", "lod-display": "Item" }, "physical-occurrences": { "physical-occurrence": { "media-occurrences": { "media-occurrence": { "num": "1", "media-type": "Paper" } }, "reference-units": { "reference-unit": { "city": "Washington", "fax": "202-357-5911", "name": "Center for Legislative Archives", "ref-id": "36", "address2": "Room 8E, 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW", "summary": "true", "phone": "202-357-5350", "state": "DC", "num": "1", "postcode": "20408", "address1": "National Archives Building", "mailcode": "LL", "email": "[email protected]" } }, "copy-status": "Preservation-Reproduction-Reference" } }, "creators": { "creator": { "creator-id": "1107050", "standard": "Y", "num": "1", "creator-record-type": "ORG", "creator-type": "Most Recent", "creator-display": "U.S. Senate. Office of Senate Curator.\\t(? - )", "summary": "true" } }, "variant-control-numbers": { "variant-control-number": { "mlr": "false", "variant-number": "NWL-46-BERRYMAN-H009", "num": "1", "variant-type": "NAIL Control Number", "variant-number-desc": "NWL-46-BERRYMAN-H009" } }, "arc-id-desc": "1693425", "indexable-dates": { "date-range": "[b_x16_120, b_x8_237, g_x64_30, b_x4_486, b_x16_119, g_x128_14, g_x32_59, g_x128_15, g_x16_118, g_x8_243, g_x32_60, g_x64_29, b_x2_974, b_x8_242, g_x16_121, g_x4_487]" }, "parent-control-group": { "parent-control-title": "Records of the U.S. Senate, 1789 - 2011", "parent-control-lod": "Record Group", "parent-control-id": "46" }, "_id": "1693425" }, "isShownAt": "http://research.archives.gov/description/1693425", "provider": { "@id": "http://dp.la/api/contributor/nara", "name": "National Archives and Records Administration" }, "@context": { "begin": { "@id": "dpla:dateRangeStart", "@type": "xsd:date" }, "@vocab": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/", "hasView": "edm:hasView", "name": "xsd:string", "object": "edm:object", "dpla": "http://dp.la/terms/", "collection": "dpla:aggregation", "edm": "http://www.europeana.eu/schemas/edm/", "end": { "@id": "dpla:end", "@type": "xsd:date" }, "state": "dpla:state", "aggregatedDigitalResource": "dpla:aggregatedDigitalResource", "coordinates": "dpla:coordinates", "isShownAt": "edm:isShownAt", "stateLocatedIn": "dpla:stateLocatedIn", "sourceResource": "edm:sourceResource", "dataProvider": "edm:dataProvider", "originalRecord": "dpla:originalRecord", "provider": "edm:provider", "LCSH": "http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects" }, "ingestType": "item", "dataProvider": "Center for Legislative Archives", "@id": "http://dp.la/api/items/02b4f072d067494f67b08d6a4100f143", "id": "02b4f072d067494f67b08d6a4100f143" } }

File

Yes, We Have No Ambitions Today! - Nara - 1693425.jpg

Description	English: This cartoon plays off a line from a popular 1923 song ("Yes, We Have No Bananas!") to characterize car maker Henry Ford's Presidential ambitions--or lack thereof. Ford blames his busy schedule for his hesitation to jump into the "Presidential contest pool," while eager supporters encourage him to "come on in!" Berryman was correct in his prediction: Ford chose not to pursue the Presidency.
Author	Berryman, Clifford Kennedy, 1869-1949
Date	1 July 1928
Current location	National Archives and Records Administration  Native name National Archives and Records Administration Location Washington, D.C. (headquarters), and many regional facilities and presidential libraries nationwide in the USA Coordinates 38° 53′ 34.01″ N, 77° 1′ 22.71″ W    Established 1934 Website www.archives.gov Authority control VIAF: 132254586 LCCN: n84176101 GND: 00605336X BnF: cb12182396f WorldCat
Record ID	This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identifier (National Archives Identifier) 1693425. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Record group: Record Group 46: Records of the U.S. Senate, 1789 - 2011 (ARC identifier: 37) Series: Berryman Political Cartoon Collection, 1896 - 1949 (ARC identifier: 306080) NWL-46-BERRYMAN-H009
Source	U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
Permission (Reusing this file)	This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright. Note: This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. (See 206.02(b) of Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices). It also does not apply to certain US coins; see The US Mint Terms of Use. This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.
Other versions	Please do not overwrite original files: any restoration work should be uploaded with a new name and linked in this page's "Other versions =" parameter, so that this file represents the exact file found in the NARA catalog record to which it links. The metadata on this page was imported directly from NARA's catalog record; additional descriptive text may be added by Wikimedians to the template below with the "descriptions =" parameter, but please do not modify the other fields. (Please note: this template is not yet part of an official guideline or policy)

	The metadata on this page was imported directly from NARA's catalog record; additional descriptive text may be added by Wikimedians to the template below with the "Description=" parameter, but please do not modify the other fields.
	Please help us by reporting errors! This may include misidentifications, erroneous images, typos in the metadata, possible copyright issues, and poor-quality images needing rescanning. (Be aware that, for documentary purposes, NARA often retains the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, or even misspelled.)

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 10-15, as fast as it uploads

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No

Programming language(s): Python 3.2

Will use metadata from DPLA bulk download for NARA. The metadata is in json, and is converted formatted to the template by the bot.

