Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: [[:]]

Bureaucrats' work area (archive)
Requests for bot flags
request | watch
To request a bot flag. 		Translation admin, interface admin
request | watch
To request to become a translation administrator or interface 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. Translate this header!

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

Rights for GLAM group accounts

Hi, though on Commons we (the community) can accept group accounts being run, my understanding is that the intention is that there must be a responsible and accountable individual that runs the account at the time specific edits are made. By granting significant rights to apparent group accounts, we run a far greater risk that later inexperienced users will inherit the account for later projects without this being publicly declared, and without a chance for the community to ask questions about their intentions, or to double check whether new projects are still in-scope, or that appropriate thought has been given to the policies that apply (such as for the best licenses or templates to use). There is a risk that later "account owners" will not be responsible for past projects/edits by earlier owners; when they accept rights for the account it probably would be beneficial to spell out that the community will expect them to remain responsible for all edits made, and be prepared to answer questions that arise from earlier projects.

I am not suggesting that we should stop allowing group accounts asking for rights, but there appears to be no questioning before handing out significant rights as to how they will be managed by the institution long term. If the intended projects are time-limited (as GWT uploads have invariably been in the past), then I see no harm in encouraging a project based name, or even better project manager + project name account in preference to a permanent and open-ended institution account. This way if later projects pop up, the institution representative or new project managers need only ask for further accounts to have similar rights on the same basis as the original request.

(Tangent) It is worth considering that our norm for being tolerant of anonymity is rarely an issue for official representatives of institutions and may even be confusing or detrimental if issues arise with edits from such accounts.

GLAMtools list notified here.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fae, are you responding to a real issue or to a hypothetical one? - In theory, I see your point. In practice it is of course easier for an institution to have just one user account accredited (user rights and OTRS confirmation of rights clearance) than creating a new account for every person ever entrusted with the uploading of media files on behalf of the institution. So I presently don't really see a need for change with regard to the present policy. (Regarding the rationale for the use of institutional accounts in general, see the discussion here). --Beat Estermann (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As said, "I am not suggesting that we should stop allowing group accounts asking for rights". The issue is the fact that significant rights are granted without asking how an organization will manage access to a group account and ensure there remains a point of contact for questions that might arise in the future, even when the current account holder moves on.
The discussion you point to seemed to be about blocking accounts (and only 3 people expressed any viewpoints), but this is not the issue here, which is more one of best practice to recommend to institutions for their group accounts. --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea. --Krd 17:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"(...) than creating a new account for every person ever entrusted with the uploading of media files on behalf of the institution" I fully agree. - My experencies show that most GLAM accounts are managed well. Some are not. It depends if they got guidance. For example User:RCJU-ArCJ above. It is a GLAM account but was created without any guidance. Before a week they get in contact with Wikimedia CH and the Swiss Federal Archives because they plan to upload about 3000 archive pictures and I will advise them now how to use the account. - Maybe we write down a best practice somewhere which is more a recommendation than a rule. But we can use that for new GLAM accounts. At the moment a lot of GLAM are also overstrained when they become active without guidance like a single person which begins first time editing. --Micha (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: I'm glad to see that you are now seeing the potential problems with institutional accounts. Of course it puzzles me to hear your observation that there appears to be no questioning before handing out significant rights, especially in the context of your reaction towards my handling of the rights request by the Finnish Photography Museum (Archive?). I would like to reiterate my position that I consider group accounts harmful, for precisely the reasons so eloquently stated by you above. In my opinion the goal of protecting commons from damage caused by potentially inexperienced users piggy backing on institutional account weighs much stronger than the slight inconvenience of creating a new account. The inconvenience of demonstrating the ability to use the GWT should really not be called that. It is a requirement that we should have. If institutions designate new people for a job that someone else is trained to do they will simply have to deal with the fact that the new person needs to be trained as well! And that training should be demonstrated to us. As I wrote above this is not a simple one way street where we give a thumbs up or down. I'd rather like to see it as an opportunity for the institutional uploaders to get feedback from us, engage in a conversation with actual commons users and learn from each other. --Dschwen (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GWToolset rights request for user:ETH-Bibliothek

Hi, for letting user:ETH-Bibliothek upload their pictures, they need access to the GWT on both commons et commons.beta. May a bureaucrat please activate them? Kelson (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please register the user at Commons beta. --Krd 11:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The user "User:ETH-Bibliothek" is now available on beta. Do we need to do something additional to get GWT permissions on beta & commons? Regards Kelson (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please make some test uploads at Beta. --Krd 10:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, we will start testing on beta as soon as the ethz.ch domain will be withelisted in Mediawiki. Kelson (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see this progressing. I'm emailing ETH about the SwissAir archives, but hopefully this will be handled soon by the GWT project. --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AFAIK this is part of the upload Agenda. Feel free to contact them on their user page too. Kelson (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tests were successful on Beta and ETH is ready to go on on Commons. May you please give them GWT permission on Commons too? Kelson (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation administrator rights request

I hereby request Translation administrator rights. Primarily I will use the rights to manage translation projects related to the Eurovision Song Contest. I am working on translatable templates that are and will be used on 877 filepages related to the Eurovision Song Contest 2013, 1061 filepages related to the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 and hopefully filepages related to the Eurovision Song Contest 2016. I will also try to help with other Translation pages on Commons. -abbedabbtalk 21:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for 48 hours per policy. --Krd 06:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Krd 19:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 19:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What are Bureaucrats and what are they good for?

