Commons:Adminisztrátorok
Shortcuts: COM:A • COM:ADMIN • COM:SYSOP

Ez a lap az adminisztrátorok (röviden adminok) Wikimédia Commonson betöltött szerepéről szól. A jog és megadása különbözhet a más wikiken megszokottól.
Ha admininsztrátor segítségére van szükséged, akkor az admininsztrátorok üzenőfalára írj.
Jelenleg 178 adminisztrátor van a Commonson.
Kik az adminisztrátorok?
Administrators as of május 2025 Listing by: Language • Date • Activity [+/−] |
Number of Admins: 178
If 178 is not the last number on this list, there may be an error or there are some users assigned temporarily. |
Technikai szempontból
Az adminisztrátorok a Wikimédia Commonson az alábbi technikai képességekkel rendelkeznek:
- fájlok törlése és visszaállítása, valamint törölt változatok megtekintése
- lapok törlése és visszaállítása, valamint törölt változatok megtekintése
- lapok védelme és a védelem feloldása, valamint a csak adminisztrátorok által szerkeszthető lapok módosítása
- felhasználói fiókok, IP-címek és IP-címtartományok blokkolása és a blokkok feloldása
- a kevésbé védett rendszerüzenetek szerkesztése (lásd még: Commons:Felületadminisztrátorok)
- fájlok átnevezése
- jogosultságok adása és elvétele
- feltöltésivarázsló-kampányok beállítása
- wikiközi importálás
- laptörténetek összefésülése
- vandálszűrők módosítása
- lapok mozgatása átirányítólapok létrehozása nélkül
- a hamisításszűrő felülírása és a cím- és felhasználói feketelista módosítása
- tömeges üzenetküldés
- magasabb limit API-lekéréseknél
Ezeket együtt nevezzük admineszközöknek.
Közösségi szerep
Administrators are experienced and trusted members of the Commons community who have taken on additional maintenance work and have been entrusted with the admin tools by public consensus/vote. Different admins have different areas of interest and expertise, but typical admin tasks include determining and closing deletion requests, deleting copyright violations, undeleting files where necessary, protecting Commons against vandalism, and working on templates and other protected pages. Of course, some of these tasks can be done by non-admins as well.
Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate, respect community consensus.
Apart from roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor. Some admins may become more influential, not due to their position as such, but from the personal trust they may have gained from the community.
Javaslatok adminisztrátorokra
Kérjük, olvasd el a Commons:Guide to adminship lapot.
Adminisztrátori jogok visszavonása
Under the de-admin policy, administrator rights may be revoked due to inactivity or misuse of sysop tools.
In a de-admin request, normal standards for determining consensus in an RfA do not apply. Instead, "majority consensus" should be used, whereby any consensus to demote of higher than 50% is sufficient to remove the admin.
Jelentkezés adminisztrátornak
All intending administrators must go through this process and submit themselves to RFA, including all ex-administrators who are seeking to return to their previous role.
First, go to Commons:Administrators/Howto and read the information there. Then come back here and make your request in the section below.
- After clicking the appropriate button and creating the subpage, copy the link to the subpage, e.g. "Commons:Administrators/Requests/Username", edit Commons:Administrators/Requests and paste it in at the top of the section, then put it in double curly brackets (e.g. {{Commons:Administrators/Requests/Username}}) to transclude it. Request a watchlist notice at MediaWiki talk:WatchlistNotice, or edit MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice to put up one if you are an administrator.
- If someone else nominated you, please accept the nomination by stating "I accept" or something similar, and signing below the nomination itself. The subpage will still need to be transcluded by you or your nominator.
Az alábbi dobozban a „Username”-et cseréld ki saját felhasználónevedre: |
Szavazás
Minden regisztrált szerkesztő szavazhat, azonban a kevés, vagy semennyi szerkesztéssel rendelkező szerkesztők szavazatai nem feltétlenül számítanak ugyanolyan súllyal. Lehetőség szerint mind a támogató, mind az ellenző szavazatok mellé írj indoklást, így segítve a lezáró bürokratát. Nagyobb súlya van egy – szükség esetén tényekkel alátámasztott – érvelésnek, mint egy puszta szavazatnak.
Promotion normally requires at least 75% in favour, with a minimum of 8 support votes. Votes from unregistered users are not counted. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Bureaucrats may, at their discretion, extend the period of an RfA if they feel that it will be helpful in better determining community consensus.
Neutral comments are not counted in the vote totals for the purposes of calculating pass/fail percentages. However, such comments are part of the discussion, may persuade others, and contribute to the closing bureaucrat's understanding of community consensus.
Gyorsítótár kiürítése Kattints a lenti szerkesztés hivatkozásra a beillesztett lap szerkesztéséhez.
Jelentkezés adminisztrátornak
A teljesített kéréseket a Commons:Administrators/Archive lapon archiváljuk.
- Kérjük, hogy a szavazás előtt olvasd el a Commons:Adminisztrátorok lapot. A kevés vagy nulla szerkesztéssel rendelkező felhasználók szavazatait nem számoljuk össze.
No current requests.
Jelentkezés bürokratának
A teljesített kéréseket a Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive lapon archiváljuk.
- Kérjük, hogy a szavazás előtt olvasd el a Commons:Bürokraták lapot. A kevés vagy nulla szerkesztéssel rendelkező felhasználók szavazatait nem számoljuk össze.
No current requests.
Jelentkezés IP-ellenőrnek
A teljesített kéréseket a Commons:Checkusers/Archive lapon archiváljuk.
