Wikimedia Forum

This poll is now closed; the tally at 00:00 6 July 2008 was (158/35/1) (1 support and 1 oppose were added between then and the time of this comment). That's 81.87% support. Implementation discussion has started taking place at Talk:Global deleted image review#time's up. —Giggy 06:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new proposal, Global deleted image review which will grant commons admins the ability to view deleted image and image talk pages on all projects, no other namespaces or sysop rights will be granted by this proposal. Please see the proposal for details.

This proposal has had extensive discussion on the lists, commons admin noticeboard, and elsewhere. It is believed that the current proposal addresses the needs of commons and the interests of our member projects.

The vote will be conducted for two weeks and end on July 6th 2008. If additional time is required to advertise this poll to other major wikis the poll may be extended. All active participants on commons using Wikimedia projects are welcome to vote, no meta activity is required but voters should link back to their home wiki userpages. This proposal will only be approved if it shows substantial support from users at many projects.

If the proposal is approved the actual implementation may need to wait until the version of mediawiki for support for this behavior becomes live on the Wikimedia sites.

Support

1.  Support w:User:Gmaxwell commons:User:Gmaxwell --Gmaxwell 21:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support -mattbuck (Talk) 21:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support - As it has the namespace restrictor I was concerned about, it passes my criteria. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support - Multichill 21:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support --ChrisiPK 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. --MZMcBride 21:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Finally, a useful application of global rights. — Dan | talk 22:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Support Luckily somebody was bold enough to pick up my proposal :) This proposal will hopefully make it easier for Commons admins to weed out the bad files and will thus benefit the whole Wikimedia community. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 22:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Support a perfectly reasonable example of how global userrights can be properly and usefully assigned. Prodego ^talk 22:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Support, would be handy for Commons admins — VasilievV ² 22:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Support Would be very useful yes, I am a Wikimedia Commons administrators with unified and global account, and as this is "read only" it expect it will not be controversial at the various other projects. Finn Rindahl 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Support – this proposal seems perfectly reasonable. Commons admins are already trusted to deal with images which are globally available, and a read-only permission for only the Image and Image talk namespaces seems like it could be useful while causing no harm. Nihiltres^(t.u) 22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. support —DerHexer (Talk) 22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Support Definitely useful for Commons admins, will also save us having to constantly search out admins on numerous other wikis just to look at a deleted file for us. No risks and lots of benefit. -- Editor at Large • talk 22:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Support Emesee 22:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Support — Platonides 22:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19.  Support — H92 (t · c · no) 22:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20.  Support ken123 22:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21.  Support Mr.Z-man 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22.  Support, as a moderately active Commons admin, I find situations where this would be useful at least once a week (today being the latest) —LX (talk, contribs) 23:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23.  Support Hardscarf 23:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24.  Support --Revolus Echo der Stille 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25.  Support, seems that it will make things lots easier for Commons admins. I wouldn't mind the considerations Effeietsanders brought up to be addressed, though. -- Natalya 23:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26.  Support -- Marcus Cyron 23:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27.  Support, of course. The positive aspects clearly outdo the negative aspects. --EivindJ 23:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28.  Support This would solve so many problems. Rocket000 23:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Yep. --Conti 23:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30.  Support Less work for local admins, potensially more images on commons. Kagee 23:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31.  Support. I see the need for this and I think it is a very sensible solution. I am unconvinced by the oppose comments. --Bduke 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32.  Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33.  Support Benefits will be vast. Potential for misuse is small. --pfctdayelise 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34.  Support Certainly, this will help Commons admins determine deleted images status on other wikis that were moved to the Commons. Gizmo II 00:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35.  Support --Harrywad 00:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36.  Support, this will assist Commons admins do a better job of assisting the projects which use the media on Commons. John Vandenberg 00:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37.  Support. As a sysop on the English Wikipedia I've had to field requests for information that this proposal would have made directly available, streamlining this process, and I don't see much of a downside. —David Eppstein 00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38.  Support auburnpilot (en.wiki) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39.  Support It would be nice if any admin could browse deleted images on commons too (moving images to local wiki etc.). Beau (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40.  Support --Szczepan talk  00:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41.  Support Ala z 00:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. GRBerry 00:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. per Prodego. giggy _(:O) 01:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44.  Support 555 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45.  Support Unlike the global sysops proposal above, which do make changes to wiki databases, this proposal's goals do not make changes to any one wiki's database. Furthermore, this proposal's goals can eliminate communication problems with unsuspecting users on other wikis. --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:18, 23 June 2008 (GMT)
46.  Support The proposal would greatly improve the ability of the Commons admins to do their job, and I see no downside in simply allowing them to view (note: not restore) deleted images and image pages. --jonny-mt ^{en me!} 02:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47.  Support I've fielded quite a few of these requests, over the past two years, so I know it could potentially save the commons people quite a lot of hassle to streamline the process. I do share the concerns about image oversight, but that's something we should be working on, regardless, no? Luna Santin 03:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48.  Support --CComMack 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49.  Support --Carnildo 04:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50.  Support - Robotje 04:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51.  Support -- BJ^Talk 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52.  Support --Florian Adler 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53.  Support --Joergens.mi 05:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support --Willscrlt (Talk) 04:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. Wenn sie im Müll wühlen wollen, warum nicht. Syrcro 05:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56.  Support because that might really ease an often occuring problem with images moved from wp to Commons. --Túrelio 06:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57.  Support --MichaelMaggs 06:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58.  Support --Geiserich77 06:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59.  Support --Stormie 06:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60.  Support --habakuk 08:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61.  Support --Nolispanmo 08:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62.  Support --Millosh 08:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63.  Support Saves time and media. Siebrand 09:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64.  Support I know what trouble they can have with deleted licensing etc etc. Viridae^Talk 09:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65.  Support - give commons admins the tools they need. Angela 09:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66.  Support – reason: [2] --32X 09:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67.  Support as per jonny-mt. I understand the concerns about image oversight, but I agree with Mattbuck and Gregory. --Jastrow 09:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. --Noddy93 10:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. support - and I suggest reciprocity, as it would be tremendously helpful if admins on the other projects could review content, deleted on Commons without having to bother their admins. --h-stt !? 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've thought about reciprocity but I think the permission which would make most sense for the local->commons direction is the ability to protect image pages. ... though flagged revisions may ultimately make that moot. --Gmaxwell 14:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