Smallman12q (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

For reference, a previous NARA batch upload was approved at Commons:Bots/Requests/US National Archives bot.Smallman12q (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah sure, looks good to me. --Dschwen (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Usual suggestion: please use language template for Author/Source/Record ID fields. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please can you put a deeplink in the "source" field, as that is where most editors will look. I tried to get the original of this example, but apparently "The Online Public Access (OPA) system will be down for maintenance from May 10 to May 25.", so we may not be able to thoroughly test this for a couple of weeks. --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I recently heard some details about that as well. I'll try to keep updated on the status. Bdcousineau (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• What kind of label is: "NWL-46-BERRYMAN-H009"? It might help to add the name of this kind of identifier. --99of9 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That is an old catalog number used by NARA. It is no longer in use, but since it is in the current template used by NARA on Commons, it has been included. It most likely refers to the "NAIL" database, which was the in use prior to ARC/OPA, the current database. For a sample, see File:Football team on the field, Haskell Institute, Lawrence, Kansas, 1914 - NARA - 519149.jpg. Better removed? Bdcousineau (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• 500k files! Wow, this is huge, congratulations and good luck! --99of9 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Great start! Since this is a large set, and since the metadata will not be perfect (never is for a transfer of this size): are you thinking of staging this? Say, a few hundred to start, then 1k, then 10k, with pauses to see what sort of cleanup is needed? --SJ+ 22:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Rybecbot (2) (talk · contribs)

Operator: Rybec (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Sometimes when files are transferred from Flickr by a bot, the tags on Flickr lead the bot to add inappropriate categories. For example, this photo of some rocks in shallow water was given the unhelpful categories Commons, Facebook, Flickr, Google, News, Pic, Wallpaper, Wiki, Wikipedia and Photographs. Mass importation of files causes a need for mass removal of categories, which is what this request is for.

Automatic or manually assisted:automatic with some supervision

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):occasional

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):4

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):Y

Programming language(s): Python (standard pywikipedia category.py or replace.py script)

Rybec (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Test edits have been done: 50 files were removed from the News category. Rybec (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• So do you remove every image in this kind of category, or only those from Flickr, or??? --99of9 (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you could make better edit summaries, like Removing [[Category:News]]. Also will be good idea to remove from several categories at once edit when applicable. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• The bots that import images from Flickr don't create new categories, but only add images to categories that already exist, so my intention is not to get rid of the categories entirely. When a category should contain no images but only subcategories, then I would want to empty it of images, but typically there would be some images which belong and others which don't. My intention is to manually identify the ones which don't belong, make a list of them, then have the script make the changes.

I've done another three test edits to show removal of multiple categories in a single edit with a non-default edit summary: [36] [37] [38]. Rybec (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK for me, but I think will be good idea to use link to categories in edit summary. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to doing that. Rybec (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I’ve have had the same kind of trouble with stuff bot-uploaded from Flickr being piled up in Category:Lisbon (a much more specific category than those above, of course), which is a pain to clean up manually. There’s a few things that the importing tool could do automaticly, like avoiding over-categorization (e.g. if a photo is under Category:Streets in Lisbon is should not be also under Category:Lisbon), but more or less human input and manual work is going to be needed sooner or later. A big problem is how to tell apart what media really belong in a given category from those that should be further moved to more detailed subcategories within the same tree. I’d really like to have separate "(cleanup)" subcategories for all categories afflicted by this kind of flooding, really. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

SamoaBot 2 (talk · contribs)

Operator: Ricordisamoa (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: detecting and logging (in a user subpage) SVG images without a proper xmlns declaration on the root <svg> element: those images aren't viewable at all in some browsers, and should be properly fixed (this can be done later, either manually or automatically)

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic, supervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): intermittently

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): about 1 edit per minute (max)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (already flagged, see [[../SamoaBot]])

Programming language(s): JavaScript, with Ajax (own code, will be published soon)

Ricordisamoa 04:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Here can be seen the log of all images detected so far.--Ricordisamoa 06:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• How hard would it be for your bot to fix them and reupload? --99of9 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  It is currently written in JavaScript (I plan to switch to Python in a few weeks), and Ajax upload isn't tested yet, but I will try to do as much as possible. In the meantime, it could however log these files. --Ricordisamoa 02:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to add maintenance template to image page too.

Edit summary for log action could be just file name with a link, log page name is self-explanatory.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Does a proper template exist for these cases? (and I'll work on edit summary) --Ricordisamoa 06:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

{{BadSVG}} may be adapted for this purpose, or {{Cleanup image}} may be used. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Info In Firefox, you can use the sendAsBinary() method of your XHR-instance to upload the SVG. This avoids encoding issues (while some SVGs also work with the send method, this will screw up others). Downloading is very easy through a GET since the cross-origin-issue is resolved.
• I created a sample that works with FF 19 (tested): User:Rillke/fastTransfer.js. It downloads and uploads a file immediately when invoked. You have access to the raw data in function _gotFile so you can manipulate that data. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I had a look with Firefox 19. It displayed two of the nine files on the list.

(E)-pent-2-ène.svg does not display

(Z)-pent-2-ène.svg does not display

(±)-Ethyl-2-methylbutyrate_Structural_Formulae_V.1.svg has been re-uploaded several times; version of 13:06, 26 March 2013 does not display and Mediawiki did not generate a thumbnail for it; other versions okay

1-Chlornaphthalin.svg displays correctly

1-jpg.svg Mediawiki says there's an error in the file; does not display in browser

1025arud.svg Mediawiki says there's an error in the file; does not display in browser

10th_Panzer_Division_logo_1.svg has been re-uploaded, but both versions displayed correctly

1422_Zeta_in_the_Serbian_Despotate_after_death_Balsa_III.svg does not display

1885ArmenianFlag.svg has since been re-uploaded; original file did not display

Rybec (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I'm going to run a fixed version of the script; let's see... --Ricordisamoa 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I tried to view the new additions to the list, with similar results: most of the files did not display, but one did. I don't know enough about the subject to say definitively that there are false positives.

