Commons talk:Blockers

Trust

Who wouldn't we trust with admin rights, but would trust them with this right? Multichill (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Everybody we would trust with the block button should just file a RfA. Jcb (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: LX, for one. Not a matter of trust, but of overreaching laws where the user lives.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see that user lives in Sweden, not in North-Korea. Explain. Multichill (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: not acute, really. User talk:LX/Archive/2014: July to September #Sysop?. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: see also User talk:Stefan2/Arkiv 1#Adminship.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: access to the MediaWiki space, indef-protected modules and templates, critically important images, as well as all deleted content of Commons requires much more trust than the privilege to block yet another sock puppet. Of course, block can be abused, but this abuse can be easily undone. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

More trust. Interesting way to phrase that. For me that is an insignificant difference. I can't think of any user I would trust with this right, but wouldn't trust as an admin. Multichill (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that Multichill understood that levels of trust are, in fact, different. Yes, the time to segregate the trusted from merely useful members come nowadays. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that the right to block and unblock users is actually the function of admins that needs the most trust and can do the most harm. I don't think this is a good idea, especially since I don't have the feeling that blocks are an area where we need more manpower. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What will do more disruption: five hundreds rogue blocks or one clueless deletion of a file with 9000+ uses across Wikimedia? As for manpower, when did Srittau hunt sock puppets last time? On May 8 (i.e. 9+ months ago), I guess? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I hunted sockpuppets enough to know what I am talking about, thank you very much. But at the hostility of your response means that this discussion is over for me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Is blocking a higher privilege?

Isn't blocking a higher privilege than deletion and protection? I'd also point out w:Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures has generally rejected this but that's not to say that Commons will. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: but in ru.Wikipedia several proposals of this kind were accepted. If en.Wikipedia does not want it, then it probably experiences different conditions, such as higher abundance of active sysops. Commons lists a lots of people as “admins”, but many of them virtually do nothing for years. And again, blocking is another privilege which has much lower disruption potential than deletions and editing in some protected areas. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe lower disruption potential sometimes but blocking removes the ability for the user to make any contribs (apart from their talk page). That requires a high level of trust and can easily be abused. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: what is your proposal how to watch and mitigate abuses? I hope nobody here thinks that abuses of block by administrators is a rare phenomenon on either Commons or wikipedias. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that this user right should only be given after careful consideration (as it suggests) and that users have to be careful using it. As pointed out I would expect that it would generally only be used for copy vio/vandalism only accounts and not for established users who end up in disputes such as edit warring. Remember that Commons like WP is editable by anyone, so it is against the founding principals to remove that, however due to being able to be edited by anyone it needs to have users who don't have to spend ages getting consensus to block. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's worth nothing that even in the land of unbundling permissions (Russian Wikipedia), they have not unbundled blocking, only deletions: see ru:Служебная:Права_групп_участников (in English). They have closers (deletion permissions), but not blockers. We have no blocking backlogs, is there really an issue here to tackle? ~riley (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  Ru.Wikipedia sometimes deletes underdeveloped—or just “distasteful” for the majority—articles on notable topics because it is an easier solution to delete than to work on it. They also regularly delete redirects, sometimes ones left after mergers (that obviously breaks attribution chains). They deem all these things appropriate—deletionist maniacs, in short—but it is their problem. Commons must, contrary, handle deletions with great care due to huge possibilities for disruption. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  So in short, Russia Wikipedia has been unsuccessful in their attempt to unbundle admin permissions? I mean, the proposals are approved yet people are using the rights incorrectly. I don't think you're making a case here.. ~riley (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  No @~riley: you misunderstand me. Russian Wikipedia was quite “successful” in their unbundling deletion rights in the sense they now do abominable things—which the community desires—with ease. Is was their community’s decision to institute a deletionist hell. I’m unwilling to visit their hell, but would be happy to institute an infernal oppression of sock puppeteers and authorship record forgers on Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it really needed?

It seems to me, that Commons does not need more blockers. Administrators can block vandals and sockpuppets with current manpower. Commons has a lot of logs and more administrators would be useful, but sockpuppet logs needing block is usually missing. Taivo (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree and many more will agree – Commons needs more administrators. Alternative proposals to make more administrators? The blockers proposal will delegate a part—albeit small—of the overall job to new members. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)