Hosta

Revision as of 03:35, 21 January 2015

Shortcut: COM:BN

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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.

Odder's change in the group membership of Russavia

Hi Bureaucrats

I noticed this morning the following in my watchlist

(User rights log); 05:35 . . Odder (talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Russavia from (none) to administrator ‎(Commons adminship is a community prerogative and lies outside of the remit of the Wikimedia Foundation)

It appears to me that odder hereby overrule the WMF Global Ban Policy as Russavia has been globally banned according to this policy. Is that a correct understanding? It appears to me that it is done in protest to the WMF Global Ban Policy and how this was used yesterday to globally ban Russavia. Whereas I fully respect if odder disagrees with the policy or the manner in which it is used, I see it as an abuse of his tools in his role as a 'crat to then hand the admin bit back based on personal preferences, since Commons is not exempted from following WMF policies.

I would like to hear the opinion of the other 'crats on the project regarding this. Is this an acceptable use of 'crat tools? Thanks in advance. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As additional information, odder has informed Philippe (WMF) about his objective for re-instating the bit. Apparently, odder thinks we should run our own de-adminprocess here first to gauge the Commons community opnion. There are two things I do not understand in this:

1. What is the urgency of reinstating the bit? There are a lot of speculations about the real reason for the global ban, but they are - speculations. A lot of admin collegues appear to believe on Russavias side of the story without even considering the possibility that there may be important details let out. As a precaution and to show integrity with the WFM, I think it would be best to leave Russavias status for the time being. There may actually have been a very good reason for the global ban. We just don't know.
2. I do not understand why odder thinks we at Commons can overrule a global ban from the WMF?

-- Slaunger (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that Odder's action in resetting the sysop bit was a symbolic gesture by him. It does not and cannot 'overrule' the WMF's actions, as the WMF global ban was accompanied by a global lock which prevents Russavia from logging in regardless of his locally-set sysop status. As to Odder's action itself, I feel it was unnecessary but I am aware that he feels extremely strongly about the need for independence of community decision making from the WMF. I don't feel it would help Commons become more mellow by having a big argument about this symbolic act. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I was writing something very similar, but Michael got there first. I agree entirely with his sentiments.

The only thing I would add is that after the last WMF Office de-adminship action, the community expressed a significant (but by no means unanimous) level of support for de-adminship being left in the hands of the community and local bureaucrats. The actions of odder then attracted the support of the community and he can justifiably claim that he is, again, following the previously expressed will of the community. Nick (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs, thanks for explaining about the global lock. I was not aware that the change merely had symbolic meaning. I agree it is not worthwhile to have a huge discussion about this if the act is merely symbolic. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nick Thanks for your additional explanation. It does seem like a moot point though to me as whatever the community may think about it, it will have no actual effect. I think it is digging trenches and advocating for silo-thinking instead of building bridges, but that is just my personal opinion. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If Odder wants to make a symbolic web protest, he should get a 'blog or a facebook page.

As a 'crat instead, he has responsibilities. Responsibilities that include safeguarding the good name of WP in general. When he's happy to re-grant admin rights to such editors, he seems to have little regard for those responsibilities. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that odder is a Commons bureaucrat, not a WP bureaucrat. --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I agree mostly with Slaunger. I wish that there would be a better solution that a permanent ban without discussion and appeal to solve the conflict between Russavia and the WMF. Re-sysopping Russavia is the wrong solution and has no practical effect. It it is just a misuse of the bureaucrat's right to express his discontent over the WMF decision. A letter to the WMF would be more appropriate. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, what Michael said. Although I would have appreciated if there had been some communication with the other crats beforehand. --Dschwen (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Philippe (WMF) has commented on the global ban. I think Philippe provides good reasons for not digging into the details. It appears they have an elaborate approval process for such a ban, involving their legal team. As I read his statement, you need to do more than merely provoke Jimmy Wales to trigger such a ban, that is, claiming this is just because of the Jimmy-Russavia controversy seems unlikely. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Slaunger. Having long-term experience with similar issues, I see Philippe's explanation as ordinary fluff. It says nothing that we did not already know, it states what is indeed standard corporate practice, for corporations that are not responsible to a broader community. It's a rationalization for not addressing the basic issue, which is about community trust and trust in the community. One can find "good reasons" for anything. The problem is that, on the face of it, we have alleged reasons for the ban (from Jimbo, on his WP talk page, though he claims he was not involved -- and I believe him, but do remember, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"), and those reasons would be utterly inadequate. The WMF is likely to care most about Wikipedia, and the "reasons" for ban come from Wikipedia. Phillipe says:

there are times when - for the safety of users of this site - we simply must draw the line and ask that you either trust us or don't. This is one of those times.