1969_draft_lottery_scatterplot.svg file has been replaced; old version did not display in Firefox

1988_Illinois_Constitutional_Convention_Vote_pie_chart.svg file has been replaced; old version did not display in Firefox

1st_Panzer_Division_logo.svg displays correctly in Firefox

2-propil-amine.svg does not display in Firefox

201globe.svg file has been replaced; old version did not display in Firefox

250x250Feld.svg does not display in Firefox

2NOGCMOS.svg does not display in Firefox

Even with the possible false positives, the usefulness of this list is apparent. If making the list is all that this request covers, I fully support it (if the request is also about automatically fixing the problems that are found, I don't support that part: some unneeded changes might be made, and test edits fixing the SVG files haven't yet been done). Rybec (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

After 1st_Panzer_Division_logo.svg I changed the code, so it should work well now. --Ricordisamoa 10:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I  Support this request, but I'm leaning against applying the bot flag. If it's only editing one page, and even that only once per minute, I don't see it as necessary. Am I missing a reason you need the flag? --99of9 (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the bot flag is to avoid flooding RCs (if the bot's speed is out of control)... anyway, there's also the first request. --Ricordisamoa 13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What is final functionality? Will bot re-upload fixed files, or only log problematic files? If last is true, will be clean-up template added to file page? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In case it is only logging, I can try to write a JavaScript-Bot which fixes the issue that does not need any other host than a compatible browser to run. IMHO a logging-bot does not need a bot-flag but it would be great if we could combine this functionality (detection and fixing). Then, we also do not need to log each occurrence or adding a template. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You get my {{support}} --Ricordisamoa 11:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I need your source code. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

→ User:Ricordisamoa/XMLNSense.js --Ricordisamoa 10:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thank you. → User:Rillke/MwJSBot.SVGXmlNSFixer.js. Log and continue-params are written to my user space by default but this can be customized by creating an own instance of window.SVGXmlNSFixer. Detection of svg root in its own svg namespace like for this file has to be fixed.

• Files processed so far by the script:
  • File:A-weighting, ISO 226 and ITU-R 468.svg
  • File:5 inch floppy.svg
  • File:2NOGCMOS.svg
  • File:(E)-pent-2-ène.svg
  • File:(Z)-pent-2-ène.svg

-- Rillke^(q?) 20:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

So could you operate a real bot for this task? --Ricordisamoa 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've no dedicated server/computer for this task, if that is your question. But I think if I or someone else continue(s) running this JavaScript over all 666,540+ SVG files, it would be a good idea to ask whether other issues with SVG files should be considered as well. Also the speed/bandwidth is not really sufficient… -- Rillke^(q?) 16:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant "a flagged bot account"; BTW, I got the flag (for another task). --Ricordisamoa 18:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've no flagged bot account where the task would be appropriate to run under. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Would your script work on Chromium/Chrome? --Ricordisamoa 21:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems so. At least the loop runs and the parser does its job. Not entirely sure whether the upload will work but it's very likely (it's using the usual XHR.send() as SVGs are UTF-8 encoded). -- Rillke^(q?) 22:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Should I continue running the script (e.g. under RillkeBot (not flagged)), would you like continuing running it, or do we want to split the load, are there questions left? -- Rillke^(q?) 20:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

For me it's ok, but you should get a bot flag; I'm thinking it may be better to swich to Pywikipediabot, though. --Ricordisamoa 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

How many files are we approximately looking at? If it is of the order of a hundred or less then I suggest to just go ahead with it. --Dschwen (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have to check all files on the Commons, and upload at least several hundred images... However, I have PWB installed, and will starting coding something tomorrow. --Ricordisamoa 21:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all you'll have to check all SVG files. Secondly, when you code please make sure to do a http range request! Try downloading just the first kilobyte of each file you are analyzing. This should speed things up. Let me know if you need help with that in python, I've implemented it before. --Dschwen (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Rybecbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Rybec (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: re-uploading photos which have been cropped to remove watermarks and editing accompanying text to indicate the watermark has been removed

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic, lightly supervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 2 when uploading files, 4 when changing text

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python (the Pywikipediabot upload.py script with minor changes and the replace.py script with no changes)

