Commons talk:Oversighters/Archive/2016

Additional privileges

It seems Wikimedia Commons oversight team is capable to jump in difficult situations. I've no doubt in their capabilities and trustworthiness; but it should be formally documented. Jee 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain what you are asking for more clearly please, or if this is a complaint about an oversight member then state it in a less elliptical way? As this has been linked here at the same time linking it at Denniss' page to the blocking policy talk page here in relation to Jcb's actions, they appear related and may be seen by many as forum shopping. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Another nonsense. Please don't comment if you don't know what is and what is not. This is a request to document a practice that is executed once (at least) without proper documentation. This is a wiki; it makes new amendments when "found". Jee 14:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't need a arbcom like usergroup here on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So you think that action need to be reversed? I didn't see much objection at that time (other than from User:-revi). And FDMS4 left or took a long break probably as a protest. Jee 14:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I still believe they are NOT capable of doing that, but it's stuff too long ago to reverse the action. Oversigters are there only for suppressing sensitive information, not jumping in a difficult situation. — regards, Revi 14:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

(I'm not saying they are not trustworthy or such -- I'm saying nobody on Commons has granted such authority, and they've used such authority without proper (prior) community approval. — regards, Revi 14:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC))

I am not talking about the FDMS causa but in general. I like a democratic process, not a autocratic one. Any arbcom like actions are out of oversights global scope. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I too don't want to revise that case. But either it (this special right) should be approved or declined. Jee 14:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I've a difficulty to believe our oversight team acted like JOKERS if they don't have such a right in the first place. Hope they will explain or redact their action. Pinging Avraham, PierreSelim, Rama, Raymond and odder. Jee 16:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't even understand what this means. odder (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Please note that violations of the interaction ban might result in further action being taken pursuant to applicable Wikimedia policies. On behalf of the Wikimedia Commons oversight team, odder (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)" It seems NOBODY authorize you too make such a BAN or THREAT. Jee 16:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As Jkadavoor does not wish to explain their request in more direct English, could someone summarise please, or provide a link to a more obvious summary? I'm at a loss as to why Jkadavoor linked to here from the discussion about Jcb's recent actions on Denniss' talk page, and it seems to be claimed as both relevant and irrelevant at the same time. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see what we did wrong, as odder already said it months ago "... there have been multiple instances of interaction bans being imposed on Commons users by administrators. All Commons oversighters are also administrators, so this remedy is taken by us in our capacity as administrators. However, there was some information regarding this situation could not have been shared publicly with all of the community, which is why the oversight aspect is relevant here". --PierreSelim (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, admins can impose interaction ban or any other sanctions; but ONLY with community consensus at ANU. If it is an emergency, they can proceed; but immediately need to seek post approval at ANU or ANB. This is applicable even if you can't reveal all information. We have several examples where community declined such proposals and the last case was me vs. another user. Here you people didn't make such an attempt; didn't even make a notification (if I remember well). So most people who do not FDMS4's page may not even aware of this.

As you claim you did the right thing in right way, it gives me the impression that you will do it again, if situation demands. In that case, I would like to hear community opinion (and opinions of -revi and Steinsplitter too). Jee 02:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You're making things up as you go. Show me a shred of a policy or guideline that requires a prior community approval for an interaction ban, and in particular, show me a policy or guideline that requires the immediate seeking of post approval at an administrators' noticeboard. These don't exist. The fact of the matter is that this was a very unique case; there were no cases like that before, and none have happened since, and there's no policies that cover it.

You have a group of administrators who also happened to be oversighters who received information that they could not have shared with others; working hand in hand with the Foundation, we decided to implement an interaction ban, and the Foundation agreed to enforce it outside Commons. We have taken much more serious action in the past, with the community necessarily being left in the dark. I have personally blocked or hidden dozens of user accounts for reasons that I can't share with you, and without providing a public summary — and the blocking policy requires me to provide it. So what do I do? Do I risk someone's safety and well-being, or follow the policy?

I also fail to imagine how you think we should have sought the community's prior approval. "– Hey, we'd like to impose an interaction ban between X and Y. / – Who's X and Y? / – We can't tell you until we announce it. / – All right then, why impose an interaction ban between them? / – We can't tell you that either. / – Errm… what?" Is this how you think this would've played out?

I've said this a couple of time before, but I'll repeat it here, too. What we do as oversighters includes a constant trade-off between confidentiality, privacy and security on one hand, and our core value of transparency on the other. We're all aware of this, which is our actions at all times are performed to the absolute possible minimum that we deem necessary to protect non-public personal information — and this is never taken lightly, and is discussed and sometimes even reversed or reduced.

I think we're also all aware that some in the community might think that particular action to be ArbCom-like. Trust me when I tell you none of us have this in plans, and for no other reason that we just haven't got the time to deal with issues and drama the way that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does. odder (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks odder for this long reply. I'm not very convinced by your initial arguments though. I agree that our blocking policy is very brief and inadequate to handle all cases. That may be the reason many admins quote EN policies whenever they feel fit. There I noticed "users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately". However this is not applicable for FDMS4's case. In all other cases "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested."

But there is a case, where oversighters and checkusers can block people for confidential reasons. But "All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee." whereas Commons doesn't have such a facility. So we must trust you if this is the case. Good information; but why not mention this at Commons:Oversighters as an "additional privilege"? My apologies. Jee 11:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It was asked, "Show me a shred of a policy or guideline that requires a prior community approval for an interaction ban, and in particular, show me a policy or guideline that requires the immediate seeking of post approval at an administrators' noticeboard." I found this at Commons:Blocking policy: "Harassment. ... Good faith disputes between users, however, should be brought to Commons:Village pump for outside input." The link Commons:Village pump seems outdated and need to be replaced with Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. The words "interaction ban" or "topic ban" seem nowhere used in Commons; but hope they are milder forms of block. Jee 02:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)