Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Global file deletion review

< Requests for comment

The following request for comments is closed. I've spent a while reading through this, and the views expressed seem to be mixed. The general consensus seems to be in favour of the group, however not automatically granting it. While the right was originally designed for commons admins to be grated automatically, the consensus here is that OTRS users or Commons admins (or other users with a need) can request the right, following the procedure of a normal global permissions request (a 2 week long discussion at SRGP, with 80% support). Additionally, consensus is that if any advanced rights are removed on any project, this should be revoked too. Wiki's should also have the option to opt out if they wish to, following a community discussion. Mdann52 (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose implementing Global deleted image review. This was a proposal from 2008 that gained consensus, but at the time could not be implemented due to technical restrictions. These technical restrictions are no longer present, so we can now do this. Five years is of course a long time, so we need new consensus. The proposal is:

Have a new global group that commons admins are members of, which has the viewdeletedfile right. The viewdeletedfile right is exactly like having both deletedhistory, and deletedtext, except limited to the File and File talk namespaces. This would allow someone in this group to view any deleted file, its description page, and its talk page, on all public Wikimedia wikis (Except if the File was oversighted). Revision deleted things in the File/File_talk namespace would also be available to people with this right.

As for the rationale for wanting such rights, I'll quote from Global deleted image review:

A recent discussion at commons suggests that there is still a desire for such rights by several people in the commons community.

Some technical details:

  • This includes the File and File talk namespaces, and both the files themselves as well as deleted revisions
  • Files and revisions that were oversighted (suppressed) will not be visible to this group
  • Individual wikis would be able to opt-out of the wikiset for this global group
  • If a member of the global file deletion review group is blocked locally, they will not be able to see any deleted content