Rybec (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Badly needed. Please execute a batch of runs as an example. --Foroa (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm having trouble doing the test edits because the newly-created bot account doesn't have reupload permission (just reupload-own)--I checked here. Rybec (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes it's very nasty for new bot accounts. Should work now! -- Rillke^(q?) 18:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you! I've done the test edits. I only prepared 24 files to replace instead of the suggested 30 to 50. Rybec (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not continue until the bot preserves Metadata and please repair this for all edits done so far by the bot. Example where data is lost at File:047-1211 Enschede 125.JPG (before after processing). Please also include a meaningful upload/edit summary (like "image cropped to remove watermark"). Thank you! -- Rillke^(q?) 21:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Question Which software do you use for cropping the file? Is it lossless? -- Rillke^(q?) 22:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! I used jpegtran, which is lossless. I hadn't noticed the problem with the EXIF data; I don't know why that happened. Rybec (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ExifTool is, for example capable copying (nearly) all metadata from the original file to the edited one. This way you could ensure they are never lost. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've reverted my test/example edits. Rybec (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Great demand exists for automated removal of watermarks, and this pioneering bot is brilliant :D I would say the exif is less important at the moment especially if the information is still made available with the older version. If it inspires people to make exif copying bots, all the better. I believe it is not long before we see watermark removal bots that mend the picture rather than crop, but for the time being, in these chaotic times where trigger fingers are blocking people for good contributions, Rybec's bot would help bring some badly needed relief and order. Rybec certainly seems responsive, capable, and I recommend flagging his bot forthwith ! I can't see maintenance and improvements being a problem. Penyulap ☏ 05:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • In this case they contained copyright and camera information and it is quite bad if they aren't visible any more at the file description page. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Question: Does your bot automatically detect the watermarks or are you manually instructing what to crop? -- Rillke^(q?) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  I was just using the identify command from Imagemagick to get the pixel size of downloaded images, subtracting 138 from the height, scripting jpegtran to crop to that size, and the only function of the bot is the re-uploading. I agree that the metadata is important. The problem was that I didn't use the "copy all" option to jpegtran. I've manually uploaded to File:1210_Turnhout_029.JPG one example of a file cropped with the "copy all" option. Its EXIF data is preserved. I also learned how to do an edit summary with the script: [39]. I've started another test run, with the metadata and the edit summaries. Rybec (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone pointed out the need to remove {{watermark}} and the category Category:Uploads by Microtoerisme with watermarks. I was thinking that could be done with VisualFileChange.js. Rybec (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not remove "watermark", but change it to "watermark removed". ("watermark removed" is appropriate for these uploads) – JBarta (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done a second test run, changing {{watermark}} to {{watermark removed}} and removing [[Category:Uploads by Microtoerisme with watermarks]] as described by Jbarta. The files can be seen at Special:ListFiles/Rybecbot. I've changed my request to add the use of the standard replace.py script for the textual changes. Rybec (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Results look good to me. --VanBuren (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Howdy. I suggest using {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}} instead of {{watermark removed}} because the latter redirects to the former. Also, I suggest checking to see if one of those templates is already on the page. When you made this edit, the template was already on the page.--Rockfang (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that "Attribution metadata from licensed image" existed. Might I suggest that "watermark removed" is more used, more intuitive and easier to spot than the other? The resulting template on the image description page is the same either way. Just a thought. – JBarta (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Assuming Jarry1250's Toolserver Template transclusion count tool is correct, {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}} is transcluded 6,192 times while {{Watermark removed}} is transcluded 3,422 times. If an image license doesn't require attribution, then {{Metadata from image}} can be used.--Rockfang (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• The mistaken edit found by Rockfang is one I did manually. When doing the textual replacements, the bot will look for the specific text "{{watermark}}" (by which I mean, enclosed in curly brackets) and change it. Only if {{watermark}} appeared twice already, or together with {{watermark removed}} would it make the same mistake I did. If it encounters "{{watermark removed}}" it does not do any replacement. In other words, it's not inserting {{watermark removed}} but rather changing {{watermark}} to {{watermark removed}}. For the text replacement task I want to use the standard replace.py script from pywikipedia. I don't especially mind using {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}} rather than {{watermark removed}}, although the latter is more succinct. On Wikipedia, using redirects in a similar manner is considered okay. Is it the same here? Is the redirect likely to be deleted? If not, it seems to me like a matter of indifference. Rybec (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Hazard-SJ (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Category replacements

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatically

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Periodically

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No

Programming language(s): Python

There are cases when more help is wanted for category replacements. Now is an example. User:CommonsDelinker/commands has a backlog with, I believe, no bots working on it at the moment, so I'd like to be able to help out in such cases.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• There has been some recent issues with SieBot recently that makes COM:CDC to be backlogged. I'd welcome very much a clone for performing those category moves when SieBot is not working. I support approval (with flag). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Please make a test run if this is not standard bot. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• If this is not a standard bot, one has to care that nothing inside <nowiki><!-- --> or <source> is replaced. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• I planned to use CategoryMoveRobot in category.py (PyWikipedia trunk). Originally, I was planning to manually start the bot for each request, but I could create an on-wiki page for the bot (or use the one currently in use) to use so I wouldn't have to manually start it each time. I'd still integrate the CategoryMoveRobot class into it, though. Would that be preferred? (P.S. SieBot is back up so there isn't much of a rush now.)  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think will be good idea to use User:CommonsDelinker/commands for list of requests and proceed automatically. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  • In such a case, however, the completed requests won't be removed until someone comes along to do so manually, as my bot cannot edit that page.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

    • If you create a separate account for the task, that account could be admin-flagged so that it can edit the page. The task is important and it would be best to integrate a supplementary bot into the existing structure as neatly as possible. Rd232 (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

      Even if I'm not an admin myself (as is the current case)?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

      • Many moves require still manual intervention as many items cannot be bot moved and in some cases a redirect is created, otherwise deleted; I don't think that can be handled by a bot anyway. (I spend on average 2 minutes per category move on cleaning up). --Foroa (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

        Yes, moving categories it technically impossible, so without admin access it wouldn't be able to do the deletions, but rather, create the new category and request deletion of the old one.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

        • Ideally, the bot should be able to update the Wikidata structures as for example in d:Q1144392. --Foroa (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