Someone needs to point out to Phillipe that we don't trust them, if they will not communicate with us. Yes, there are times when privacy must be maintained. However, this appears not to be one of those times. If so, it's possible to handle the matter; Commons has trusted users who could be informed. This should not, however, be handled purely privately, by a single trusted user here, unless that user is clearly representing the community. Rather, if the WMF wishes to continue to insist on privacy, the privacy issue should be handled first. Who is being protected? Russavia? If Russavia was abusive and harassed someone, how will the revelation of this increase risk to that person? What harm does sock puppetry -- the major charge relating to Wikipedia only AFAIK -- do that requires privacy? While it is not impossible that there could be some situation where privacy must legally be maintained, that seems very unlikely here. The claim of Phillipe about very careful process is contrary to the appearance, with a flood of bans abruptly issued.

The argument for privacy has mostly been based on avoiding libel of the banned individual. However, if that's the basis, a banned individual should be able to waive privacy rights. In some cases, specific evidence would need to remain private. However, this kind of issue is already routinely handled with checkusers. No, bottom line, that comment by Philippe provides no reason to trust him or the WMF on this. Once upon a time, many of us trusted the WMF to keep hands off and to act only as servants of the communities. That trust has been damaged, and it appears that Philippe does not care to recognize the issue, nor would I expect him to. He is only an employee of the WMF. --Abd (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have some experience with challenges to cross-wiki actions (such as global locks). Odder's action here is at worst harmless, and, as stated, symbolic. It could not possibly injure the WMF's legitimate interests.
• A more effective action would be for the 'crats to agree on allowing Russavia to create a new account here, which would open up a channel for communication with Russavia, that is authoritatively him. That account would be explicitly acknowledged as Russavia, and would be linked from the Russavia user page.
• I suggest that this begin with an agreement from Russavia to only edit his own (new) Talk page with that account, and to avoid any disruption or highly controversial editing, until and unless the community here has agreed to allow him to continue. I would imagine that Russavia's agreement would include not using that account to edit any other WMF wiki, unless explicitly permitted there by local consensus, first. (He would ask through others, not by socking.)
• The point is to assert local control of purely local activity. The 'crats could decide, through their own consensus, whether or not to allow Russavia to more extensively edit, and whether or not to give this new account the admin bit. And all this can and should be open. To avoid unnecessary disruption, the 'crats may consult privately first.
• That new account would, indeed, violate the letter of the WMF ban; however, it would not violate the legitimate spirit of it. We already know that Russavia is willing to violate the letter, he has a couple of IP edits to his own Talk page, but I have seen no seriously disruptive actions from him, only an attempt to show his ban email.
• If legitimate channels of communication are opened, and used with caution, it will avoid disruption, not cause it. It's up to Commons and the Commons 'crats, my opinion. A global ban is of a user, not of a community that might support a user. A community may decide to carve out an exception, and I am proposing fully considering and being responsive to WMF concerns, without necessarily following them slavishly. However, Commons cannot be responsive to secret concerns, though the WMF could communicate directly with the 'crats if there is a need for privacy. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that crats are empowered to execute technical functions, and to only take action when they have a clear mandate to do so. They are not empowered to initiate protests against the WMF based on their personal feelings. I don't know the history of this particular crat but this decision to unilaterally make a symbolic override of an office action seems like drama mongering that serves no legitimate purpose.

