Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:BN

Bureaucrats' work area (archive)
Requests for bot flags request | watch To request a bot flag.	Requests for GWToolset, translation admin or interface admin rights request | watch To request to become a GWToolset user or a translation administrator or a 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.

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020

I created Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020. I asked stewards to remove admin bit from two users: m:Special:Diff/19793654. All other inactive admins were notified by talk page message and email except for User:Ronhjones who could not be reached via email. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Great job, thank you! --Krd 06:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

4nn1l2, I think Geni may have been de-admined in error. Geni was de-admined because they were notified they had too few admin actions 6 months ago, signed in response to the notice as required, but then supposedly failed to make five admin actions within the period of six months starting at the time of the notice (per Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#De-adminship process as a result of inactivity). However, Geni was notified at 01:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC) and Geni subsequently made four deletions within a hour of the notification and another three deletions in the next six months (see [1]) — so at least seven admin actions, not many, but more than the five required. The report at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020 says they only did three. It looks like the error was caused by looking back six months from the time of the inactivity scan (which was at 02:56, 10 February 2020, an hour or so more than six months from the last scan), rather than six months forward from the time of notice. The Admin Inactivity Tool looks back six months, which is the correct tool for identifying admins with no admin actions in the last six months. However, to identify which previously notified admins had no actions in the six months from notice, the correct tool is the log or the the adminstats tool. —RP88 (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@RP88: I got your point; it's indeed a matter of hours (1 hour and 23 mins to be specific).

I have no serious objections against returning their admin bit. But at first, I would like to hear the opinion of other users. Should we follow the letter of the policy or its spirit?

Let me explain myself. These are his/her admin actions between the last two checks:

20:25, 18 November 2019 Geni (A) talk contribs block deleted page Category:Jewarchy (attack category) (view/restore) (thank)
19:46, 7 November 2019 Geni (A) talk contribs block deleted page File:Dom Petrosino, Phi Sigma Kappa portrait, 2018.jpg (Content intended as a threat or attack (G3)) (view/restore) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)
08:57, 10 August 2019 Geni (A) talk contribs block deleted page File:The-wubbulous-world-of-dr-s-tv-poster.jpg.png (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): uploader claims fair use. Appears to be TV poster of a cat in the hat TV show) (view/restore) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)
02:19, 10 August 2019 Geni (A) talk contribs block deleted page File:Eazy-58b8c97e3df78c353c20cf7a.jpg (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): getty images image see https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6708046/frost-eazy-e-aids and a million other places) (view/restore) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)
02:17, 10 August 2019 Geni (A) talk contribs block deleted page File:Nigersaurus BB.jpg (Nonsense (G1)) (view/restore) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)
02:14, 10 August 2019 Geni (A) talk contribs block deleted page File:Two Factor Login and Verification.jpg (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): cover of non free book https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/46271675-two-factor-login-verification---web-development) (view/restore) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)
02:10, 10 August 2019 Geni (A) talk contribs block deleted page File:Արգուս Ֆիլչ.jpg (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): David Bradley as Argus Filch) (view/restore) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)

According to your interpretation, since the current check was done at 02:56, 10 February 2020, but they have only 3 admins actions in the previous 6 month (18 November 2019, 7 November 2019, and 08:57, 10 August 2019) their name should be again listed at the current inactivity check (even if we don't remove their admin bit now). Is this really the intention of the policy? That an admin be listed on the inactivity checks two times consecutively? I don't believe so. The last 4 inactivity checks have been performed on the 10th of Feb or Aug (the last three of which by me). I have been careful to run the check on this date. These checks can be done anytime on Feb/Mar or Aug/Sep. Suppose I had run the check on the last day of February. Then it was no longer a matter of hours, but days!

The last thing, if bureaucrats decide to return his/her admin bit, I will apologize him/her personally. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: This did happen in 2017 (see here) and that time the bureaucrats decided to return the admin bits. The gap that time was longer, three days instead of an hour or so. —RP88 (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I will reassign the bit per above discussion. --Krd 11:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I apologized to them for the inconvenience. I also asked them to sign the current inactivity check. Email was sent too. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I thank those involved for their professional approach.

However I would have much preferred to see Geni run a re-confirmation RFA, in the light of many years of doing the minimum to retain sysop access. There is a big difference between a sysop being caught out by bureaucracy and the statistical facts of this case.

An apology for the perfectly correct application of policy was unnecesary. --Fæ (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This was my personal decision. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I too think you don't have anything to apologize for. I would have been happy with a decision either way — this was definitely an edge case that only occurs on the margins for admins with little activity, for which the current process is cumbersome to implement with the existing tools, and your interpretation was defensible. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my nitpicking :-). —RP88 (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry for accidentally closing this when I tried to click on the link. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 13:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced invitation to "tag" images

Screenshot

As discussed at Commons:Village pump#Misplaced invitation to "tag" images, there appears to be no consensus for the display of an invitation to use the new Computer-aided tagging tool to all uploaders. How can this notice be turned off, pending a discussion of whether and when it should be displayed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@MHolloway (WMF): Could you confirm whether the WMF believe the implementation on Wikimedia Commons is a WMF systems choice that can or cannot be rejected by the Commons community, say, as represented by this project's elected Bureaucrats? If you are not the right point of contact within the WMF, please do recommend who is. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been a week; could a Bureaucrat answer, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The fix for this bug will be part of the MediaWiki update on Tuesday. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T245317

@GPSLeo: Thank you, but that's not what I'm asking about. That's about allowing people who've seen the invitation to choose to stop seeing it again. I'm talking about not showing it at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you expect bureaucrats to do? I think it can technically be disabled by any admin (or perhaps interface admin), but as there seem to be some proposals open, I think we should wait for their outcome. If I miss anything, please advise. --Krd 07:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"What exactly do you expect bureaucrats to do?" Answer my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I read Krd's answer as being sufficient, in that any open discussions should be closed before proceeding with an action (something anyone can do). Secondly that any admin can make this change, not waiting for 'crats or a WMF employee to do something or agree anything further. --Fæ (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not asking 'crats to do anything other than answer my question. You also refer to "something anyone can do", without saying what exactly that is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

By anyone I really mean you, and by do I mean close Commons:Village_pump#Misplaced_invitation_to_"tag"_images. If you did that, then you could ask any admin to enact the will of the people. --Fæ (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

So what is the question? How this technically can be disabled? I don't know that. --Krd 12:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

In what way is "How can this notice be turned off, pending a discussion of whether and when it should be displayed?" in my original post, not clear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)