          I agree: this is a very good idea. Conveniently, I'm already approved to do this on Wikidata.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC) This can't be done until Wikimedia Commons is somehow integrated into Wikidata.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC) It's currently not possible to search for values of D:P:P373 via the API. The only way to get to the relevant Wikidata item would be, considering there is a (correct) link in a template on the category page (such as in {{w}}), go to the Wikipedia page, then the item (if there is one), then change the value of p373.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, SieBot is, again, down, so I've gone ahead and coded the bot. I've ran a 16-edit trial with it here, doing four requests in all. Of course, as I already mentioned, the bot isn't able to edit the queue page, since the current one is fully protected. Also, for now, I'm just marking the old category as a category redirect to the new one.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• We need at least one other bot looking at the commands. SieBot is asleep way too often. However
  1. If the bot behaves differently from SieBot, it should replace it and not work alongside it
  2. If the bots are to work concurrently, you would have to account for more than one bot picking up the same request (as neither can edit User:CommonsDelinker/commands to remove a request before they start executing it).

If the bot doesn't behave like SieBot, can you specify in the request how it differs? Does the bot alter the old category for example (afaik SieBot does not)? –⁠moogsi (blah) 02:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As for working concurrently, the only (if not, main) problem if they're working on the same category at the same time would be an edit conflict, which is already handled. Specifically, the bot currently creates the new category page if it doesn't exist (attributing the authors in the summary, or on the talk page if the list is too long), then moves the categories. After it determines that the category is empty, it replaces the content of the old category page with {{Category redirect|"new category name"}}. All that can be seen from the trial I made. As for behaving differently, I think the main difference is the implementation, and probably that my bot actually edits the old category afterwards (not sure if SieBot does that).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Move}} requests have to be stripped during the transfer, no need to remove it from the delinker queue as it needs manual inspection (5 % of moves need manual intervention or category restructuring). --Foroa (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can implement that.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Support I want to make it clear that I support the proposal in its current form, before I start talking about additional features :) One thing which SieBot doesn't do (and which I think wouldn't be difficult to implement) is leave edit summaries for category moves. {{move cat}} has a reason parameter which basically goes unused, as SieBot operates apparently without purpose –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If nobody has further objections, I propose that we approve this request. I expect that there will be some teething issues, but am confident that the bot operator is capable and will be sufficiently responsive to resolve them. --99of9 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

UWCTransferBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Ahonc (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: I wrote a bot using php for transfering free images from Ukrainian Wikipedia to Commons. It is an alternative to CommonsHelper, as CommonsHelper often generates bad descriptions and they are to be checked and fixed, and my bot is better adjusted for it. Images will be checked by local sysops before transfer.

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time per day

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 5-10

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): PHP, based on Chris G's botclasses framework.

Anatoliy (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Looks like human review before transfer is good idea (example: File:Вп станция сихов.jpg). Also better author attribution is possible (File:Врубель Серафим.jpg, File:Бівуак. Чатир-Даг..JPG). As well as better categorization (File:Голосіїв.jpg).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Situation like in first example is fixed. Such images will not transfered from uk-wiki. They should be transfered from original wiki (in this example Russian). Categories for Commons are taken from template 'Move to Commons' in file description in local wiki.--Anatoliy (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please can you internationalize the headings to save us having to do this [40] --99of9 (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. Changes will be applied during next run.--Anatoliy (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

JAnDbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: JAn Dudík (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: replacing text, recategorization, maybe more

Automatic or manually assisted: both

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Sometimes

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes (global bot)

Programming language(s): pywikipedia

JAn Dudík (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Could you be a bit more specific please about what you intend to do with your bot? --Dschwen (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there was zero further input from the requester I will close this as stale soon. --Dschwen (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I want to use bot mainly for mass recategorization or mass replacing of text, see contributions. Maybe, when Wikidata will be able to store links to commons, I'll work on this field too. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean the several thousand edits your bot made without having a flag? Please don't do that or we will have to block the bot. Recategorizations are already performed by User:Category-bot. And I won't give out a bot flag for a maybe job. I'll close this one. You are welcome to reopen a request if and when you have a specific task (that is not already covered by an existing bot). --Dschwen (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that the unapproved volume was inappropriate, the 23 Feb URL format changes like this look useful. So if you can give us a clear, more focused/limited scope, I'd potentially support. --99of9 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could create a template for "URL REKOS", to prevent all those bot edits. --Ricordisamoa 22:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Neuchâtel Herbarium (talk · contribs)

Operator: Chandres (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Upload of the pictures created by the commons:Neuchâtel Herbarium project

Automatic or manually assisted: semi automatic, I launch the script manually for a fixed number of picture to upload , but once it's started the process is automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):around 40 000 pictures remain to be upload, by batch when I'm available to control the upload process, no full automatic work

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):4-5 upload per minute

Bot flag requested: Y:

Programming language(s):