70.  Support - In my experience it's too difficult and time consuming to get hold of an admin who is willing to verify if the source and licensing shown in the history of a deleted local image match Commons standards. Most often this leads to the deletion of the image on Commons as unknown, which is a loss not just for the original wiki and Commons, but to all Wikimedia projects. This proposal solves the problem when the people verifying these things can actually do their work. --Para 10:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71.  Support --Ecemaml 10:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72.  Support --Aqwis 10:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73.  Support, Btd 10:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74.  Support This will make the work of any commons-sysop easyer. abf /talk to me/ 10:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75.  Support Kameraad Pjotr 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76.  Support -- Discostu 11:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77.  Support --HAL Neuntausend 11:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. --Nemo 11:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79.  Support I am unsure why there should be any particular controversy about being able to view an image. Sure - image oversight is required & I would hope would be here soon, however frequently deletion requests on Commons make reference to deletions on other wikis (I had one today) & it is good to be able to check the fact rather than risk mistakes. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80.  Support --Kjetil r 11:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81.  Support - With the current proposal I don't see any reason why people would oppose it. Althought it might be necessary to create a new global permissions group, this isn't as much of a hassle as the current system is, and it's only a hassle on the front-side rather than a hassle throughout. With only the ability to see deleted pages and revisions, and only in the Image: and Image talk: namespaces, there shouldn't be anything controversial about this. Lifebaka 11:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Zanaq 12:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Seems like an excellent opportunity to improve the service of commons to the other projects.[reply]
83.  Support ZorroIII 12:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84.  Support - definitely an important thing. →Christian.И 12:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85.  Support --Jón 12:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86.  Support --Guandalug 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87.  Support --::Slomox:: >< 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88.  Support --Tinz 12:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. Ucucha 13:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90.  Support, while noting that oversight is a problem, but not a big enough one to stop this from going ahead, IMO. rev_deleted may well be around the corner, but even if it is not, we're talking about only viewdeleted. This is absolutely not a significant risk to other wikis; many/most of the oppose opinions amount to arguments against wikis, not against this proposal. If you're worried about us seeing things which should have been oversighted, then they should have been oversighted (even if it requires developer intervention - annoying them is one way to spur work on rev_deleted).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91.  Support No ability to take action means projects aren't being externally controlled. Helping to avoid having the foundation sued into oblivion is an overriding factor too. WilyD 14:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92.  Support It will make my job reviewing image with faulty permissions so much more easier. Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93.  Support It is needed. Majorly ^talk 14:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
94. Seems to be mostly harmless. Angus McLellan (enwiki talk) 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
95.  Support The risk is overrated, and the benefits are great. -- Atluxity 15:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
96.  Support rather common problem. Implementing this policy will greatly speed verifying licences. Rama 15:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97.  Support, should make Commons admins' job easier, with not much of a risk -- Imperator3733 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
98.  Support --buecherwuermlein 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC) per 95.[reply]
99.  Support - Silver Spoon 16:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100.  Support Deleting stuff to protect privacy is bad practice, I think the advantages clearly overweight the risks. Note that would this to be implemented, all wikis should be notified so they can take the appropriate measures (eg. oversight, once it is available for images). -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
101.  Support - As I'm no commons-mod (I'm on nl-wiki) I made a few conversations with commons-moderators and as it seems, there are quite some benefits. As I do not see major risks involved in granting these permissions, I support. Mwpnl 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
102.  Support Great idea. --Flominator 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
103. --S^[1] 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
104.  Support This is an excellent proposal MiCkE 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105.  Support - Bemoeial 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
106.  Support --dapete disputa! 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
107.  Support Edgar181 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
108.  Support Herr Kriss 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
109.  Support Vitally needed feature for the Commons sysops, and it in no way infringes local wikis independence. Fully support. →Spiritia 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
110.  Support howcheng {chat} 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111.  Support Zscout370 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112.  Support, Nakon 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
113. Notwithstanding the (valid) oversight concerns...  Support ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114.  Support --alexscho 16:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
115.  Support It is useful for Commons' admins.--Ahonc 19:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116.  Support Useful, focused and as restricted as one could reasonably expect. - BanyanTree 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
117.  Support Useful proposal helping establishing of interproject dependencies. The dangers are greatly overrated. In fact I would make it even less restrictive: any admin on any WMF project can view deleted images on any other WMF project. That way we can simplify handling of cases then one image is referenced to a self-made image on another project and then was consequently deleted. Also many images deleted on Commons could be re-uploaded locally according to the rules of local projects (e.g. EDP). Alex Bakharev 03:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
118.  Support Wikimedia Commons admins really do need this. --Kanonkas 07:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
119. wtf? there are opposes? --Dodo von den Bergen 16:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
120.  Support DGG 19:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
121.  Support The amount of times I've had to whine other projects admins to "please have a look at this deleted image" justifies this. We're not asking to sell your soul, it's just to see some deleted content. Patrícia ^msg 20:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
122.  Support, by all means. An admin on Commons can delete an image shared among several projects, I can't imagine why one would oppose the same person seeing an image deleted on a local project. My first reaction was identical to Dodo von den Bergen's above ("wtf? there are opposes?"). --Gutza 21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
123.  Support I won't have any use for it, but I know plenty of people who this will greatly benefit. Perhaps the oversight concerns will spur adoption of the enhanced deletion system? ~Kylu (u|t) 05:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
124.  Support Forrester 09:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
125.  Support good idea. Bapti 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
126. Seems fine. Acalamari 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
127.  Support Leonard^Bloom 03:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
128.  Support --OosWesThoesBes 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
129. --Euku 08:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
130. I see no valid reasons to oppose this, but many valid reasons to support this, including the utility it will provide, and the need it will fill. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
131.  Support --Mormegil (cs) 10:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC) The possibility of misuse (including by mistake) is extremely limited, and this feature would help Commons admins a lot.[reply]
132.  Support RedCoat 11:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
133.  Support - Seems like a very good way to help Commons admins do their job. Parent5446 13:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
134.  Support A good and reasonable proposal. Captain panda 14:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
135.  Support it would tremendously help Commons admins do their job. A lot of transfers from other Wikipedias hide copyvios. Good proposal. Renata3 14:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
136.  Support as a Commons admin; this will make our lives much easier. Angr 15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
137.  Support - in contrary to oppositions below and oppositions to #Global sysops (poll) to my opinion we cant work "in common", if local WPs etsteem their deletions policies (and accordingly what is deleted) as privat affair to be hidden from the international community or other local WPs. restriction to Image: and Image talk: namespaces seems appropriate -- W!B: 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
138.  Support One use which immediately comes to mind: when an image has been deleted from en.wikipedia, because it duplicates an image on Wikimedia Commons, but the original uploader is not identified in the commons file. If the uploader has not been identified in the deletion log, the only way to retrieve that information is by viewing the deleted page. — Athaenara (contribs) 18:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
139.  Support this will help commons and inter project relationships --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legoktm (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2008
140.  Support Almost no chance of abuse, and it should be very helpful Alexfusco⁵ 22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
141.  Support We already trust them to delete a Commons image, why not trust them to view any image? They are highly unlikely to abuse this privilege. They need this ability to be able to see the edit history of images transwiki'ed to Commons because sometimes transwiki'ed images don't have all of the necessary information. Royalbroil 05:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
142.  Support, occasionally it is extremely helpful see the deleted content when making the decisions that we expect Admins to make. We direct Wiki's to take images off their own servers and place the images on commons, We have transferred the responsibility to Commons admins for images moved globally we need to also grant the resources to allows then to review deleted images globally. Jeepday 13:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
143.  Support Commons admins are expected to facilitate the management of all free media files, this feature would assist in doing so. Adambro 13:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
144.  Support I find the opposes below that run along the lines of "I don't trust commons admins because..." to be a significant breach of AGF, policy on en.wiki and common sense elsewhere. This proposal will not give commons admins the ability to do anything on other wikis without the RfA support of that community, but will enable them to do their job on commons much more effectively. Much ado about nothing, IMHO. Happy‑melon 17:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
145.  Support Commons has a unique role because images there can be picked up from any other site (and indeed, some sites such as EN:WQ have hardly any images of their own but rely on Commons). Thus it is appropriate for Commons admins to have very limited cross-wiki functions.--Cato 12:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
146.  Support It would be of great use to Commons Admins in verifying Images Histories. --Mifter 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
147.  Support, sensible and useful. TimVickers 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
148.  Support, I have seen many cases where an image was copied to commons from some wikipedia without enough details except from a link to the original file in wikipedia, then deleted from that wikipedia leaving the commons image without any source details or other information (author's name for example). This function will be useful for Commons admins to check an image about copyright problems. Geraki ^T_L 07:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
149.  Support. This would save me a lot of time and trouble verifying licenses. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
150.  Support. Useful, will improve Wikimedia. No drawbacks that merit serious concern. Quadell 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
151.  Support I see no major problems that could result from this and I'm sure it will be very useful for Commons admins. Thingg 13:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
152.  Support. Sensible idea with clear cross-wiki benefits. WjBscribe 20:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
153.  Support Londenp 08:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
154.  Support per WJBscribe. EN WP userpage --Chaser 10:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
155.  Support - a great improvement. Xenus 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
156.  Support - a great improvement which will help in the running of commons. Anonymous101 09:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
157.  Support - while I appreciate the concern that users trusted by one project community may be less trusted by another, I don't think the risk for simply viewing deleted images poses a significant problem.--Ragesoss 02:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
158.  Support - if this feature works to be able to check folr copyrightstatus and other it would be a good idea. Romaine 13:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
159.  Support Maksim 05:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
160.  Support --BenBurch 01:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. for now:  Oppose Effeietsanders 22:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC) - This is because oversighting of images is not possible. This feature would give a lot more people access to locally deleted images (well, on most wiki's :) ), which can contain privacy sensitive information. Since there is no better way to remove information like this then to delete them, this feature would make it harder to hide that type of information. I would be supportive if this bug in the oversight function is fixed. Please correct me if this has been done already.[reply]

