Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:BN

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

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

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

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

Request for Bureaucrat review of sysop action[edit]

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

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

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

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

Request for rights: interface administrator[edit]

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

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

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

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

Proposal[edit]

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

Conclusion[edit]

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

Initial requests[edit]

As there hasn't been anything more for two weeks, I'm marking this as done. New requests can be added in a new section if required. --Krd 15:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

GWToolset permissions for Auckland Museum uploads[edit]

Kia ora, I work at Auckland Museum, and am keen on continuing the work that Fae started on uploading images and data from our collections to Commons. I’d like to request to join the GWToolset usergroup. My colleague Adam Moriarty has already had our domain whitelisted.

I have an account at beta, and have successfully uploaded a few files to Commons using PattyPan. I would like to be able to use the GWToolset, and would also like to try uploading using file URLs through Pattypan, or perhaps (also) through the GWToolset.

Please let me know if there is any more information you need in order for this right to be granted. Thank you. — Hugh (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please make some test uploads at beta using the GWToolset. --Krd 14:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Hl: ? --Krd 12:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Please request again when ready. --Krd 06:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

De-adminship[edit]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Jcb

According to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship: "De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible".

Is the linked discussion sufficient to request de-adminship? I would think so, the outcome is not certain but if the outcome has to be clear before the request the actual request would be superfluous. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Alexis could you explain why this question is even worth asking? Where is your "consensus"? You got a handful of votes/comments, evenly split. Fae pinged a large number of active admins, and not a single one of them even bothered to vote. Perhaps, because en:Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Perhaps because none of them would like to be treated that way. You had a complaint about Jcb but instead of dealing with it at the proper venue, or opening a discussion on that complaint first, you went straight to the highest escalation and asked the community to agree with you that a de-admin was required. I really, really, wish this so of destructive and harmful nonsense would stop. And I do think you should be formally censured over this. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: Bring your complaints to ANU, not BN. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Several trusted users have supported a de-adminship request and some admins have voiced serious concerns. If Jcb has sufficient community support he won't be losing his bit. But his status seems, to me, sufficiently debated to have a vote. I will respect the outcome of that vote. If this is not sufficient to have a vote, it'll mean admins have to turn to clear vandalism before we can have a vote. That wouldn't be healthy. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm rather worried that you appear to not understand what "discussion leading to some consensus" means. There will always be "several users" who dislike any particular admin, and the only thing "trusted" about them is that they can be relied on to turn up at such polls to vote for a de-admin. De-adminship is rare. Remember that such polls are often an excuse for people to make personal attacks and unsubstantiated negative comments without the normal expected degrees of evidence or justification or mutual respect. Some admins declare their real names. So it is important the community doesn't gratuitously engage in such without good reason and where the outcome is not already likely to be guessable. Such polls nearly always generate a lot of heat but absolutely no good-faith efforts to find an alternative better solution. The discussion you started at AN/U is textbook "no consensus". And unless an admin's behaviour was totally outrageous, I'd expect to see some effort to resolve the disagreement about practice/behaviour that wasn't nuclear. -- Colin (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: Again, bring your complaints to my talk page or ANU, not BN. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
No, Alexis, that is not grounds for opening a de-adminship discussion. Jcb, please take the genuine concerns seriously. We all need to default toward carefulness, cooperativity and communication. --99of9 (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@99of9: This is worrying. Jcb shows little willingness to improve and "De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible" is not a number, but feels like roughly 75% or more. Actual de-adminship only requires 50% majority, but to actually start the request a supermajority is required. So whenever the requirements to start a request are met, the de-adminship is guaranteed to succeed (I assume I don't have to explain why this is a problem). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Cite: "In the rare case that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing their status, it may seek de-adminship in the same way as adminship is sought." Does the current ANU discussion lead you to the objective conclusion that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing their status? --Krd 15:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: Part of the same Patstuart edit from 2007 that was added without consensus. Admins should not be immune to de-adminship requests. Let me throw the question right back at you: if there would be a request for de-adminship, are you fully confident Jcb will pass? If you're not, why should crats block the request? If you are, what's the harm in determining Jcb still has sufficient community support to continue? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
For the record, see this discussion. The text you claim was "added without consensus" followed this discussion and the added text was immediately mentioned by Patstuart in this discussion, and also mentioned at AN/U: "I have added the appropriate sections at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship‎, for which there seemed to be universal consensus. Please feel free to change the wording...." Are you really claiming that after 11 years, that text didn't have and still doesn't have consensus? -- Colin (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Admins are not immune to de-admin request, which is easily visible from the archive. I don't know if Jcb would pass, this is none of my business and mostly irrelevant for the question if such a request should be raised. The possible harm is that, although admins generally should answer questions on their actions and explain their decisions, a few users who are dissatisfied with a single decision shall not raise a de-admin on own end just about about that single issue. A de-admin comes into play after the issue has been discussed with the admin in a civil way, and only if the offense is severe or repeated, and if there is some community support.
In the current discussion I'm missing the parts "civil" and "community support". Please advise if I'm mistaken. --Krd 21:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Jcb[edit]

Could someone please close this discussion? Editors with long-standing grudges are viciously attacking one another and it's clearly no longer a productive exercise. -FASTILY 19:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and have closed the discussion now accordingly. --Krd 06:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=319168452"