Chandres (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

It might be a good idea to respect the capitalisation of the categories. So far, I renamed the categories of the majority of your uploads. --Foroa (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning , we update the script and I will correct the already upload pictures.--Chandres (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to use Bot in account name. Why Template:Information is not used? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a bot account, it's always me behind, but used with a script. --Chandres (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, using [[tl|Specimen}} is probably some sub-project policy which we could argue against until we are blue in the face... The sourcecode of the description page is formatted in a very confusing way. It took me 3 minutes to figure out where the closing template braces are and to realize that {{Information field}} is uses within the description field. This needs to be made clearer. --Dschwen (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 {{Specimen
 |taxon=Abies alba
 |authority=
 |institution={{Institution:University of Neuchâtel}}
 |description=
 {{en|1=Neuchâtel Herbarium - ''[[:en:Abies alba]]''}}
 {{de|1=Neuchâtel Herbarium - ''[[:de:Abies alba]]''}}
 {{fr|1=Neuchâtel Herbarium - ''[[:fr:Abies alba]]''}}
 {{it|1=Neuchâtel Herbarium - ''[[:it:Abies alba]]''}}
 |date=
 |source={{own}}
 |author=[[User:Neuchâtel Herbarium|Neuchâtel Herbarium]]
 |permission=
 |other_versions=
 |other_fields={{Information field|name={{Occupation|1=Botanist}}|value=?}}
 }}

Actually it is a minor miracle that the old version doesn't produce invalid HTML. If you want to use {{Information field}} please add it to the other_fields parameter. --Dschwen (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this being adressed? --Dschwen (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if , see below :-)--Chandres (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we need the "description" ? It seems redundant with other parameters. I have proposed an alternate layout at File:Neuchâtel Herbarium - Abies alba - NEU000003665.tif. --Zolo (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The actual description field is important for the project by the providing the links to the wikipedia articles in several language, especially the swiss one. But if anybody has ideas on how improving this information part, I will be more than happy! --Chandres (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean, in this case, the link to en:Abies alba. There is a link to the corresponding category in the header. I would also prefer a link to Wikipedia, but we should be able to have that once wikidata: is deployed to Commons (hopefully, in a few months). Personnally, I find it unintuitive and rather confusing to have two different links just a few lines away from each other, without clear rationale why one links to Wikipedia and the other to Commons. --Zolo (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I find that the link the the commons category give less information than a link to the wikipedia article, but maybe we could improve the wording of the description to be more explicit. The idea of having the link to wikipedia article is "reader oriented", whereas commons category is really "wikimedian oriented". I don't want to wait for Wikidata deployment, we never what will happend, and we can always run a bot to correct that afterwards. --Chandres (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would like a more expansive description for those who stumble across a file and don't want to read the background of the whole project. My suggested change is here. In some of the test uploads (e.g. File:Neuchâtel Herbarium - Asplenium Viride - NEU000000475.tif there is no description at all!) --99of9 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The addition of "dried pressed specimen" is ok in english, but would complicated ,without benefice, the script in other language. I will control after upload if all description are present.--Chandres (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't completely understand your answer. Do you mean that you do not know the translation for "dried pressed specimen" in the languages you plan to use, or do you mean that it would be hard to add the words to each language? (Sorry for the slow reply) --99of9 (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Smallbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Smallman12q (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: To upload files related to Commons:Batch uploading/ECGPedia The files that will be uploaded can be found at User:Smallbot/source/Cardionetworks

This is based on OTRS Ticket#2011102310008874 . The ticket is a year old.

Related discussions:

• w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_76#Attribution_of_images
• w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_22#Offer_to_share_images

Automatic or manually assisted:automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run...though there may be future uploads

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): depends on upload speed (10)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): VBScript (Javascript, XMLHTTP, MSHTML, XMLDOM, COM).

Smallman12q (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

A lot of the files lack a description. Also, how should author information be handled? There are a number of .swf, a format that will never be supported on commons Bugzilla: 26269, that could be converted to a supported video format. The .avi could be converted to a supported video format.Smallman12q (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please make test uploads. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I need to verify the OTRS ticket and make the relevant template. I've asked at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Cardio_Networks.Smallman12q (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer from another OTRS volunteer on that page:

License template exist at Template:Cardionetworks permission that provides the relevant details. Regards -- KTC (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps, if not, don't hesitate to remove the {{section resolved}} template and ask further! Trijnstel_talk 18:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know the template was already made. Will do upload later this week.Smallman12q (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Will these images all be put together in a single category? Do you need anything further from my end? James Heilman, MD (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the test uploads yet. Also can you supply links to a few swf files? If they are either static or videos they could be converted as well. Do you have a solution for converting the avi videos yet? --Dschwen (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Working-I'm going to do this upload this week..was busy with Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum but they seem to be stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire. The .swf files have an equivalent .avi file (my guess is the .swf is just a flash wrapper for those who can't play .avi but have flash). The .avi will be converted to the webm format(which the commons now supports) before upload. I am in the process of downloading the files... probably around 10GB + for each wiki. I've written a script that will download all files, the file history table for each file, and text of the file for a wiki so this may be handy for future uploads. A lot of the files lack any text so I'm not sure what to put for these. Any thoughts are welcome.Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What are some examples of fills missing text? James Heilman, MD (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few files missing text. Have a look at User:Smallbot/source/Cardionetworks/Example to see how the uploads will look (including those missing text). Let me know if it looks okay.Smallman12q (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is okay. We will need to go through and add this after the fact. James Heilman, MD (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A few peculiarities

• Afib_ecg.jpg (and a few more) == Description == inside the description value in the Information template.
• 2072.jpg this description is not useful (maybe tag everything with a description of less then 10 chars as needing description)
• Course.jpg this is most likely a copyright violation (stock image, compare to this image or do google image search or tineye.