There is a growing sentiment on many other WMF projects that this project has become dysfunctional due to persons in positions of trust who misuse their authority. If Odder wanted to reinforce that viewpoint, well done. If he wanted to protest the global ban, he should have done so in his capacity as an individual user of the site not by using his advanced permissions to make a useless, inflammatory gesture. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's true many think that there are «persons in positions of trust who misuse their authority», but those persons are certainly not the community. On "initiate", see the comments above; Odder's action is consistent with previous discussions and consensus. --Nemo 21:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's always nice to see that whenever I make a remark in a community discussion here or at meta, you always, always show up to contradict it. Makes me feel important. I don't think it's any secret that you and I have, shall we say, differing views on the appropriate use of advanced permissions. Using them to help people=good, using them to make a protest action based on your own opinion=bad. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• By reinstating Russavias admin bit I dont believe Odder was acting within the communities interest as you can all recall a majority of people expressed no confidence in Russavia during the de-crat process a percentage of them called for de-admin at the same time. Starting a discussion without acting would have been an acceptable response but I suspect given the vehement polarisation and the level of power of the users supporting Russavia wield that many people are not responding in support of the WMF for fear of reprisals. I ask that Odder steps aside from the role of Bureaucrat as his action has only further ensured that people wont openly support the WMF in their re-action. Gnangarra 22:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• A bureaucrat should not serve community policy as he sees fit, because therefore others will be afraid to express a contrary opinion? This is ridiculous. There is not the slightest hint here of retaliation or suppression of opposition to Russavia. I do see polarization, of a kind I saw before in dealing with global vs. local issues, there those who claim that local wikis have no power, that the wikis are simply "owned" by the WMF (legally true but substantially misleading), they claim that anyone standing for local autonomy is fomenting rebellion and -- this was actually said -- the WMF might close the wiki. If there is fear here, it would be on the other side, that one supporting local autonomy -- or Russavia, or both -- will suffer, in the future, retaliation. That is more likely, probably, but still, I'll testify, so far, unlikely. On the other hand, Russavia may have been banned for something related to this discussion. It happens. Users get blocked and banned for holding onto old grudges and complaints and repeating them. If Russavia threatened to sue, or was seen as threatening to sue, that could be it. On the other hand, there would then be no reason for privacy, and excessive "privacy" could actually encourage a lawsuit. Russavia himself brought our attention to this document, which led me to the talk page I've linked. --Abd (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is clearly a polarizing issue for the Commons community, and unfortunately it seems that in the past year a large majority of this project has turned Commons into "us v. WMF". This state of affairs is disappointing and distracting from the real purpose of this project - to upload quality images and files for use in furthering our online Encyclopedias. While I am not privy to the reasoning behind the Foundations decision, and I personally consider Russavia a friend, I concede that their actions were well within their rights and authorities. At no other place of employment would an employer openly discuss personnel issues with their employees. At no other business or non-profit would human resources involve the entire company in decisions relating to safety, legal matters, or employee performance that jeopardizes the overall business goals. While I also understand that Odder is elected by the community and is attempting to act in the best interests of the community, his action today is contrary to many user's concerns raised at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat). The 'crat tools should not be used to play politics or "take a stand." Philippe has explained that this was not an arbitrary decsion, but instead one with much thought, discussion, and consideration. Re-instating Russavia's sysop rights, while harmless, seems careless given the circumstances. I see no pressing need to reinstate Russavia's sysop rights and suggest Odder remove them. Tiptoety ^talk 23:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no question about the "right" of the WMF to take action as it has. Odder's action is within his discretion as a 'crat. Obviously, some disagree. Odder, however, is clearly consulting the community, he's not just winging it. There is another side to this that Tiptoety missed: there was also no "pressing need" to remove Russavia's sysop rights. That action stepped over a line, and was not needed for protection of the WMF community. It was additional to the global lock, gratuitiously added. Odder, from my point of view, was simply undoing an improper action, and it took him a moment. Because this action caused no harm, other than the alleged polarization, there is no non-disruptive reason to challenge it. Hence Tiptoety is participating in increasing disruption here, while imagining that he's supporting the purpose of the wiki. Yes, the purpose is hosting images, but the method chosen is a community-based wiki. That requires community decision-making, and it requires functionaries willing to serve the community. Odder is clearly pursuing that goal. It can happen that one suffers sanctions as a result of pursuing established community policy, when it steps on the wrong toes. Been there, done that. I don't regret my action for a moment. I would regret not standing for the community, out of timidity. --Abd (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this already borders on the absurd . What does it serve to Commons an admin locked globally? This is not for the community, is a personal grudge. Alan ^(talk) 02:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Odder: FWIW I would have also appreciated discussion of this before Bureaucrat-action. --99of9 (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Info I have initiated a desysop discussion. --99of9 (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Rights removed per Russavia's request on IRC. <russavia> !steward please remove the admin bit for myself on Commons. --Alan ^(talk) 10:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think that Odder's actions were wrong. This is the action of someone determining how they believe that community should respond, not letting the community respond. If such an action was to be taken to re-add the rights, and Odder thought that this was the action to take then start a discussion, NOT just take action. I believe that this community is still about consensus, and acting unilaterally is simply wrong. To note that this is the second time that this has happened, and the last time 1/3 of a community vote wanted the removal of the 'crat rights, and the summation by the closer included the statement I hope the nuances of this poll won't be ignored so all I can suggest is that the nuances have been completely lost.