- Kérjük, hogy a szavazás előtt olvasd el a Commons:IP-ellenőrök lapot. A kevés vagy nulla szerkesztéssel rendelkező felhasználók szavazatait nem számoljuk össze.
Lymantria (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
- Scheduled to end: 14:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
The three active Checkusers nominate Lymantria for the position of Checkuser.
We believe that they are highly qualified and well trusted and will be an excellent addition to the team as well as adding languages we do not have.
Lymantria became a Commons Administrator in 2011, with 29 positive votes of 30. They have 133,000 edits on Commons and 19,000 deletions. They are also very active on Wikidata, where they are an Admin, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser and have made almost two million edits.
- . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- --Krd 14:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for nominating me, very special to be nominated by no less than three colleague checkusers. Of course, I accept the nomination. --Lymantria (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Votes
Support Taivo (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- im
ok with that request. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 14:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- DaxServer (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like clubs who choose/deny (on) their new members alone. Inbreeding never was a good idea. So black smoke from me. --Mirer (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Mirer: As the person that led the search for a fourth CheckUser, let me illustrate the process, in case that helps: I went through every case filed at Commons:Requests for checkuser in the last 12 months and made a list of everyone that filed cases that were actionable (had proper rationales that justified using the tool, targeting accounts active recently enough for the tool to work). Then I removed anyone that wasn't an admin, because the community won't approve a CU that isn't already an admin. From there, I looked at who was regularly active on Wikimedia projects (CU isn't as time sensitive as OS, but it's still important that we have ample coverage because sometimes we need range-blocks to stop ongoing, high-volume abuse). Lastly, I checked their RfAs and searched for threads on the admin noticeboards to make sure we weren't putting forward someone controversial (no one was removed from the list at this step). This gave me a shortlist of three folks, and all three of us were comfortable with any of the three of them, so we reached out to all three to gauge interest. Lymantria stood out because they're already a CU on another project. (There really isn't much onboarding for CUs - a few pages on the CheckUser wiki, and asking existing CUs questions on the CU mailing list or over Discord - so knowing what you're doing from day 1 is a huge plus.) I haven't really interacted with Lymantria much prior to this nomination (just one CU case on Wikidata, IIRC). TLDR: This wasn't "let's pick our friends", it was "let's search for folks we think can do the job". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Mirer: With all respect for your vote, I want to stress that I did or do not belong to the "inner circle" of the three CUs that nominated me. With neither of the three nominators I have had a lot of interaction at one of the projects. Their common action to find and nominate a new CU I interpreted as a sign of urgency/necessity to have more manpower. That convinced me to accept the nomination. --Lymantria (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Mirer: There's no club here -- as TSC says, the three of us believe that Commons will be better served if there are four Checkusers, so we went looking for suitable candidates. I have had very little interaction with Lymantria in the past, but all of it was positive. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Mirer: As the person that led the search for a fourth CheckUser, let me illustrate the process, in case that helps: I went through every case filed at Commons:Requests for checkuser in the last 12 months and made a list of everyone that filed cases that were actionable (had proper rationales that justified using the tool, targeting accounts active recently enough for the tool to work). Then I removed anyone that wasn't an admin, because the community won't approve a CU that isn't already an admin. From there, I looked at who was regularly active on Wikimedia projects (CU isn't as time sensitive as OS, but it's still important that we have ample coverage because sometimes we need range-blocks to stop ongoing, high-volume abuse). Lastly, I checked their RfAs and searched for threads on the admin noticeboards to make sure we weren't putting forward someone controversial (no one was removed from the list at this step). This gave me a shortlist of three folks, and all three of us were comfortable with any of the three of them, so we reached out to all three to gauge interest. Lymantria stood out because they're already a CU on another project. (There really isn't much onboarding for CUs - a few pages on the CheckUser wiki, and asking existing CUs questions on the CU mailing list or over Discord - so knowing what you're doing from day 1 is a huge plus.) I haven't really interacted with Lymantria much prior to this nomination (just one CU case on Wikidata, IIRC). TLDR: This wasn't "let's pick our friends", it was "let's search for folks we think can do the job". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Being an Admin is a tough responsibility and this is more work. But Lymantria can handle the task. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support if it is Lymantria, for sure. No issues. Always seen them as doing what they are doing. signed, Aafi (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Strong support I've talked with TSC about the 4th CU in the past, and I think that 4 (or even 5!) CUs can only be a benefit to commons, especially someone who already has experience, is a huge benefit. The only possible downside is that the average checks done by an individual CU will go down, but that might not be a bad thing. Anytime we can avoid being dependent on 1 or 2 people for a critical task, I'm all for it. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Bedivere (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- per the comment from User:The Squirrel Conspiracy above. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- More hands make lighter work, and I trust the 3 nominators on this matter. Abzeronow (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support, I think that volunteering to improve Wikimedia projects is too valuable. Lymantria is an experienced user. As they are sysop here, and already have CU rights on Wikidata. So, they are familiar with the CU interface. It is beneficial to have one more CU here. No objections. --Kadı Message 22:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per above. Would support more CUs if there are qualified candidates. Lymantria looks like a trusted user. --JackFromWisconsin (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per TSC. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Rauenstein (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- Do the current CUs feel that there is enough work for 4 CUs on commons? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly. There is a great deal of behind-the-scenes work. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Jelentkezés adatvédelmi biztosnak
A teljesített kéréseket a Commons:Oversighters/Archive lapon archiváljuk.
- Kérjük, hogy a szavazás előtt olvasd el a Commons:Adatvédelmi biztosok lapot. A kevés vagy nulla szerkesztéssel rendelkező felhasználók szavazatait nem számoljuk össze.
No current requests.
Tasks