That last point makes me a bit uneasy about the whole task. --Dschwen (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded ECGpedia at Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia. I fixed the description issue I believe. I will go back and add {{Description missing}} to descriptions with less than 10 characters. I've requested speedy-delete for File:Course (CardioNetworks ECGpedia).jpg I'll do uploads of the other pediass tmrw.Smallman12q (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure so 2) the HR = 32 means that the heart rate is 32, standard shorthand and useful 3) I have sent a note to the up loader there and we will figure out who has copied from who. Does look like it is from here though [41]. The point is the ECGs though and not the clip art. James (log in appears broken)

Ok, so it was probably a fluke. I suggest you go ahead and do a few more test uploads. We should be able to resolve this quickly if you have time. --Dschwen (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

@Dschwen Resolve what exactly? I'll do echopedia.org next.Smallman12q (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This bot request. --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
For Echopedia, a lot of the files have no description, I will see if I can get some from the template on case files pages.Smallman12q (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look at both ECGpedia and Echopedia and am sceptical as to the usefulness of this bot approach. What it does on the Commons end (i.e. after spidering the source side) is (1) upload the files with (2) information on source, author and licensing, (3) add maintenance categories. For most of the files, this leaves Commons users with the tasks of (4) providing descriptions, (5) providing content categories and (6) renaming the files to Commons standards. That is a lot to ask for, and so I would personally favour an approach more akin to Flickr2Commons, in which individual Commons users import selected materials, and thus take responsibility for them here. Another thing I noticed is that the image pages over there link to "description pages" on Commons, which never exist because the files have the " (CardioNetworks ECGpedia)" suffix here. Has that anything to do with their collaboration with us or is this simply an error in their MediaWiki configuration? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Daniel here. There hasn't been a lot of discussion whether this stuff should be imported. I can see that some of the files can provide educational value, but this is largely dependent on good descriptions. Is there an anticipated use for those file on Wikimedia projects? Ie. Wikiversity cardiology? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

An obvious use case would be WikiProject Medicine but the usefulness certainly depends on the quality of the descriptions and discoverability by way of categories (or perhaps file names). -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For the stuff already imported, I suggest adding specific (rather than things like {{Description missing}}) maintenance categories that address the points 4-6 in my comment from an hour ago, i.e. something like Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia missing descriptions (for which an alternative would be CatScan), Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia missing categories (these have not been tagged at all, by the way, since Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia had not been marked as hidden and thus counted as a content category) and Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia needing file name review. This way, people interested in helping out with ECGpedia can dive right in and do not have to spend time searching for files in need of their help. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In terms of converting multimedia files to OGG, it may be worthwhile to have a look at media.py. Adding WebM support to that is easy. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For converting to .webm, I'll be calling w:FFmpeg in a subprocess from python. Daniel Mietchen's description above is fairly accurate as my bot is spidering and then uploading whatever info it can get...which isn't that much. The links to commons from the pedia pages are non-existent (it's a bug). I could add a custom description missing template and whatnot. So far, none of the files are being used...so I'm not sure if I should upload more files for Echopedia. I will post a note to WikiProject Medicine as to whether this upload is worthwhile.Smallman12q (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I plan to go through the ECGs, add descriptions and than add many of them to the appropriate Wikipedia article. James Heilman, MD (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded ECHOpedia to Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECHOpedia. I could do animated gifs for the videos, but most would fall in the 25-30 million total pixel range and currently only less those with 25 million will be rendered.Smallman12q (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Upload videos as videos. It makes no sense to convert them into animated GIFs nowadays. --Dschwen (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Animated

Thumbnail not animated

The videos are 1-2 second clips. Here's what a gif version would look like.Smallman12q (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Five times the file size, conversion loss, and no apparent advantage. Why on earth would you convert to anmated GIF?! --Dschwen (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gifs may be easier to use in some places and can loop by default. Anyhow, it's probably not worthwhile. PCIpedia is up next...it's ~200 files.Smallman12q (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Smallbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Smallman12q (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: To upload the NOAA Office of Response and Restoration Photo Collection. 4000 files of high-res JPG and PCD. I plan to convert PCD to 2048*3072 JPG for upload.

See User:Smallbot/source/NOAA Office of Response and Restoration Photo Collection for more details.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 5-10 (depends on upload speed)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): VBScript (Javascript, XMLHTTP, MSHTML, XMLDOM, COM).

Source: User:Smallbot/source/NOAA Office of Response and Restoration Photo Collection

Smallman12q (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

The extracted metadata is limited the galleries 1,2, and 3. (See the xml files of User:Smallbot/source/NOAA Office of Response and Restoration Photo Collection). I'm not sure how to name the files where there is no metadata.Smallman12q (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you give examples of how the file names will be constructed, and can you point us to an example of missing metadata? --Dschwen (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a table here. Some of the items have no description, some have a vague description ("??Oregon somwhere"), some have conflicting descriptions ("Roebling Steel, Roebling, NJ 4/4/90 Water treatment facility located on the banks of the Delaware River." and "Roebling Steel, Roebling, NY 4/4/90 Water treatment facility located on the banks of the Delaware River.") Should I upload with multiple descriptions?