Odder you are elected by the community to be a 'crat (noting the defined role there) and you have an important voice in this community, you are NOT the voice of the community. Many of us are elected to roles in this, and broader communities, and we all (have to) learn to act within the bounds of these defined roles; we all have to learn that when we have a strong opinion then we should be keeping away from the tools, that where we have a conflict or vested interest then we most importantly should keep our fingers off the buttons.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• A little reminder, as it seems to have slipped Odder's memory: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat)

Odder has past form for overturning WMF removal of admin bits. Even when, in both cases, the Commons process clearly supported the de-adminship.

I have no faith in Odder as a bureaucrat. I had little before, after JurgenNL, but to see that he's still taking this same approach of political grandstanding against the inevitable result I have even less now. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Definitely Odder action is controversial, but WMF is also need to think how to improve communication about its own actions. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes the WMF needs to improve its communication with the Wikimedia projects (not just Commons) but it didn't mean that Odder should've miss used is 'crat tools for his own political point scoring. I have no trust left with Odder, this isn't the first time he has miss used his tools and it wouldn't be the last. Bidgee (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bidgee: I am fairly certain that you intend the above paragraph as rhetoric. For the benefit of clarity for readers, you have not presented evidence against community agreed policy on Commons that odder has misused his rights on this project. Unless you can provide a link to a published plan, neither is it possible to prove that he will misuse these rights in the future. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I was away for a few days; so no clear idea what had happened in between. But it seems Odder's action is just procedural (and so alright) to tell WMF that they should not cross the borders. Here they can block/lock a user and notify it in their user/talk pages. The remaining things (removing user rights, blocking alternate and bot accounts, watching any future socks, etc.) should be done by local admins. In case of any doubts, we have a recent precedent here. Jee 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Odder misunderstand the conclusion from his de-'crat. According to his understanding it was a support to the "hallucinatory independence of Commons" so as long as he is bureaucrat he will keep doing the same thing. User:MichaelMaggs, your understanding of Odder's acts was wrong (not a matter of native English speakers but simple logic and common sense). He does not care Russavia but only his own agenda. Russavia couldn't answer to his de-admin process so it was might become bad for him. He only meant to stick a finger in WMF eye.

In all his actions he forgot to ask him self the important thing - does this actions serve the benefit of the whole project. This is the main goal. Commons in a position of leading the project as our actions influence all the project . But this kind of leadership only bring us to confrontation against WMF.

I also want to thank to User:99of9 for taking the correct leading step her. Hopefully a step for a new kind of dialog with WMF. Together with that I also want to thank to Russiava that made a end to this farce. And also thank you for all your job her. You did not blocked her in Commons so be well in all your going to do. -- Geagea (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The wannabe-policy is no policy at all, this was an office action. I've not heard of bureaucrats overruling WMFOffice, and generally I'd doubt that this would make any sense. In the specific case I wonder if something like an "admin without deletion rights" exists. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Close this thing, it's attracting flies. This was started here with a misunderstanding, that somehow Odder had reversed the WMF ban. He had merely restored the admin bit, thus returning it to status quo ante, allowing Commons to make its own decision on that point, as was done quickly. There is nothing here for 'crats to do, no call for 'crat action. If anyone wants to discuss the global bans, there is Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#WMF Global Ban Policy. --Abd (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinkerHelper

Hi, CommonsDelinker has been rewritten by Magnus (see phabricator:T86483). User:CommonsDelinkerHelper (the sysop bot) does not need longer a own account. Please move sysop flag from User:CommonsDelinkerHelper to User:CommonsDelinker. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, I can add the sysop flag, but to remove it from CDH you'll have to ask a steward! --Dschwen (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As the bot has been rewritten and is now operated by somebody else (as it seems). We should wait a day or two to get some opinions on this. I'm not opposed to giving CD the flag though. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. See meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#CommonsDelinkerHelper.40commonswiki (you can also remove botflag). In the maintime requests on User:CommonsDelinker/commands can't be removed by bot. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

So CDH used to be in charge of the removal from the task list. Why was this task merged into CD? The privilege separation was a neat feature. Can CD handle not having the sysop flag for now? Or are we impeding CD functions severely by no immediately giving it the bit? --Dschwen (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It dos not make sense to have two accounts (and it wasen't a privilege separation, passwd was stored in the same file). It would be possible to protect User:CommonsDelinker/commands using AbuseFilter (but this method is not 100% safe because of the condition limit - but if you don't like to grant +sysop it would be a solution). Now CD can't edit the request page (=blocking removing replace requests etc.) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It does, please read w:Principle of least privilege. --Ricordisamoa 21:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ricordisamoa: Sorry, but i disagree. There was never a (so called) separation of power (for what i can see). Only two different folders, and the password stored in the same file. So why should we change that? I like to explain you what a separation of power is: Hosting the sysop bot on a different server. You can't request such things from volunteers... - all other adminbots here don't have a separation of power. Instead of saying "thank you" that someone cares about the delinker, you go complain *sigh*. @Dschwen: The CDH has only edited on commons. See my last sentences. *sigh* --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Created a workaround with Special:AbuseFilter/139 --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(Giving an opinion as a amateur bot writer and follower of the Phabricator discussion) Steinsplitter has dug into the operation of this tool. I appreciate the potential governance benefit of separation of powers, however there is no actual separation of guiding minds to be concerned about. A human equivalent of a Chinese Wall makes no sense, so a veneer of separation, when actually the tool is using the same credentials to do these tasks, would be masking or even give a false impression to our users should they need an awareness of how this works. We are increasingly short of unpaid volunteers with the skills, free time or personal interest in handling serious maintenance jobs, I suggest we find ways to keep what needs to be done as simple as possible. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The privilege separation would in this case not be a security measure, but a means to avoid nasty bugs. The CH code was run and developed under the assumption that the bot does not have a sysop bit, while the CDH task was designed to operate with the bit. We are now operating code that has not been tested with the bit under admin rights. Anyhow, I'm sure this is not a big issue and have added the bit to the CD account. I would however appreciate if such concerns were not simply dismissed without bothering to think about potential implications. I don't think it is in the interest of the project to mindlessly assign admin bits without any discussion. Done --Dschwen (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I also deleted filter 139 and fully protected the commands list. --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason being that we need to be careful with our condition limit. We have a couple of heavy filters and only a total of 1000 conditions. --Dschwen (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for translation admin flag

Moved from COM:RFR:

• Ochilov (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I need translation administrator right to take control under the chaotic translations in this wiki. I already have this right in Meta-Wiki and Wikimedia Outreach and will be glad to help you all here. Thank you. Ochilov (diskuto) 02:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• • I thought you just got it on Meta... --Rschen7754 03:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • And there are no chaotic translations in this wiki. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Instead of this, we have many guidline pages, that are not marked. This one, for example. --Ochilov (diskuto) 11:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Errm... Marking this page is a very very bad idea. All existing translations will be overwritten. Can you please tagg a page for translation, so we can see that you know how the translate extension work? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that it already has a box with other languages. I think it will be better for me to make a withdraw. --Ochilov (diskuto) 12:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)