Given the out of process desysop of User:Denniss today, with no reference to the community of admins, bureaucrats or even global stewards, I am left feeling that this project is being run more and more directly by WMF employees. Could a Bureaucrat explain in what way the claim in our community agreed policy that Bureaucrats are elected to show 'leadership' can apply any more, given that the WMF does not even attempt to approach you for discussion before stripping community elected administrators of their rights? It seems to me that anyone with a grievance is now encouraged to go to WMF employees for effective and dramatic public action, rather than talk to a Bureaucrat.

If the WMF wish to get more involved in the detail of who is allowed to be an administrator, it actually makes more sense for them to start appointing Bureaucrats, perhaps paid employees should be taking on an active role wearing this hat, rather than giving unpaid volunteers the illusion that they can exercise leadership on WMF projects. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the WMF action was specifically related to the edits by a WMF global banned user, an admin enabling them to evade their WMF global ban, and that admin abusing their tools in order to do so. That's hardly "anyone with a grievance" territory, so it is really unhelpful to describe it as such. I did ask User:AFBorchert to explain his decision to warn everyone apart from Denniss, which would have been an appropriate 'crat action. He has not responded, and so I have asked him to resign. I do agree with Fae's section title, however: "What are Bureaucrats and what are they good for". I would encourage all our bureaucrats to come and explain what sort of 'crat activity they have performed in the last year and how they are demonstrating leadership. I suspect this will demonstrate clearly that, with one or two exceptions, our 'crats are not fulfilling their duties. -- Colin (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd prefer to stay constructive and concentrate on the ongoing issue in order to prevent further damage, over pointing out who when said what and whose actions or omissions have been the reason of which problem.
In the meantime there have been discussions started at several venues if an RfA or RfdA is the correct procedure, when to start such, and when and how a reflagging shall be done. I'd appreciate if everybody allow a fair procedure regardless of any past issue. --Krd 11:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krd, the "ongoing issue" concerns the failure of our 'crats to address clear admin abuse by Denniss, such that WMF intervened. Some claim the community and its elected governing roles (admins and 'crats) should police themselves and such an action is not necessary or desirable. But when our 'crats do nothing, and when one clearly turns a blind eye (couldn't have done so more explicitly), then it is valid to question the purpose of 'crats and their role. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with this is that the WMF has virtually never done this type of action before. This is essentially a first of it's kind. If the WMF wants to start acting as Admin cops (which is something I have actually advocated in the past frankly) then so be it, but they should do that consistently, based on clear policy and procedures and everyone should know why it's being done. I do not agree with this we'll do it when it suits us and we want to prove a point mentality currently being displayed by WMF employees. Reguyla (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble in the reply of "moving forward", is that the opportunity to learn from past mistakes vanishes and is replaced by convenient politics for today. Bureaucrats should be seen by WMF employees as the group to turn to if the WMF feels that leadership is lacking within the Wikimedia Commons community. If the WMF are not going to recognize your elected authority in this community when it actually matters, then I don't think that the Bureaucrat elections we have here count for much. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody spoke of moving forward, I just requested to respect the needs of the affected user, Denniss, and delay making points against others until the ongoing issue has settled or at least the affected user had reasonable time to comment themselves. I may be mistaken, of course. --Krd 12:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing is sure bureaucrats have not been elected to lead a war against WMF, and put pressure on those who do not rebel is not very nice. A good bureaucrat is of course someone who do not yield to this kind of partisan pressure even if it comes from any consensus. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggesting that WMF employees consult with Bureaucrats as a default position when these issues arise is not leading "a war against WMF". That's a silly way of marginalizing the issue here. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the first time Denniss misusing his right to help the banned user and we had discussed the topic here. I had argued with AFBorchert for not warning him. My understanding is that crats don't want to interfere WMF bans. If so, James did the right think. Jee 12:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not addressing whether AFBorchert should interfere with WMF bans. There was an edit war. An admin participated. He blocked the user he was warring against. He wheel warred with other admins over the block. These are all offences that should have got an admin a severe telling off. That this admin explicitly escaped warning whereas the other admins and users involved all got warned, showed that AFBorchert wasn't distancing himself from the dispute at all, but in fact was taking sides with Denniss and turning a blind eye. That's inexcusable and he should resign. -- Colin (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are serious, and would like AFB to say something, then raise an AN thread presenting all the evidence and timeline in advance of a desysop or de-bureaucrat vote. It's a tangent for this thread and needs its own. --Fæ (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Denniss' action against you is out of process due to several reasons:
Conflict of interest. Both of us had complained against him regarding that banned user earlier. So there is a COI and he can't use admin tools against us especially in the same topic.
While reverting you, he become INVOLVED. So he can't use admin tools in matters he involved.
A banned user's edit can be removed by any. So it will never qualify as edit-war.
Re-insertion of banned user's edit may be a violation of ToU and WMF can interfere.
He edit-warred with Yann too to reinsert the block.
From early responses of AFBorchert, I believe he don't want to interfere in WMF/ToU matters. No other crats commented so far. I hope their silence in that previous discussion as a support to him. I've no problem if they decided to leave it to WMF. But I've a problem if they are not willing to take actions and protest when WMF interfered (as dogs don't eat grass; don't allow the cows too). BTW, I've very limited time to comment nowadays. Jee 17:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Translation administrators right

Hi all, I hereby request translation administrators right. I translate English into Chinese, and I often do translate work here and meta. This right will help me marking page tranlate-able. I also know how to use Translate extension. Thanks in advance.--Stang 13:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=191650041"