Commons:Requests and votes

Shortcut
COM:VOTE
This project page in other languages:

Deutsch | English | español | +/−

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 CommonsEdit

How to comment and voteEdit

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 Symbol support vote.svg Support votes or Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.

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

Requests for Oversight rightsEdit

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

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

No current requests.

Requests for CheckUser rightsEdit

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

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

No current requests.

Requests for bureaucratshipEdit

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.

No current requests.

Requests for adminshipEdit

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.

Axpde (de-adminship)Edit

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 14:06, (UTC)

I hereby kindly request to remove sysop rights of Axpde as a result of this discussion on the administrators' noticeboard and the following consensus amongst the participants of that discussion to start a desysop request.

The reason why the sysop flag should be removed is the loss of confidence in Axpde as a sysop on Commons after he acted out of process by lifting a legitimate user block without any consultation with the blocking admin, as a result of a private canvassing on German wikipedia. Whereas this fact standalone is not yet a reason to request an immediate desysop, the follow-up discussion has finally confirmed the extremely uncollegial approach by Axpde: he is not willing to admit any of his faults, but instead considering it necessary to use ad hominem arguments ("A.Savin is biased", "just have a look at A.Savin's edits in dewiki", "Admins with less than 6 years experience" etc. pp.) and to write additional inflammatory comments against users who criticized him (straightly requesting a block).

From my point, this all is an evidence that Axpde better should not be a sysop, as he obviously does not really know how a sysop should interact with his colleagues, and as there is no willingness to reflect. Note also that Axpde is otherwise hardly active with the flag, with just a dozen of admin actions this year. Thanks --A.Savin 14:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. User:A.Savin is biased. He's picking on me ever since, don't know why. Now he wants to delete my pictures, see Special:PrefixIndex/File:St._Michael_-_innen.
  2. The lifting of this so-called "legitimate user block" has already been resolved. The blocking admin User:Christian Ferrer has first reblocked User:Tuvalkin (which is called "wheel warring") and then unblocked the user, after the situation had been cleared. Ergo the initial reason for the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard is null and void!
  3. Who of you really read the private canvassing on German wikipedia? User:Useddenim asked "Would you mind giving an uninvolved opinion?" - which I did in his case, I asked User:Christian Ferrer to remove the block but didn't get a response - aside the witch hunt ...
  4. The "extremely uncollegial approach" of several users calling me "foolish" do I consider "ad hominem" but he kept picking on me.
  5. It wasn't me who claimed "six admins with more experience" - I just proved User:Natuur12 was wrong!
  6. "additional inflammatory comments against users who criticized him" - is another distortion of facts. It was *one* user who called me "foolish" - that's not criticism, that's harassment!
  7. I am highly showing "willingness to reflect" but it's hard to do so, if some users keep picking on me on and on and on. I several times wrote that from my uninvolved point of view the block in question was a "clear mistake" which is covered by the policy!
  8. Only few admin actions are due to the fact that there is a life outside wikimedia and shouldn't be taken into consideration!

Résumé: I reverted a block of User:Christian Ferrer who meanwhile unblocked the user himself, sorry if that did harm you, but all the rest is a ridiculous witch hunt! a×pdeHello! 20:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, experience != the number of years one holds the tools and I just genuinely believe that when 6 admins who are more involved with the project state that something is wrong you will have to do some serious addressing. Natuur12 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, you should have talked with Christian about it first, and presented all your above arguments. Now it is too late from my point, and I'm really tired to read the statement "A.Savin is biased" in EVERY comment of yours, even regarding the tagged files. This German proverb with "Getretner Quark" comes me to mind, every time I read your statements.
The only thing where I'm biased: Yes, I sincerely think that Christian is a gentleman and you are not. --A.Savin 20:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

VotesEdit

  • Of course there is no "spirit of Commons" policy and nobody ever claimed there was so I am not sure why you are bringing this up. The GFDL is a valid license that meets our requirements as per com:L. However, we tend to build a media file repository with freely licensed files that can be used by third parties and used (from a copyright point of view) for commercial purposes. That is what we do and when you use a non commercial license in combination with the GFDL which does permit commercial use but makes it pretty hard to reuse a file for let's say a blog that gains money by using advertisements or a speakers presentation at a commercial event I do call that against the spirit of Commons. You are making the commercial exploitation of your uploads extra hard. While Commons policy allows you to license your files like this, it isn't something I expect from an admin. Please mellow up. Natuur12 (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove The ad hominem is more than enough. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, but it wasn't me starting to act ad hominem. Someone called me "foolish" - and that's definetely no "valid comment" but a personal attack! a×pdeHello! 05:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Enough is enough. — regards, Revi 14:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove You can thank the one who called you for help from another Wikipedia, another consequence, one more, of his unacceptable behavior. But you are responsible for your behavior. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
«The other» being User:Useddenim. Regardless of all else, I’d like to see User:Christian Ferrer’s two part statement above explained and analyzed. Not only the 2nd sentence seems to contradict the 1st, but the 1st seems to be a petty and mean-spirited call for drama an fruitless blaming. -- Tuválkin 00:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Good luck with what you'd like dear colleague. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
«Good luck with [that]» is a staple phrase used to convey aloofness, contempt, smugness, and the fact that the sought or requested item (in this case, explanations from User:Christian Ferrer about the meaning of his 2016.06.25::14:42 statements above) is unlikely or never to be delivered because the responder is, or considers himself to be, above accountability. Thanks for clarifying. -- Tuválkin 00:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove because of the recent incidents. I am not a fan of immediately de-sysoping users, but i am highly concerned about what happens recently and i have to admit that i never seen an admin behaving like he did. Apart from the aforementioned concerns, i am shocked about his un-collegal, rude and disruptive (i am not a fan of using such adjectives) conduct here. (By the way: Axpde was elected with 8 support (4 votes are looking like canvassing, see Commons:Administrators/Requests/Axpde). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove I am not fond that when he was confronted, he was still being defensive. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove - Lifting a block without any discussion is enough to warrant desysopping, We all makes mistakes and all that but as noted above instead of admitting them and taking the ANI discussion on-board he just got the mindset of "he's right we're wrong" which doesn't help at all, We have better admins here who are more than capable of ... well being admins ... so nothing of value is lost. –Davey2010Talk 16:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    I hardly think you actually read what happened. I never said "I'm right you're wrong" but tried to explain what I did in good faith. But that seemingly doesn't apply anymore ... a×pdeHello! 05:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I never said you did - The way you've behaved is what I'm referring too. –Davey2010Talk 17:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove per Natuur12 and Steinsplitter --DCB (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove - With regret per Davey2010. Wikicology (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Please read what really happened and think before believing blindly. a×pdeHello! 20:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove - rather inexperienced admin (I counted 35 admin actions over the past year) causing a lot of trouble - apparently unable to de-escalate when somebody gives feedback on an admin action (most colleagues here are able to forgive mistakes if communicating about those mistakes is possible) - the balance of having Axpde admin here is negative to the project, all the attention this case needs costs way more time and energy than the very few admin actions save the other admins - Jcb (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    As said before there is a life outside commons. I'm admin since six years and there were time when I was in top 5 of admin actions, but that's not a race!
    And if three "collegues" keep on bashing me, my first intention is to clearify the facts - normally a proper way to de-escalate.
    And to be honest, "giving feedback on admin action" is a bit different from bashing the hell out of me!
    Furthermore: This was my first questionable action as commons admin, I hardly think I am a burden to other admins! a×pdeHello! 05:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove due to recent events, refusal to apologize and get the point, poor use on tools, and even don't understand what experience really means. Experience maybe similar to time, but not proportional nor equal to time. This admin should have apologized and admitted their mistake rather than being so defensive (with ad hominem) that results in a de-adminship, which is this one. -- Poké95 10:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove even if he apologize. Lack of common sense. Seems that he messed up in every comment in this case. -- Geagea (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove per Natuur12, Steinsplitter and Jcb... with the additional comment that being an admin means you should hold yourself to a higher standard, but the conduct displayed at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User:Axpde is shameful. Storkk (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Axpde acted in good faith. What happens here is injustice.--Kopiersperre (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • And this is the same comment said by Axpde. Injustice, he acted in good faith, blah blah blah. No any more other rationale (like Stemoc's rationale below)? Poké95 11:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove per Natuur12, Steinsplitter and Jcb. ~riley (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - This wiki has more backstabbings than ISIS has be-headings....removing an unjustified block on an experienced editor was out of process but not completely wrong..we have admins here who do not have the balls to ban the right trolls but will gleefully ban the good users..Grow up people, canvassing or not, the length of Tuvalkin's ban was not justified.--Stemoc 09:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This looks rather like a wiki-political vote. I think you schould read Axpde's comments at AN. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Stemoc, yes we accept apologies of users including admins, but their rude and disruptive behavior is more than enough for their tools to be removed. Not to mention about their overuse of the exclamation point, which is childish, rude, and pushy. Poké95 11:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • Axpde, how dare you call yourself an experienced admin? You have done 2 blocks since 2012, 10 protects since 2012 and 37 deletions since 2015. Also I count only 2 thanks. And now look list of administrators by activity – some of us make thousands actions every month. Taivo (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    You haven't actually read my statements 'til here, have you?
    I said blocking is ultima ratio, i.e. before I block someone, I talk to him and try to explain him what he did wrong. You may wonder but this helps alot.
    And if other admins claim they don't have the time to explain their blocks correctly, the'll have to reduce the sheer number of blocks and spend more time to actualy prevent users from doing harm to others.
    Of course that's only my private point of view, above you see several users with a different opinion. And that's the saddest part of this request :-( a×pdeHello! 05:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @Axpde: Please try to stick on the exact truth, the block in question has been explained sufficient. And your conduct on AN is not okay and un-mellow. I am quite surprised that you still defend your point of view, after all this drama. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


Requests for license reviewer rightsEdit

No current requests.


Requests for permission to run a botEdit

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.

Abbe98 Bot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Abbe98 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

Update the Template:Map to a new version that can be previewed at commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org. This update is a part of the Wikimaps Warper Individual Engagement Grant project and the new Map template is supposed to be used at a workshop next week(at Wikimania). There is about 12000 pages that will need to be updated.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 50 edits/minute, (this number is based on simulation, I simulated the entire process, but with actual edits the rate might be lower).

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python(PyWikiBot as framework)

Abbe98 (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Please make a few test edits. --Krd 12:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that such test edits will break existing applications such as the Wikimaps Warper witch depends on the template, those applications is supposed to be updated in parallel to this update. --Abbe98 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I have now notified the application owners and will await their response. --Abbe98 (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Requests for commentEdit