Some are very good. From gallery 4, they follow this pattern: <incident>, <place>, <State>, <Date>. <Description>. such as "Powell Duffryn chemical storage tank incident, Savannah, Georgia, April 1995. Data from a berm chracterization overhead used during the Powell Duffryn incident."Smallman12q (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the bot includes all descriptions, and humans can work out which one is true. It looks like the directory structure has some info when there is no description. So how do you propose to construct filenames? --99of9 (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Gallery 4 is the most complete. I've created a table here. I'll take the first 230 characters of the description as the filename.Smallman12q (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to approve the gallery 4 upload. For the others, especially those without descriptions, I'd like to see an example of the proposed filenames before upload. --99of9 (talk) 11:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

タチコマ robot (talk · contribs)

Operator: とある白い猫 (talk • contribs • recent activity • count • block log • rights log • upload log • SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Bot will tag featured pictures from other wikis (main concern is ar.wikipedia) using {{Assessments}}.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised after the generation of the list of pages to be edited.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): infrequent runs to tag new promotions/demotions

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 60

Programming language(s): AWB, bot already has a flag

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 07:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Certainly. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems like someone has already manually tagged the images. I can demonstrate with another wiki if you approve. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      • A small test run from any wiki would help us to evaluate this. --99of9 (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• I don't quite understand this request. Is this about extending the scope of a previously approved bot request? For the description it sounds like this is a small one time task. Does this warrant a request? --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I doubt it would be one-time, since other wikis are going to be periodically featuring pictures and not marking them here. But it does seem like it would be infrequent. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • @Dschwen: It's quite common sense that small one time tasks (or small few times task) don't warrant a request, and I think such request basically give more work to bureaucrats, who have already a lot of work - judging by this page. Anyway, as far as I can see, bot policy is very strict about bots running without requesting, and there are no written exceptions in policy. IMO, providing some clear exceptions for low volume tasks would benefit bureaucrats, bot users and the project.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Four months and still no report of a test run. I will close this as stale within the next few days. --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What exactly am I supposed to test? I am merely trying to understand the nature you want me to run. How many edits would be sufficient? My plan is to grab a category off a wiki that has featured pictures and use a regex to apply it to the assessments template (or add the template if it isn't present). -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • 30-50 edits per step III of Commons:Bots/Requests. --99of9 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I might not be able to generate 30 edits due to people manually tagging which is why I was asking. I am processing all 3,345 files from and hopefully I have enough to reach that mark. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Yeah I only have 17 edits (edit summary: "adding enwiki fa assessment, replaced: {{Assessments| → {{Assessments|enwiki=1|)"). It is a simple regex in AWB. Is this sufficient? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Also, please note that 60 edits per minute is much higher than the normal maximum. --99of9 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed before. Is there any reason why we have to worry about such an arbitrary number bot operators disregard? It artificially creates a massive backlog as 1000 edits would take 16.66 hours to complete. I have placed a remark on the talk page of the policy to avoid duplication. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

1000 edits would take 100 minutes with recommended maximum bot speed. I think that is a reasonable speed fot this kind of task. Bots can make errors and if they do they should not do it at to high speed. This bot needs to be fixed so that it links to correctly named nomination pages at English Wikipedia, like this. It also needs to make sure that the pictures it tags really are featured pictures, eg File:Eastern Screech Owl.jpg does not seem to ever have been featured and File:Ebony Bones backup performer.jpg seems to have been delisted as featured picture. /Ö 19:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

FA Page ghosts on en.wikipedia
  Eastern_Screech_Owl.jpg
  Ebony Bones-01.jpg

Linking to nomination pages is a later issue. Not all of them are marked on en.wikipedia or on commons and crawling for them is a non-trivial task. That is a future task I hope to tackle.

The idea is also to sync enwiki (and other wikis) delistings with commons. The bot has no way of verifying if a file is actually featured or if it tagged without even being nominated. It can however check if files are in the en:Category:Featured pictures or not. The two mentioned files were in the category or at least en.wikipedia reported them as such (Eastern_Screech_Owl.jpg doesn't exist as a page on en.wikipedia despite appearing on category, Ebony Bones-01.jpg is a redirect on en.wikipedia to Ebony Bones backup performer.jpg which is the matching image which again shouldn't appear on category). On my second sweep I'd run a similar regex to en:Category:Wikipedia former featured pictures. Also not everything is nicely marked so catching problematic images is again a future development task.

The restriction is no faster than 1 edit/10sec according to the linked policy page. Simple math is 10sec*1000=10,000secs, 10,000/60=166.66... minutes, 166.66.../60=2.77... hours, provided bot does not spend any time doing anything. I do not want to add a 10 second counter between edits which would serve no purpose than waste my time. I do not see the point of a speed limit for bots. It was thrown in as an idea that servers couldn't handle such speeds. Developers disagreed and did not see a problem. The quicker the bot edits the better as edits would be rolled out quicker. That way I can change the parameters to work on the next wiki. This script would probably check for about 20 wikis that have featured pictures - of which most don't have that many files or new files. This task would take probably no more than 20 edits per month after the initial run. I do not believe the speed limit is based on consensus mind you. Let's discuss bot speeds on Commons talk:Bots as its a more general question if this is worth tracking and enforcing.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please notify me on my talk page if there are any developments here. I cannot watch a page forever. :/ -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Centralized discussion
Request for comment on enabling the Translate extension on Wikimedia Commons. (28 April 2012) Request for comment on enabling the UniversalLanguageSelector on Wikimedia Commons. (24 April 2012) Request for comment on enabling "article feedback" functionality for selected Commons images. (18 March 2012) Request for comment on creating a page to allow users to request others to upload files on their behalf. (14 March 2013) Request for comment on clarifying Commons' Project Scope, as laid down in COM:SCOPE. (11 March 2013) Request for comment on making Commons:Username policy an official Wikimedia Commons policy. (26 January 2013) There is a Request for Comment on hard category redirects #REDIRECT. (1 January 2013) Please help by translating these messages into other languages. Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch