Commons:Oversighters/Requests/1989

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
It’s been a week and I feel this has ran its course. 1989 (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1989

Vote

1989 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 00:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to become an oversighter on Wikimedia Commons. I have been an administrator for over eight months with 30,000+ log actions including 200+ revision deletions performed overall. Prior, I have OTRS access (commons-I and permissions queue) and have not released personal information when dealing with tickets. I have occasionally contacted the oversighters if needed after (rev-)deleting the content or something else, and I feel like I can perform those actions by myself. I am currently active on this project to perform actions (currently being the fifth active administrator this year) and email to help with content that needs to be oversighted due to libelous content, disruptive usernames, personal information, and others sent to the oversight mailing list. I have read and understood the meta oversight policy, the meta privacy policy and the WMF access to nonpublic data policy. I have read and signed the confidentiality agreement, understanding the terms, including to not reveal confidential information to the public. Thank you. 1989 (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

  • I personally don't have any concerns with 1989 at the time of commenting, however, for me to vote someone in for such an advanced permission, I would like to feel that there is a need for another Oversight. @Odder, PierreSelim, Rama, and Raymond: Is there a need at this point in time for another Oversight? Is there enough activity to warrant it? ~riley (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @~riley: I hope you can appreciate that this question puts us in a rather difficult position, in that it can be a make-or-break for @1989's candidacy. In general, however, I'd say that we are currently managing the level of activity rather well, as demonstrated by our rolling six-months statistics; certainly our response time is, on average, much better than that of big-name internet companies, and has been for years now. I do agree with @PierreSelim that we would benefit from having oversighters from different time zones (both from the Americas and Asia/Oceania), as the four of us only cover two European time zones. I do understand, of course, that the limited information about oversight activity makes it hard, however, ultimately, it is up to you as voters to decide whether we need another oversighter and whether @1989 would be a good fit for the role. odder (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Odder: Thank you for your transparency - I do not think this question will be make-or-break it for @1989's candidacy but still appreciate you answering nonetheless. ~riley (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, all current OSers are based in Europe, so I would rather support an OSer who is not based in Europe for the sake of covering multiple timezones. If you don't mind me asking, are you based in Europe? — regards, Revi 06:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am from the United States. 1989 (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few comments on my side. Yes, the team of oversighters would benefit from adding someone in a different timezone, and I think it matters not how long someone have been a sysop before being an oversighter. However it's not a contest of amount of actions, and I expect fellow OS to keep their composure most of the time, because being an Oversighter is also about seeing the worst of the Internet and act wisely about it. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I’ve described my actions to demonstrate my activity here, it’s not about what you just described it to be. As for keeping composure and being wise, I’ll do my best. 1989 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question On en:User talk:1989, the user talk page archives are indexed at the top of the page so that any reader can find them. On User talk:1989 the talk pages archives are not linked. Is there a reason for the archives to be hard to find, and could you explain the cases where you have removed discussions rather than leaving the talk page archive a more complete record? --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can view my archives when you’re creating a new message by clicking New section. When I get an announcement on a discussion, I remove them as archiving them would be meaningless as it was just a notice and not a discussion. 1989 (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question As an active user of RevDel, these actions as an administrator may be closest to the principles and ethics of the community expectations for a member of the Oversight Team. The database shows* 16 cases of the use of RevDel this year with no edit comment on the log (refer to User:Faebot/Sandbox1 for the report). The most heavily used comments are the non-specific "Purely disruptive material" (221 times) and "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" (71 times) and on 5 occasions the comment was "Copyright violation". On one two occasions this year has a more meaningful non-standard comment been used. The policy for RevDel states that it must be used sparingly and "it should be reasonably clear what policy or policies are being enforced". Do you believe that your explanation in comments for RevDel is sufficiently specific and meet both policy and community expectations for respecting our values of transparency in the use of actions, or is improvement a possibility? Secondly, do you believe this is a fair question to raise in the context of an application for Oversight access? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The reasons I say are prelisted when I’m prompted to give one. IMO I feel it should be enough to explain why a certain revision has been hidden. In regards to the no reasons, those ones are edits after the offensive, and without those ones removed, the revdel content is shown. My laziness got the best of me. I should of provided a custom explanation for those kind of edits. When I encounter such edits again, I will make note on why I’m revdeleting the revision. Yes, I view your question to be valid as when I’m on this role, I can’t oversight something and not leave a reason. Such actions needs an explanation, and that’s what I’ll tend to. 1989 (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* This was my own quick SQL script, happy to be corrected if these numbers are inaccurate due to a misunderstanding of how best to join the relevant log tables . Note that other actions this year by 1989 with blank comments include 48 restores, 9 deletes, 7 protects and 4 rights changes. Refer to User:Faebot/Sandbox1. --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Usage of the block tool is constrained on Wikimedia Commons by COM:BP, in particular there is nothing there that makes it the responsibility of Wikimedia Commons administrators to enforce blocks created on other projects per their local policies on Commons, unless that account has happened to have broken policies by their actions here against policies here so the rationale for the block is precisely those actions. Nor is it the norm to block inactive accounts with the reasoning that they are blocked elsewhere. Choices about cross-wiki abuse are especially illuminating when distingishing a Commons Oversighter from Oversight on other projects. Taking this as a statement of fact (unless there is a rationale against this understanding of COM:Administrators), could you explain the decisions made for blocks of:
    1. 165.138.141.60 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) "School IP"
    2. Auxallryduck (talk · contribs · logs · block log) "Cross-wiki vandalism"
    3. 64 times, in 2019, the block tool has been used with the rationale of open proxy, and on one occasion for being a "Zombie". For these cases, it does not appear possible to see that the IP or range has been blocked after checkuser confirmation, and quite possibly it's no easier for those with sysop access. Could you explain how the community can follow the public record for these blocks and the process you have followed for correctly applying these blocks, which by our policy relies on checkuser access? To provide some emphasis for this question, it's worth noting the principle of transparency expressed in Commons:Blocking policy#Oversight blocks and bans that "Any block or ban made under this section should be reported by the oversighters to the community at the earliest opportunity, with as much background material as can reasonably be provided."
    Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first one, see here. Second, a vandalism only account that not only vandalized Commons but other projects and was later globally locked. Third, range blocks performed are listed at Commons:Database reports/Range blocks. If someone wants history, they’ll have to look there. For blocking proxy ranges, I used rDNS to help (tells me the range, example). On BP, it states I can block such for a duration of a year per m:NOP. I wasn’t aware I had to consult a CU in regards to that. 1989 (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the replies. Your responses create more concerns for both understanding of Commons policies and the ability to be seen to comply and implement community agreed policies as published. Oversighters should be community leaders with more than a competent understanding of policy, but with a sophisticated ability to interpret policy while ensuring that our shared values of transparency, accountability and respectful treatment for all contributors are met in fact and in spirit.
    Taking the responses in turn, here is my reading of the evidence provided:
    1. The block of 165.138.141.60 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) was made with the block comment of "School IP", itself not a rationale or an explanation for a block, per BP. In the prior noticeboard discussion here which has been presented as a response to the question, Herbythyme (previous experience as Commons bureaucrat and check user) correctly interpreted Commons policy for IP addresses like this with the statement "Blocking now is a touch academic as the vandalism was three days ago. Looks like a school IP to me too so any major blocks might be better avoided." By ignoring these factors and blocking the IP for 1 year, it seems clear that the rationale given in the block comment was literally the rationale being followed to justify the block. On review, the block appears to simply be taking the English Wikipedia block of the IP as the single overriding factor, without any assessment of how this contradicts the approach to IP blocks taken in our policies. At no point has this been considered an open proxy, only that the address probably is shared by school users. The IP was blocked previously by Yann for only 3 days, escalating to 1 year is a poor interpretation of block policies, which must throw doubt over the ability to make nuanced interpretations about Commons specific policies in the future, and the ability to explain actions taken fully in compliance with policy, should access be granted to Oversight tools and alerts.
    2. The block of Auxallryduck (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for "Cross-wiki vandalism" was a non-policy based justification in the block log. Commons administrators are not supposed to use sysop access to block any accounts for cross-wiki vandalism, and global blocks are the call of global stewards, not Commons sysops. That the account was later globally locked is fine, but not an explanation for the block action taken on Commons. Again this casts a shadow over the potential for a future Oversight member to correctly and credibly explain why Oversight actions are being taken on Commons, in compliance with Commons policies, not policies or evidence elsewhere either off-project or even off-wiki. Such decisions must be delegated to the correct trusted users.
    3. With regard to the 64 blocks of IP addresses and ranges, the response "I wasn’t aware I had to consult a CU in regards to that" is alarming, considering this is specific and extremely clear in BP which all sysops are required to comply with, the statement there is "Range blocks with a duration longer than 24 hours should be discussed with a checkuser to assess the likely impact." Any over-reach of authority like this as an elected administrator is of significant concern, as it is far less likely that actions of anyone with Oversight access will ever be subject to public questioning, as the community expects Oversighters to always act correctly, in full compliance with policy, when they are using evidence in private that the general community, including administrators, may never see or review. If BP is unreasonable or incorrect, then please make a proposal to change it so that the actions you have been taking this year can have a consistent and community agreed rationale against policy.
    Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Oversighters/Requests/1989&oldid=398563537"