Comments

edit
I have some problems with this proposal in its current form. I do not feel comfortable with automatically granting every commons admin any global permissions after witnessing recent events there (though I would not have been comfortable with it before either). A community which sees itself as an island, completely disconnected and independent from all other projects shouldn't be granted any automatic access on those other projects. Beyond that, there are multiple commons admins who are blocked on other projects - I am completely uncomfortable with them being an admin anywhere, but granting them global rights is something that I would be very unwilling to do. Even if they couldn't view deleted content on the wikis on which they are blocked, I do not trust them enough to give them access on any other projects.
Needless to say, if a user is blocked on any wikimedia project for any reason, they don't get this right. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with interested commons admins being required to go through a selection process on meta, but if they need to do that anyway, then why couldn't it just be done by stewards or global sysops on request? We can already see deleted files, so we could do the checking for the commons admins in the rare cases that these requests pop up. I think that information on the frequency of these viewings would need to be known in order to determine whether or not this group is needed. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I do support this proposal, so long as members of the group go through a local request process on meta. A need for the group has been demonstrated below. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that WMF may object to this @Philippe (WMF):. Otherwise I largely agree with Ajraddatz. --Rschen7754 01:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Ajraddatz wrote above; I oppose this in its current form.
I don't think Commons admins who are blocked anywhere should be allowed to access deleted files on wikis that have not specifically granted them that right through the 'sysop' flag. I can think of a few "controversial" Commons admins whom many communities might not trust to use this right correctly, but who may not "deserve" to be blocked locally. I might support if Commons admins are required to go through a separate request for global permissions on Meta, stating the exact reasons they need the right.
Another problem is accountability: unlike most user groups, using this one would leave no trace. We would have no way to find out whether these users are using the rights to investigate copyright claims or other potentially acceptable reasons, for "fun" viewing of deleted content, or even perhaps to view deleted personally identifying images that have not been oversighted. There are many more likely reasons for deletion than the latter, but I just want to point out that would be possible, and would not leave a trace except maybe in some unread server log. Local admins have to gain the trust of their wiki's community to view its deleted content; global sysops don't need to gain the trust of each wiki, but (like this proposal) each is free to opt-out. The processes for requesting that group may not receive enough input, but viewing deleted content is not the only or main right associated with the group. Recently a global sysop and steward (who resigned) were demoted following an incident involving viewing personal information. The GS was also a Commons admin, and was desysopped by the WMF. Although they claim they did not use GS/steward/admin rights to access it, and I think they might be telling the truth, it definitely shows that concerns regarding private and deleted content are real. At a Meta RfC, there was consensus to remove his GS rights. However, a Commons bureaucrat "overruled" this decision and granted the GS his local Commons adminship back, and the community defended the bureaucrat who took this action. I don't want to discuss the details, but the COM community's response to this incident makes me think they do not take privacy very seriously. While Meta's SRGP is (currently) nothing compared to local RfAs, such as the ones on Commons, it would serve as an additional check.
Additionally, I don't see why they can't Ojust ask stewards to look into such cross-wiki cases. They have been elected through perhaps the most rigorous Wikimedia election and have identified to the WMF. I'd also like evidence that Commons admins need to check deleted files regularly on other wikis, or at least regularly enough to justify granting them the right to view deleted files on most Wikimedia projects (especially if the big ones don't opt out of the wikiset). PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC) (edited until 02:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
@PiRSquared17: I haven't "overruled" nothing. The Meta RfC in question had no bearing whatsoever on the Commons adminship of that user. The Commons community is the only one that can hold effective discussion on the adminship of Commons users, no matter what you Meta guys say. odder (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Odder: You overruled the WMF's decision, not the one on Meta (which was only about his GS rights, and obviously had no bearing on Commons). Sorry if that was not clear. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The meta RfC had nothing to do with it; the removal was at the direction of the WMF (you know, the people who own the place?) and executed through the stewards. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to state clearly that the RfC had no bearing on the de-adminship of that user. And for your information, the Wikimedia Foundation does not own the place. The contents of every Wikimedia wiki are freely licenced and the copyrights are owned by their respective authors and contributors, and not by the Foundation. A subtle yet important difference. odder (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On most projects yes; on my home project (Wikidata), contributions to the main space are completely relinquished from their authors. We aren't talking about content though. The WMF owns these servers, and have a ToU which lets them remove the access of users of those servers in certain cases. It was unfortunate that there was a backlash to stewards enforcing the WMF decision, since the cooperation between the stewards and WMF has allowed for a lot of community input into these kind of decisions, but that is what it is. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me a direct quotation from the Terms of Use that allow the Foundation to remove ordinary sysop privileges from a user (as opposed to the extraordinary CheckUser and Oversight privileges). Thank you! odder (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Refuse, disable, or restrict access to the contribution of any user who violates these Terms of Use" from point 10. Not allowing a user to have access to non-public information (i.e. deleted content) is clearly a restriction of access, which is what the legal team used to justify the action. This is getting pretty off-topic for this page though; if you want to continue your crusade against the WMF, you could do so on my talk page. I have a great deal of respect for you Odder, but I am quite baffled by your actions in past and continuing here. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you used this example to justify your opinion on the subject at hand, I think it is quite on-topic, actually, so let me just mention that deleted content is not considered non-public information by the Foundation themselves (as admin privileges are not covered by the access to non-public information policy), and as a second point, that that particular sentence — restrict access to the contribution of any user — is in no way clear but obviously deliberately vague (and probably grammatically incorrect). odder (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more okay with this if they have to go through a separate Meta process. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PiRSquared17, sorry to jump in here, but your description of the recent privacy case is quite a misrepresentation in regard to Commons community. While it's true that in the initial informal discussion there was support for the crats single-handed action, very soon thereafter a de-admin against the admin (demoted) and even a de-crat against the block-lifting crat (survived) were started. --Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: Thanks for the clarification. However, this is not the only incident in which I've doubted Commons admins. In this case, perhaps the community did the right thing. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is the procedure of a transfer from say w:en: to c:. It's a shaky and lossy procedure with some kind of wannabe-helper- or wizard-tool. It has the decent charme of copying all m: help pages manually to en:w:, as it was done eight years ago, before mw: stolegot the help repo. After some time, it could be years, folks will of course suggest to delete media without a plausible license, no or red categories, unclear author, and what else. The red user link (on c:) of the uploader (somebody who copied the file) doesn't help, the link to the original uploader might be okay, but nobody contributed with this account for years, and the history of the file is completely unclear. There's a policy to keep whatever is in use on other wikimedia projects, but in doubt the policies to delete copyvios beat that. So yes, that deleted file review right could help.
Problems with admins are a tricky issue, discussing it together with this RfC can't work, summary, IBTD. The wikimedia privacy problems are inherent, no special issues on c: with that. If admins would really want to look "for fun" in deleted files, they'd have more than enough "fun" for years on c:. It's not like here, there are hundreds of deleted copyvios, unused selfies, spam, and so on daily. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. There are times when Commons admins or OTRS users might need access to file history or content on other wikis. The responses to my and Ajr's comments have mostly convinced me that this is a good idea in theory, but I still don't think all Commons admins should get this access by default, without going through a separate "election". PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A community which sees itself as an island, -- The media files uploaded to Commons are used in a wide variety of projects, so Commons people are often keen in finding solutions that fit for all projects. No Wikimedia project is an island and Commons is certainly the last project that would come to my mind, if I would be asked about island-projects. I just remember the debates about file renaming and overwriting existing files. Personally, I think Meta is more an island than Commons. An island of bureaucratic people without any confidence and trust in anything. But for the sake of a compromise, I suggest to swap it and have it as opt-in for other projects (like, for example CommonsDelinker) with a central request page, where evidence must be presented if the right should not be granted to Commons admins.
And as Túrelio stressed before, the "right" is a passive thing. Commons admins will be able to view deleted files and file description pages. -- Rillke (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meta is a coordination project for all the others, I think it would be nearly impossible for someone to be here without a global perspective. It is honestly surprising to see so many people seeing the project as completely withdraw from everything around it given its scope. Regardless, since the right does seem to be needed, would you agree with a selection process on meta (as for all other global rights)? You could help determine that in the section below. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I wasn't the one who said that. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per original discussion (see for details). The feature will support our ability to provide correct information on the files we host, and hence to distribute free knowledge. --Nemo 19:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support It would be very useful. Honestly I don't think stewards would have the time to fulfill these requests. I know from experience, both as a steward and as an active Commons admin. I am open about a procedure to get the right on Meta. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How often do these requests come up? Like I said, I would be fine with people being given access (OTRS agents or commons admins) if they pass a request on meta, but nobody has said how often these requests come up. I think that's important information - it shows how much the proposal is needed. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajraddatz and PiRSquared17: I think the frequency would in part depend on how easy it is to review; ideally, when in doubt, the history of a file should always be reviewed, although I don't always do so because of the lack of an efficient means. I once have asked a Japanese Wikipedia admin to view a deleted to help fixing a Commons file page. I guessed that the author was misrepresented on the file page, and it was confirmed and fixed upon my request. I asked because I was pretty confident that the present information was wrong. I have kept several similar files in my to-do list, and I also have simply assumed good and forget about many others; on those instances my doubt was not (yet) significant enough to justify the extra time required to find someone and ask for help. Note also that stewards may not understand the language required (for me most frequently it's Japanese) and that, in order to verify licenses and authors, one might need to carefully review all revisions of a page. I don't think asking stewards or local admins for every instance is a wise investment of time for both of the parties. That said, it makes sense to have candidates go through Steward requests/Global permissions, consistent with some other global roles. whym (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, that answered all of my questions :-). Since it is needed and most people seem to support a request process on meta, I am OK with the proposal. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Sounds reasonable. I know that sometimes these rights may be very useful, as some transfers in past (mainly distant) were not done properly and some useful informations disappeared during these transfers. --Jklamo (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{s}}: Apparently would be very useful (not only) for Commons admins. Technical detail #4 is a requirement. <small><b><span style="background:#43CD80; border:2px solid #43CD80; color:yellow">   [[User:FDMS4|<font color="yellow">FDMS</font>]]  4   </span></b></small> 19:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Oppose Oppose per some comments above and below.    FDMS  4    12:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support, though I may be biased as being a Commons admin. However, I want to make one aspect very clear. This proposal is not for the benefit of Commons admins (we will only get more work to do). It is for the benefit of all those projects whose local files have been transfered to Commons in a suboptimal manner with loss of relevant license/author/source information. Those are the ones that should support this proposal. --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support + also give the same right to otrs agents. Not being a Commons admin, there were some cases where I needed to see deleted files but I couldn't. --Geraki TL 20:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose (first, when europeans talk about consensus, they mean an agreement between all participants. This is just to clarify, consensus is used here in the us-american interpretation as synonym for a majority vote). I don't like the idea that a wider public is able to download and spread the filth that has been uploaded. The group of people who has access to sensitive data should stay manageable. --Sargoth (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a short reality-check: there are <250 admins on Commons, only 10% of them are really active in the deletion-business. :de has 254, :en has 1386 admins. --Túrelio (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you use the term reality check? It has negative connotations. For me, 250+254=504, not 249. Cheers --Sargoth (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Sargoth, as I already suggested around 20-30 Commons admins are processing the bulk of deletions on Commons. Those are the ones that need this tool in order to not be forced to simply delete mis-transfered/moved files. That's not "a wider public". I admit that the underlying problem is far less common with :de-to-C than with :en-to-C transfers. Finally, you can be assured that those patroling recent uploads to Commons are exposed to rather more filth than Wikipedia-patrolers/admins. Anyway, no problem if this is rejected, the ones who would loose are the local projects, not Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Public in the sense of not private. At the OTRS-Workshop near Berlin 2010, a laywer used this wording to describe that the public has to be as small as possible (we were talking about a group of five, the deWP Oversights). --Sargoth (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, here we are not dealing with oversight-material or alike, but just with files/images that had been locally deleted after (and because of) their transfer to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Ajraddatz' reasoning. Vogone (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Support. It will be very usefull.--Iluvatar (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support - merely viewing deleted files and their associated info is probably a low-risk ability; it would probably help the Commons much more than it would hurt individual projects, making it a big plus for the super-project which we have here. No project is an island; and whiole global abilities tochange things can be a problem due to lack of understanding of local policy, merely viewing deleted material is low-risk. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support, and probably grant it to OTRS people too. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per the JurgenNL and Odder cases. These made it evident that there are no consistent moral standards across WMF projects. In particular, behaviour is accepted at Commons (to the level that disgraced admins are repeatedly re-empowered) that would not be accepted on other projects. Commons is obstinately defending this right. In particular for the case of Russavia, I can only imagine what the reaction at en:WP would be to him acquiring some of the powers of an en:WP admin by inheritance from Commons!
Also I see no need for this right. The false dichotomy presented at the top of this page is untrue. A Commons admin needing access to WP deletion logs to verify permissions is not obligated to delete a file if they cannot access them, they can merely share the task with one of the many admins who have passed muster on both sites. (Also WP should maybe stop hosting content on Commons altogether, given Common's habit of deleting in-use files for the most specious of reasons.) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that, Russavia being banned on enwikipedia, would never get access on enwikipedia since blocks override the viewdeletedfile rights. Furthermore its becoming clear in the section at the bottom that people want people to go through a process at meta to get this right, which would prevent controversial figures who are respected in some communities, but infamous in others from getting the right. Bawolff (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose for any Commons admin who is banned, blocked, or has had advanced permissions removed on a project. If the local community does not trust that Commons admin, he or she should not have access to deleted content there, under any circumstances. I actually oppose this overall, but it is critical that those whom communities have specifically excluded from participation at various levels must not have access under any circumstances, and would be a massive violation of the trust of those communities. Frankly, it's not that hard to find admins on the larger projects who can review the data and share it with Commons; in fact, it could be a worthwhile project to develop the list of images with such incorrect license statements and develop a multilateral team to work through them and update the Commons information. Risker (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comments: There is no evidence given that this is an actual problem. Step 1 would be to block any bots transferring files that does so without a complete link to the originating (external) file, to stop this situation from occurring in the future. Step 2 would be to create a bot-generated list of files that are affected by this situation. Step 3 would be to work through those lists, with the assistance of administrators on the originating projects; in the few cases where there are no available administrators to work with, stewards or global administrators should be asked to assist. Problem solved without granting permissions to people who do not meet the community requirements on local projects. I find it curious that this seems to have originated at Commons, the project that recently took great offense at the idea that any other group should determine whether or not one of their community members should continue to have access to deleted materials (through adminship), but now they're proposing that Commons admins should have permissions whether or not a local community would agree. How many local communities are notified on a regular basis every time someone requests global permissions? Risker (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's probably not ideal to lump all Commons admins together as a monolithic group. It's very likely that those who proposed this global user right are not the same people who "too great offense" as you describe. LtPowers (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe you meant to write "took great offense", and yes, several who voted in favour of this proposal on Commons also took offense at the non-local decision to globally remove access to deleted content from individuals who had abused their access to view deleted content on one or more projects. Risker (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Risker:, the problem with images lacking information is not about new transfers. Far from it. The bots that transfer are nowadays pretty good, the problem is that they weren't always so good, and that a lot of people transferred things without bots. But what we do have a problem with is images from 2006 or so with little or no information. I've seen people suggest a list be made, but such a request is pretty much impossible. There is no standard format to find these images, just every so often you come across one while doing something else. Thus, as such a list cannot be easily generated, this would require review of all 24 million files on Commons - clearly a non-starter. This isn't a problem which happens a lot, but when it does it slows everything down unnecessarily. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Generally, I have always supported the idea that every autopatrolled user, or at least autopatrolled with a considerable seniority, should access chronology of deleted files or ns0 pages in his/her wiki. Probably I am extreme, but I think that a reliable user is not going to create any damage if grated a passive acces to certain protected data. I also believe that the post-wikidata era is forcing the projects to be more interconnected, speeding up the transfer of information. As the supporting comments show, the "Zeitgeist" of this phase is pointing in that direction. By the way, if we really want to be sure that no damage will occur, we can put some additonal filter, granting access to local projects only to the profiles who are given in those local projects some additional status, e.g. autopatrolled, or simply not (recently) blocked. After all, you have to understand the language or the contest to "gear" the data, and there are many ways to be sure that the user has this good level of understanding. So I would try to refine a little bit the "automatism", but I fully support the general concept.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose People having admin rights in both projects already have this access. Others are simply not trusted to view any restricted contents. Period. (Any commons admins who want to work in this particular area can apply for an admin right in relevant projects. No need to override this right of every individual project through this RfC. I'm sure Commons will aggressively react if an attempt is made to give such a right to EN admins in Commons.) Jee 02:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Most of you are reading a bit too much into this, its actually quite simple; Commons admins have the necessary knowledge and experience to deal with images and thus this ability would really help them to ensure that "wikimedia" is safe from copyright violations for one but also legal issues in the near future..There are 1000's of non-free images on enwiki, I don't see the admins there deal with it so why stop someone that could deal with them?. The wikiworld doesn't revolve around the English wiki, there are over 600+ wikis and this 'ability' will benefit the smaller wikis a lot so lets stop being petty and think of this from a broader perspective for a change eh? Wikis who do not like others doing their job for them are more than welcome to opt-out...Lets not try to stop progress, it has already taken many years of 'that' to get this far...(Global groups came into creation in 2008 and we have reached to this level in 6 years, that is quite poor don't you think?)...that said, I do agree with an alternative for a voting process on meta before this right is given to the user but if we go with this alternative, we have to make this an actual global group as in, "no wikis can opt-out" as these users would be identified to the WMF and thus would actually be "volunteering" on their behalf and thus would be deemed liable for their actions, and would need to be able to have access to all wikis if they are able to successfully do their job and this could put to ease the issues relating to trust....so one option is for these GG creation for commons admins + Opt-out option for wikis and the alternative is a GG creation for which the group members will be selected via voting on meta [the one requirement would be commons adminship though as the user needs to truly understand image policies before s/he can hold this right] and no opt out option for any wikis, and for those opposing above just cause you do not like certain commons admins holding this right instead of basing your opinions on the actual idea put forward by bawolff, you might like to consider the latter..--Stemoc 04:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a Commons admin have more knowledge or experience of non-free content than someone on a local wiki? You might as well say template coding, or categorization, should involve outsourcing it to Commons as well.
This does raise an interesting question though. Is this new right to be provided to give Commons admins more ability to see deleted content on wikipedias, so as to better carry out tasks at Commons, or is it to permit or encourage Commons admins to start carrying out admin tasks (such as the NFC you mention) on those wikipedias themselves? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As I said many times in the past, with the current dimension of the system, good targeted statistics is important. I refine a lot of statistics in my local wiki, the more data I could access, the more I could speed up and improve my work, and make it more useful. Of course, there is still a lot to do, so it doesn't matter too much now, but it is definitely a funnel on the horizon. It is probably one of the reason I am pushing this view of "open acess" of information to bigger groups of users whenever possible (which BTW does not mean to everybody)--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"intervene" sounds much more than what it is, it is just an access to certain information. BTW, I have no problem in giving a local administrator power to read certain information on commons as well. It is just reading.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It look like the admin on Commons do not trust the admin in the local wikipedia and want to oversees their decisions. How can I support such a mistrust? Hanay (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. After images have been transfered from local to Commons, they are deleted locally because they had been transfered. However, in many of these transfers the information on the local image page has been copied only incomplete to Commons, so that on Commons we have not enough information to evaluate the copyright status of such images. --Túrelio (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment I think this RfC should be split into a section on whether this global group should exist at all, and whether Commons admins should automatically be part of it. These are two very different questions. darkweasel94 (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Ajraddatz and HAnnay Gilgamesh (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. The administrative culture at Commons does not demonstrate that people who have gained administrative rights there are mature enough for this right - indeed several admins there have actively demonstrated the opposite (although there are many admins there who I would trust, there proportion I wouldn't is too high). On the whole I am not seeing the need for this - on larger projects there are plenty of admins who can supply this information on request. There has been no evidence presented that there is sufficiently large number of instances of this from smaller wikis that this right is needed. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 14:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. There is a need for this, and it represents a small step towards better cross-wiki integration which I believe is an active aim of the WMF's ED, Lila. There may be one or two edge-cases where specific individuals are not trusted with global rights, but that is partly dealt with by the rule that 'if a member of the global file deletion review group is blocked locally, they will not be able to see any deleted content'. I would also not oppose the idea of individuals having to go through an approval process on Meta. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I see no reason for all admin on Commons to have this extra right. The people doing this type of work need to have more than just knowledgeable of Commons policy and copyright. They also need to understand the wikimedia movement culture and to be able to work effectively globally. Standing for admin on one wiki, Commons, does not demonstrate these characteristics. I would not be opposed to a select group of people who demonstrate the total package of skills coming to meta and asking for a global deletion read permission..This would include admins on other WMF wikis who would also get this permission for commons files, as well as other WMF projects that opt-in. Working OTRS seems important, also. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support as long as there's an additional SRGP process on meta for this rights. Also rights should not override local block on any wiki, and should be revoked (automatically?) if sysop rights are removed. --Xelgen (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Eurodyne (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 17:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose There is not a real need to give to a Commons' sysop the privileges on a completely different Wikimedia project. A sysop trusted on Commons is not automatically trusted on a specific wiki where there are different rules, guide lines and an appropriate group of sysop, with more specific know how about that project, who can act, just in case, if requested.--Bramfab (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --LikeLifer (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose deleted files are very often copyright violations; extendind the viewdeletedfile right to non-local sysops would mean in this case to allow a copyright violation to be reproduced, since the file is seen by individuals who are not in charge of the project's maintenance. But even when the deletion regards a useless file, or a file which was moved to Commons, as well as for any other exceptional case, local sysops are there to provide any assistance to Colleagues from other projects. So the extension of these rights is actually unneeded, if not directly dangerous.
    Things should perhaps be looked at the other way round: ask local projects to select a few local sysops trained to help their Commons' Colleagues with their tasks, maybe also with limited additional rights on Commons. Extraordinary emergencies can always be solved by stewards, the rest is a fair ordinary relationship among sysops from different wikis; it always worked well. --g (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know there is no legal support to define acces to a a copyrighted information a "reproduction". If 100 or 1000 people can access it, from the legal point of view nothing changes. Sysop can provide more fruitful assistance perfomring deletion or active looking for copyright violations, than providing a simple access. For the protection of copyright issues a more productive use of local sysop time is a far better option.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    our "deletion" is a mere hiding the file so that no one can have access to it apart from those who care about the site's maintenance (sysops). In all the legal cases which I am aware of, always the "site" has been identified by judges, in my country and in others, with its local version (it.wp. en.wp. fr.wp, ...). So, legally, we have a "site" which is the local version, and its caretakers are the local admins; we might have wider horizons here around, however this is how courts look at it. When we have shown in our pages a copyright violation until it was discovered and hidden, we have unconsciously made it available for the general vision for a while, and the word "unconsciously" is what keeps us immune from responsibility (quickly said, but...); then, as soon as we know it's irregular, we hide it to everyone apart from the said sysops, so it does make a difference if the file is made available for one user more, because we just cannot show it to people and non-local admins are not local admins, the only ones who are not "people" in this sense. I talked about "reproduction" of the violation meaning that the violation is replicated with each and every one vision more by anyone who is not a site's caretaker: the violation consists of showing the file to non-caretakers, no matter how it is shown, what matters is to whom it is shown, instead. Caretakers must then really and concretely be limited to those who effectively serve in the administration of the site (in the legal meaning of "administration", which is another issue), and these cannot be a generically unlimited amount of people, especially if they would be essentially unrelated with the maintenance as strictly seen in the actually strict interpretation of the courts. --g (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not linking any specific law after all. Our local syspops don't sign any documents, what does it mean they are "caretakers"? Legally, how they exist? If 200 sysops or 100 sysops and additional 100 user can acces it, what is the difference form the legal point of view? sysops groups are already a generically unlimited amount, It still shouldn't make a difference for a court, because if it does, that means that the moment you make it available to a specific group of people i any case instead of erasing it tout court, you are alreading violating a law. if acces to sensible information it is such important at level you are saying you should just erase it, not hide it. The moment you hide but make it available to a specific non-private group of users, you are only arbitrarly posing a "variable" limit "somewhere" without any clear justification, which is not going to work in any case.
As I always said, exagerating a possibile problem without a specific legal framework is not a contribution to a solution to the problem or its prevention, most of the time it just produces anomalous distribution of attention which has no real long-term effect on the protection of the system.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Would ask that the closer separately identify and summarize how current commons admins have voted on this. It seems odd to me to see many commons admins voting themselves additional powers. w:Separation of powers...--Elvey (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Would it be practical to publicly log everything viewed using this right, if it's granted? Seems like a good oversight (normal English meaning of the word) technique - as use would be logged, abuse would be less likely.--Elvey (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I think viewing deleted files would be a big help. I have copied thousands of files to Commons and I have checked thousands of files copied from different wikies. It is very hard to check anything if the file is deleted. You can ask a local admin but if you do not understand the language or if the wiki has very little activity it could take a long time to get a response.
I think it would also be nice to be able to undelete af file to create a proper upload log and delete the file again. But I think that this right should only be granted after some sort of vote.
As long as it is only a right to view deleted files I see no reason why we should make an extra vote or why it would be a big problem if Commons admins could see deleted files without a local accept from the wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Bramfab --.snoopy. ✉ 21:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I find that JurgenNL/odder case pretty terrifying. I have never imagined that there could be some WMF project, where trusted bureaucrat resysops (twice and of his own accord!) user who had comitted grave privacy violation … and remain trusted. I am sure I do not want that community to decide who should have right to view deleted things on other wikis.--Tchoř (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral I see the point, it would have been useful for me a couple of time, however I would feel very unconfortable not being appointed by the local or the meta community (as for stewards). --PierreSelim (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Too many corrupt people on Wikimedia have been granted special rights. We have this disgusting spectacle now of paid editors and paid admins, many of whom are curating private porno and pedo galleries on commons. I have been blocked on Wikipedia.En by a syndicate of paid editors and corrupt sysops. and I represent the Wikimedia India Editors Forum. Sick !!! Juhimukherjee (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Platonides (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose the proposal in its current form. There has not been specifically demonstrated the need for this right to be granted by this means, at this point of time, and it is not demonstrated that the global community needs this right in this form.

    As a steward I have not seen requests made for a steward to collect that information, whereas I have had such requests as an admin at Commons made to me as an admin at enWP, where I have been able to provide the information requested. So why aren't we using the local administrators to get this information? Demonstrate that such a process is broken, and that there are many requests that are outstanding that therefore make this new right a requirement. Such that demonstrate why is there a need to give Commons admins an extra right to look at a deleted file at another wiki, when they can just ask for that data.

    As we are talking about a global group to manage this, by this proposal it will need to be separately and individually maintained by stewards, and require addition per new appointment, and removal per resignation. If such a group is to exist, it should only be granted to those users who desire and need it as that cuts down on the rights additions/removals, and stops unrestricted deletion queue browsing. I am not adverse there being some allocation of the proposed right, I just do not think that this proposal is the means to assign and allocate such a right where the broader community has expressed a view that they wish to maintain a semblance of review of access outside of Commons. I would suggest an access more limited in scope that all commons admins, and a process of review outside of the commons community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support I'm in support of this long-awaited feature. While it is usually possible to get support from local admins, it is a burdensome process if greater volumes are to be checked. And it makes a difference whether you can check yourself every detail of a file history or if you get just some selected info. However, I understand the concerns raised above and think that is would be probably best to grant this right through a process at meta only to Commons admins who actually need this and who are in good standing also in other projects. Likewise, as suggested above, it could be helpful to grant this on request to OTRS members who process permissions. In summary, I suggest to adapt the proposed policy in this direction to achieve a wider consensus. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral - not sure... Trijnsteltalk 12:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Risker --Guerillero 05:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose in total. Support Support Somewhat helpful in few cases for few people. Oppose Contra: Users banned on any project should not have this right. Inactive Commons admins should not have this right. View to copyios and semiprivate information shall not be widely spread. Additional meta election process too complicated and supports even more hat collecting than we already have (global sysops e.g. are strictly limited for good reasons). --Krd 09:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per billinghurst, Thryduulf, Juhimukherjee. --LT910001 (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I thought, I was seeing stupid idea about making new group from admin tools so people can show off hats to everybody, but nope, I was wrong, now we can have non-admin (or people who don't want to be admin/sysop) review those images for restoration.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 04:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Oppose Oppose. After a crosswiki Check, I see there are draft, guidelines, rules, that not allow any user whom are not part of the community to see the deleted content/files. I don't think it's viable for Global deletion review to be exempted from this.--AldNonymousBicara? 18:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I do not understand the benefit that one would get from having that right. If an admin wants to find out about an image in another wiki , he can always contact an admin on that wiki. Also image policies are different for each wiki. Are they trying to control every image in the whole Wikimedia Foundation? --Leaderboard (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meta request process for global file deletion reviewers

edit

Since people tend to agree with a meta request process for this right above, this section can be used to determine what that request will look like (or if it is even needed - you are free to oppose this of course).

I personally think that a week would be enough time. Even though this group contains admin-level rights on all wikis except those who opt-out, there are no active rights associated with it, so I think a week should be long enough. Any thoughts? Ajraddatz (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be "automatic" like the OTRS flag(s). --Nemo 18:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a week; by default the permission is granted if there are no objections; otherwise we probably would need no more than 20% opposes.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard 80% support ratio would work, thanks for bringing that up. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ymblanter's proposal. --Rschen7754 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ymblanter's proposal, and I would like to add that I think stewards need to evaluate the reasons for and against each case, not just count votes, although a minimum for passing is a good idea. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be a flat-out ban on anyone who is blocked, banned, or has had advanced permissions removed by a community to have access to this tool. Frankly, I'm not buying the argument that this permission needs to exist at all. Let's see a list of the number of files that would be involved, and set up task forces with each applicable community to clear it up. Risker (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, similar to global admins and rollbackers, communities should have the right to opt out of permitting anyone from using such permissions on their project. This must be auditable; in other words, global file deletion reviewers must agree to have a public log of which files they view published. Risker (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The opt-out part is mentioned in the original proposal. I also mentioned accountability/auditing in my comment. Also, communities cannot opt-out of global rollbackers (or none have). PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ymblanter's proposal sounds reasonable to me. Risker's addendum of not allowing people who are banned somewhere to have access also sounds reasonable to me. Bawolff (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I think any proposal that grants a right to a user who does not regularly hold such rights on a project should require opt-in for all projects with more than 500 active editors.

      I am hoping, Bawolff, that the primary wiki on which people want to view deleted files/pages is not enwiki, where any type of view-deleted access outside of the elected administrator corps has been regularly opposed no matter who the intended accessor is, going back at least since the specific view-deleted "right" was created. An opt-out is practically guaranteed on that project; every time any such proposal has been made on a broadly viewed noticeboard/RFC on enwiki, it has failed to achieve consensus. (The recent thread on the Village Pump (Technical) doesn't count for much, it's a VP that isn't read by many enwiki users outside of those who look at things from the technical perspective, and there was no RFC. ) This is at least as much a social issue as it is a technical one. Risker (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose any poll. If there are compelling reasons not to promote someone, they should be brought-up. Anyway, I think it's better for Commons to make the right opt-in and advertise on projects to enable it. When Commons administrators then delete botched file transfers because they cannot access the project's deleted files, it's the project's problem. On the other hand no project would feel run over by more global wizardry. -- Rillke (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Rillke. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is not too bureaucratic (which I cannot judge), I also support a meta request process. -- Stephan Kulla (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can get a sense of that at SRGP - the short answer being "not very bureaucratic at all". :) Ajraddatz (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users should have to go through an SRGP request for this. --Glaisher (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IF this right is created (and I have expressed doubts above about its necessity), then it should be granted only after a successful request on Meta. 80% support generally seems acceptable, but it must NOT be granted to:
    • Anyone who has been deadmined on any project (excluding for inactivity, but including those who resigned adminship "under a cloud") and not subsequently regained adminship on all of those projects.
    • Anyone who is currently banned from any Wikimedia project. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 14:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I can block you now on Russian Wikivoyage for any period of time (assuming you are registered there, I did not check). Should this disqualify you from running?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ymblanter: I don't recall making any edits ru Wikivoyage, and blocked != banned, but your point is a good one nevertheless. The intention was to allow global rights only to people who are in global good standing, which I still think is a useful and relevant requirement, but it will need some other way of determining this that I can't think of right now but I'll keep thinking.
          Indeed, I agree with the general point that only editors in good standing should get the right, but we need to think how this good standing is best defined. I was one blocked in Russian Wikiversity where I have zero edits, and many projects do not have a difference between an infinite block and a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          @Ymblanter: BANNED >>> BLOCKED, as that usually involves a process where the community has had a higher level of discussion than the simple action of an administrator. I differentiate the two quite specifically, and to get yourself banned by a sizeable community takes effort.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          Actually there are very few communities where ban exists at all. In Russian Wikipedia it does not exist (or at least not existed four years ago when I was active there), and even an arbcom ban was called block. I do not know whether there is community ban outside the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm presuming to initiate a request for this, there would be some kind of requirement (ie. OTRS or admin involved in file transfers), or just anyone who wants it? Mdann52 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely aimed at those two groups of people. I don't like firm rules disallowing other people to request the rights, but I doubt that anyone else would pass a request without a strong rationale. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment This right would give more access than global rollbacker, so any application process should be longer than that. I would somewhat equate it with global sysop, so suggest that maybe two weeks is more aligned with advanced rights. I would also expect any application here to also be noted at Commons for their information. I would also expect that the assignation of this right not be permanent, and should have a review and removal process allocated to the policy prior to being implemented, and not simply "for their period of adminship at Commons"; and that the Commons community alerts of the removal of any global rights when a person is removed from adminship at Commons by resignation or other removal processes. I also don't think that a simple %% vote is a reasonable guidance, as one community or another can influence this sort of arrangement, and a sudden influx of "commons"-based votes would not be helpful to assess a global consensus. So for this proposal to move forward I would like to see these aspects addressed. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)
  • Two weeks seem appropriate. The prerequisite would be adminship at Commons and/or OTRS membership in connection with the permission queues. When adminship and/or OTRS membership is removed, this right should be removed as well. The introduction of a time limit like two years seems practical. Likewise it should be possible to review this if necessary. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support——The powder toy (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Global_file_deletion_review&oldid=12071215"