   If you can't hide it from the admins on that project, why would you need to hide it from admins on Commons? --ChrisiPK 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It is about the scale. Not the people. Effeietsanders 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I suppose you could oversight the image page, which is where the privacy sensitive information could be (such as uploaders name and address). What sensitive information do you expect to be on the image itself? Platonides 22:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   En.Wikipedia (where most of the problem images come from) has many many more sysops than commons, commons only has 243, en.wiki has 1,563. It is less than a 10th of the size, so scale doesn't seem applicable. Of course, a commons admin would also have to somehow know on what wiki, what image to look for, with no clue how to find it. Prodego ^talk 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If you oppose because of oversight issues, surely it is also important that if there is an issue which requires oversight on an image, that that image be similarly protected on commons? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If you have an image which needs oversighting you can ask a developer to do it. I've had it done at least a half dozen times for child porn and similar cases. Also, The bitfields for rev_deleted feature in mediawiki (already in the code but not activated on WMF wikis) allows oversighting of images by users. Considering that EnWP and most other large wikis are forcefully directing users to commons the number of cases of private data being leaked only in deleted images on the local Wiki should be very low indeed. Effectively commons can already see your local wiki's privacy deleted images: because most of them are being uploaded to commons. --Gmaxwell 23:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The information is often on the image itself, oversighting the description page often doesn't suffice.

   Oviously, I am not concerned about enwiki, which indeed has already way too many admins, but about the smaller wiki's, with which this would often mean a huge increase in people with this type of access.

   It sounds nice to have to approach a developer, but this is not something that is easily done. If the image would be on commons as well, this argument of course doesn't apply. And no, not all images are uploaded to commons. Maybe a lot from the larger wiki's, but not all, especially if they are deleted quickly. Effeietsanders 06:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   All WMF wikis (except commons) limit upload to autoconfirmed users now. I'm not sure which class of deleted-quickly image you're thinking of, but most such images are already going to commons. --Gmaxwell 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2.  Oppose Waerth 22:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose After reviewing the proposal, I don't think this is necessary. Other people have similar problems (i.e.: OTRS people trying to get deleted images restored) and all it takes is a note on wiki someplace, or a note on IRC. - Rjd0060 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That is true, but it also means wasted time all round - local admins need to search for something that they may well know nothing about, and it stops them dealing with local issues. It also annoys them when commons admins have to continually ask for their assistance - commons admins doing this sort of work may have to deal with over a hundred images in a single day. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It may just be a strange coincidence, but I've never seen any instance that this would solve. I may just be missing it, but...(of course I'm not a commons admin). - Rjd0060 23:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That is probably because most images that would be solved by this "feature" are currently deleted. It is far too much effort to hunt admins down right now to get information. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   With all respect, as both a commons admin and and OTRS user, I do not agree that the situation is at all the same. Many OTRS users are primarily active for tickets related to home wiki's where they are already Sysops. The jobs of OTRS involve far more than just viewing deleted. Tickets requiring privileged access for the OTRS user's non-primary wiki are fairly rare except for small wiki issues and for smaller wikis the Global sysop proposal (if it ever passes) will address their needs.

   Commons has hundreds of thousands of images brought from other projects with incomplete information. Every time I attempt to do an orderly review of many images I am constantly frustrated by images from other projects. I live with an enwp admin, and have ready access to people on IRC for at least a couple of other projects... but every time I need to check something off wiki what would be a couple of clicks is converted into minutes of nagging and explaining. The net result of this is that people simply skip doing the work and instead focus on easier activities. As far as need, checkout the comments by the commons admins. :)--Gmaxwell 23:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I fixed your link gmaxwell. Remember the interwiki! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I see your point. Still opposing, for the same reason. - Rjd0060 23:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It's not really about solving a problem, since as you say a solution already exists. It's about providing a solution which is less tiresome for all involved - commons admins don't have to wait around for days waiting for a reply on low activity projects, and local admins on active projectsdon't get bugged by commons people who just want to know whether a file had a source originally. It takes at least ten times as long to explain to someone what you want than it would to just get in and do it - especially in a foreign language where you need to translate every sentence you type. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. I'm not against this particular proposal, per se, but I am concerned about the issue of global rights proposals in general. I'd like to see this proposal, if it is adopted, modified to specify (irrevocably) that all use of global rights will be done in accordance with local policy governing such use, and I'd like it to be reinforced that global rights (this one, global sysops, whatever else) are subordinate to local rights in all cases. Additionally - once the technical opt out for global sysop is implemented, it should be done so that the same opt out impacts all global rights (including this one). Avruch 00:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The ability to opt out of every global right is silly. Groups are going to want to opt out of one policy or another, and sooner or later 50% of all wiki's have opted out of all global rights... and global rights are useless. People seem to forget that Commons admins already have pseudo-global rights. We control the pictures you use. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The point is to prevent a short discussion and vote on meta from implementing changes on all local wikis, even if those local projects object. Meta proposals that pass should not take precedence over local project policies, and the adoption of new user rights needs to respect that. This policy should specifically require commons admins to adhere to local policies regarding the use of global user rights, and if the devs are going to enable global right opt-outs anyway they might as well include them all (except steward). Avruch 00:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5.  Oppose - admins on individual projects are able to view deleted revisions and files because they have individual community trust. Unfortuantely, as an admin on en.wiki, there's a few admins on commons that I wouldn't personally trust to start viewing deleted images on en.wiki. Whilst overall we are one big project, we do operate as seperate entities - trust on one, does not mean trust on another. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   What is it about them being able to see your deleted images don't you trust? They can't undelete them - all they can do is see them. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am also confused about quite what might be wrong with someone seeing a deleted image if they can't do anything with it. When you consider it, commons admins are global anyway - what we do can affect all other wikis. This proposal would allow us to minimise disruption on other projects, and possibly allow us to keep more images. Also, commons admins are already somewhat global - we can delete images which may be used on any number of projects, just for kicks. Yet you don't see any problems - we know our jobs, and we know what is reasonable. Allowing us to view your deleted images costs you nothing, but will make life easier for admins on every project. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   People seem to think that the only images uploaded to individual projects are free, fair use, or copyrighted images - that's not true. The reason why we stop all users viewing deleted revisions is because there are many other problems associated with them - harassment, attack revisions, BLP revision e.t.c.. The problems with deleted revisions aren't limited to individual edits, they're within images as well. There are many deleted images on en.wiki that I don't trust in the hands of all the commons admins - trolls use images to harass or attack other editors and I within the en.wiki commiunity at least, there's one or two commons admins that aren't seen as the most constructive and have previously failed to gain the communities trust - I don't trust them with images that aren't the run of the mill. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No, we're aware that some free images are local, and that's fine. However, your problem with us viewing deleted images - first off, in 99.999% of cases the images we want to see were deleted because they were on commons. As for the other ones, we'd have to find them, and why would we bother? You seem to believe that commons admins are somehow untrustworthy because they haven't bothered with RfAs on en.wikipedia. We went through our own RfA process, and if there is a problem, you could always just tell us about it on commons:COM:AN. I still fail to see though just how allowing us to see deleted revisions - and I stress this, be completely unable to do anything with them OTHER than see them - is at all controversial. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   By viewing deleted revisions, I presume you'd be able to see deleted revisions of the actual image files - sorry, but as I said, I don't trust some commons admins with some of the deleted images we have on en.wiki - the harassment and attack images could easily be used by them and passed onto other people. If they want to have the trust of a community to view these deleted files, they should become admins on that project. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6.  Oppose Projects are independent of each other. Surely all it takes is a note on the talk. I think this is problematic.NonvocalScream 01:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well I'd just like to point out that all projects are independent of each other - except for Commons. Commons affects everyone and every project. To my knowledge no projects don't use Commons. In fact many are shutting down local image uploads in favor of forcing users to use Commons instead. As for your "note on the talk" - note on the talk of what? Talk page of the deleted image that more than likely no one is watching any more? What if someone responds? I can't possibly visit every wiki every day... We notify the uploaders (talk page) when an image is nominated for deletion, but what if the user used a bot? The bot isn't going to do anything and the user is more than likely not going to notice. Even when the users do know, most of the time they don't do anything. I've had more than a few users ask me what they can do, I tell them to contact the local admin... and 7 days later the image still isn't fixed and is deleted per our proccess. Local users don't want to bother finding an admin most of the time either. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7.  Oppose for now. I concur with Effeietsanders' "I would be supportive if this bug in the oversight function is fixed." – The proposal sounds very neat of course (I state this as a Commons admin myself), but privacy issues are important too (I think e.g. of several deleted images on de.wikipedia that show really private stuff that still await permanent "oversight/suppress" deletion, and I'm not very happy with 240+ more users being able to see these images without a good reason). --:Bdk: 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Oppose for now, and I am a commons admin as well. In theory, and in practice in the main, this is a good idea. However, the potential privacy abuse due to the current problems with not being able to properly oversight images really worries me. I do not think that the trust issue is as strong here, as the right would not allow any changes to the local wikis, just access to the images, but that is exactly the problem with the images that are and should not be (with apologies to Metallica) If we could enact oversight on the images containing children or other personal information that needs oversight, I would support this gladly. -- Avi 03:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Oppose As an admin on en:wikipedia where we have images awaiting permanent oversight, I am totally in agreement with User:Bdk and User:Ryan Postlethwaite. We don't need more users seeing sensitive material than we already have.--Sandahl 03:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Commons has more images than en.wp has articles. We have 3.6 times more images than en.wp does (Using en.wp since they are the "biggest" wp). It is safe to say we have our fair share of images that could use over-sighting as well. Why do we (Commons admins) need to go to other Wiki's to find these images? Generally local wiki's find these images - and ban the users.... Then the users come to Commons and repeat the process. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10.  Oppose per Effeietsanders and Bdk. "You can oversight those images" are not practical, since some community (and in the past almost all) tend to use deletion to hide sensitive information.　Commons has already over 100 admins: too much to allow to handle sensitive information. --Aphaia 03:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact according to Small and large wikis/Statistics, Commons has 241 admins. That being said en.wp has 1554 admins. In total less than 16% what en.wp has. That being said, we're admins, they are admins. Theoretically should it not be an equal level of trust when dealing with "sensitive" material? Not relating to how well they help the community - but just sensitive data. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ShakataGaNai, your argument is pointless and illogical. I referred to "small" wikis. You pointed out enwiki would not be the case. Enwiki is the biggest among us and with its own oversight right granted users. You opposed me with what I have never said. Aphaia 11:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there have been examples of commons admins havinbg RfA's that did not pass on enwiki, for what it is worth. -- Avi 04:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Furthermore, ShakataGaNai, while I agree that in general terms, as no changes to the local wiki can be made, I think that commons admins should be trusted with this right, if we can get the oversight of images implemented. I think that the small, but real, potential harm to a living, breathing person is something we need to give more weight to than our own personal "ease-of-use" when editing wiki. For us its an annoyance; for the person who is adversely affected by the image, it can be their entire piece-of-mind. One stalker is one stalker too many, and anything we can do to minimize the exposure is beneficial. -- Avi 04:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (re RFA's - edit conflicted) Um. Yea? I would hope so. I know that if I RFA'd on en.wp I wouldn't pass. Why? Because I don't do enough on en.wp to warrant admin tools (I do have a few thousand edits). There is a major difference between an RFA on en.wp and an RFA on Commons. On en.wp you are being trusted with tools that effect 2.5 million+ pages, and a community to go with it. On Commons you are being trusted with tools that effect 2.9+ million images, and 700+ wiki's. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (re oversight). Do you guys maintain a list of what needs oversight? The dev's can do that manually right now? I know one right now willing to do it. Additionally, if we have a stalker in the ranks of Common admins - you tell me - We'll investigate. We're no different from any other group of admins, other than the fact that we have to take care of the images from 700+ projects. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I was not accusing any commons admin of being a stalker, G-d forbid, but in my opinion, I weigh the small chance of increased risk to people against the large inconvenience, and I find the former more worrisome. You find the opposite, unless you think there is no increased chance at all. So we will agree to cordially disagree, at least until such time that a list that can be sent to the devs, or to rev_deletions authorized users, should that be implemented, can be created, and acted upon. -- Avi 04:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11.  Oppose This will lead to some kind of semistewards on Commons, an I will very strongly advise against this kind of role as such. If any admins on Commons needs extended rights on specific projects they should be voted for at those projects. Jeblad 05:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC) (The proposal will effectively merge parts of the projects and as they ar independent today that will lead to serious problems when it comes to who has rights to do what and why. Likewise it will be very difficult to avoid a question about letting admins on the individual projects have the same rights on Commons. Actually I would say it is necessary to give them this right as a result of this vote alone because of the precedence it creates.)[reply]

    I entirely disagree with that Jeblad - commons admins deal with issues affecting every project, local admins (say on en) deal with issues affecting ONE project, and there is no need for them to see deleted contributions on other wikipedias. If we (commons admins) need extended rights, we can get them? That's rubbish. I would never pass an RfA on en, because I don't care to learn the 1000s of pages of rules, and because I was once blocked for violating WP:3RR. And I would certainly never pass an RfA on any other project - I created this meta account less than a week ago, and it is my third most active wiki. I believe I have made one edit to the thai wikipedia, and one to the hebrew. Besides, we don't WANT admin powers on these other projects - you're right, that would be dangerous. We don't want to delete stuff on en, we don't want to be able to block people on de, protect pages on fr.wikibooks - we just want to be able to find out where images came from without getting the local admins annoyed at us for nagging them all the time. It helps us and it helps admins on every other project. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12.  Oppose --Sargoth 08:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) for reasons see above[reply]
13.  Oppose This will give more users access to deleted images, which may contain sensitive information. I oppose this proposal. Commons may have fewer admins right now, but the number can increase. Masterpiece2000 09:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In the last week en.wikipedia approved 5 admins, commons approved one. If you are worried about people having access to sensitive deleted stuff - 1) get it oversighted, 2) stop all RfAs. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14.  Oppose, -jkb- (cs.source) 09:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC): I understand the reason, but this privilege should not have all commons sysops; it would be enough that some five or ten of them (elected, trusted, estimated by bureaucrat...) have this right, but really not all. Probably, such a person should/could be confirmed by the lokal wiki. See Effeietsanders, Aphaia etc.[reply]

    Requiring the user to be confirmed by the local wiki would just put us right back where we started - waiting for goddo to come and give us the info we want. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's Godot, not Goddo. Stifle 09:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15.  Oppose per Effeietsanders, Bdk, etc. --Thogo (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Oppose. per above and: What about opt-out for large wikis? They have enough admins which are also Commons admins. And from the small wikis it would happen very rarely that an image is transferred from there to Commons, wouldn't it? Have you ever seen an image transferred from zu: Wikipedia to Commons? Or from ba:? So I see no reason for commons admins having this ability. --MF-W 09:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would there be opt-out for large Wiki's? en.wp is the largest, de.wp is up there too. That being said - they send us the most images that are problematic. We really need this for dealing with the largest wiki's the most, of course. As for the smallest, well, they don't send alot of pictures - but that doesn't mean they are less important. It would be rather sad if Commons had to delete 100% of all images transferred (All 1) from zu.wp to Commons - because it didn't have the necessarily information. Their admins are going to be even harder to find also. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This exactly is the reason: The big projects have enough people which are admins there and on Commons to look up the deleted versions. --MF-W 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17.  Oppose, not appropriate to extend such a large privilege to Commons sysops — best respect to them, but I do not have such a high level of trust in that particular position. Stifle 09:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Oppose As said before, there is no real need to enlarge the amount of users, which may see private information. Furthermore I do not trust commons-admins, as they are not really watched by a strong community. In such a sensitive field, this means way to less control. Denis Barthel 10:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    not really watched by a strong community? That is just insulting. I'd say there's more community on commons than on en. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say there's more community on commons than on en. Dunno. I am at home in de. en is not the only possible comparison. I have never experienced a lot of community in the commons. Denis Barthel 11:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not get into "who community is nicest" please. Commons is a strong community & well watched by some. I do not see viewing image files as any threat to other projects, merely helpful in allowing Commons admins to do the job better. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19.  Oppose - I don't say any reason for interproject-rights. Commons-Admins may be admins in their homewiki to get the rights discussed here, or should ask admins there -- Achim Raschka 12:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What if their home wiki is Commons? --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:27, 23 June 2008 (GMT)

    Commons is my Homewiki. I do almost no work anywhere else. I know more than a few of our Admins are the same way. Commons is there home and they spend all of their time there. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20.  Oppose - I took a long time coming to this decision, but I do not feel that the addition of global rights to view deleted images to Commons admins is a good thing - when collaborating with the local project admins is already a very workable and simple solution to the "problem". The commons noticeboard did not hinder the opposition, either, with members supporting a full "view all deleted items until it's technically possible to just let us see images". This proposal is removing local processes and granting powers that may not be required. --Skenmy 13:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, a technical opt-out needs to be made available for any global group on a per-wiki basis. --Skenmy 13:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21. It should be solved in software, not by granting people more rights. If a media file is both on a local wiki and on commons, it shouldn't be deleted but marked as "on commons". That would not destroy information about the media file. Erik Warmelink 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't quite see how that would work, as not all the now-commons images were moved in a bit identical manner, and even if we were to invent something there are still an enormous number of images that were previously moved. Now that all project except commons require autoconfirm for upload (if local upload isn't entirely disabled) it's not a major issue going forward, but for the past activity it still is. I can't see there being a viable proposal which would undelete the several hundred thousand commons moved images on enwp alone. --Gmaxwell 14:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please too all. Could you stop to comment all of the others comments? It's an arrogant behaviour and not in in a friendly way. Marcus Cyron 17:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not understand Erik's suggestion enough to see how it would be possible. He may have a great idea, but if I can not understand it I can't help make it happen. --Gmaxwell 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To quote Mattbuck "in 99.999% of cases the images we want to see were deleted because they were on commons". If commons doesn't want images to be deleted, make it so. That's rather easy for commons admins, if the "mother"-wiki of an image (or other media file) had deleted it, it is deleted on commons too; the deletionists will be treated like the vandals they are and 99.99% of the problems of commons admins with deleted images would be solved. That would cost some bandwidth if the servers wouldn't tell clients to reload images (but the servers do tell clients to reload images, so even that problem is moot). As a bonus, the people whose images (and other media files) are used can read the description in their own language. Well, they could protest the use of their images (&c.) in their own language too and that might be a problem. Erik Warmelink 02:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not really a technical issue, local admins would just need to stop deleting images, right? Rocket000 11:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes Erik Warmelink 02:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose, per Effeietsanders, Bdk, etc. And as Marcus said, stop commenting on opposing votes unless you really have found a point that's stated wrong. And no, not having your opinion does not mean the person is wrong. --Chrislb 17:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say let them comment. That way their concerns can be addressed. For all the comments I've left, I don't think I've told a single person they are "wrong". Certainly not. This is a vote and people are entitled to their opinion. But maybe someone is making a misinformed decision, maybe we can help fix that. Plus, for every comment left - we gain a little more insight about what people don't like and want. So if this should pass, we will have a baseline for policy on how to use it. If it doesn't pass, we know what to fix for next time around. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to add a short note: People on commons have much work to do and I appreciate the huge pile they go through each and every day. Though I still don't appreciate the technical implications, and I believe the overall system should be changed instead of going the "easy way" of giving global rights. --Chrislb 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What "Technical implications"? You mean the worry that someone on commons will get ahold of "dangerous" images. Also - How do you suggest the "overall system should be changed"? I only see two options right now: #1 - All wiki's start doing a proper job of transferring images (or not transferring the ones lacking critical information). Or #2 - All wiki's stop transfering images period. Of course neither of the "options" I can see fix the 100k or so images that are already on Commons that we will eventually have to delete. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If I've believed this to be a good place to discuss these topics I would've been more precise on what I meant, I do actually prefer discussing on discussion pages. While being at it: Mediawiki is a bad system for a multilingual media file repository. The infrastructure evolving around it thus is crippled. Then again giving common admins access to local data is a simple solution though not doing anything about the real problems. --Chrislb 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23.  Oppose because this is the wrong place to ask for this right. Ask for this right on the various Wikis: Maybe the English Wikipedia will say "sure, global sysops can view our deleted images" but the French Wiki will say "no" or vice-versa. Rephrase the question to "Create the technical infrastructure to allow Wikis to grant global sysops deleted-image-viewing rights" then I'd say yes in a heartbeat. However, as long as the proposal is to force this down every wiki's throat, I'm adamantly opposed. By the way, if the proposal is raised on a Wiki I participate in, I will probably vote "yes" for that particular Wiki. Davidwr 18:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC) rephrasing per comment below # because this is the wrong place to ask for this right. Ask for this right on the various Wikis: Maybe the English Wikipedia will say "sure, specific people who are not our administrators can view our deleted images" but the French Wiki will say "no" or vice-versa. Rephrase the question to "Create the technical infrastructure to allow Wikis to grant global sysops deleted-image-viewing rights" then I'd say yes in a heartbeat. However, as long as the proposal is to force this down every wiki's throat, I'm adamantly opposed. By the way, if the proposal is raised on a Wiki I participate in, I will probably vote "yes" for that particular Wiki. 76.185.205.210 02:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC) <-- note this timestamp is after the first comment below.[reply]

    Commons administrators are not global sysops (if there were such a thing and Commons administrators were it, they wouldn't need this ability, since this ability is a very limited read-only subset of administrative privileges), and this proposal has nothing to do with the global sysops proposal. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24. I can't support global permissions without the permission of the local communities as well. If it came to a vote on the English Wikipedia, I would vote in favor of this, but I can't support this policy without the ability for individual project opt-out, because I feel strongly that local projects should be able to control themselves. Ral315 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25.  Oppose I see this as taking too much power out of the hands of the local wikis. We might not know someone's getting sysoped on commons, we may have info about their trustworthiness that isn't addressed on commons. If someone misbehaves in a way that makes us not want them to have access to sensitive stuff on a local wiki, how will we deal with that, by going through a process at commons? I feel like a better way might be an unbundling of image viewing that can take place on individual wikis; that way people from that project could retain control. Seems like there'd be more accountability that way. Delldot 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An unbundling of image viewing? Could you explain that please? And this is taking absolutely no power away from anyone. Commons admins can't do anything other than view deleted images, and local admins still have all their power. As for seeing sensitive stuff, get it oversighted then there's no problem. Besides, we're not on the lookout for your dirty laundry, we just want to be able to do our jobs. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear. I was thinking of unbundling the viewing deleted image right on the local wikis, the way rollback has been unbundled on en. Yeah, that would require the right to be given out on each wiki, much more cumbersome, unfortunately. But this would allow the local wiki to retain power over who has these rights on their wiki. My concern was more along the lines of someone being trusted on commons but not necessarily on other wikis. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I wanted local admins to retain more power, yuck! :P I was more talking about the power to hold people accountable for what they do on that wiki. Hope I'm being clear now, but if I'm not definitely feel free to ask for more clarification. Delldot 21:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

26. I  Oppose for the reasons above. --Albert galiza 21:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27.  Oppose For the reasons above. --Sozi 12:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28.  Oppose If Commons admins want the ability to view deleted image and image talk pages on a project, they should be an admin on that project. Just because a Commons admin is trusted on Commons, does not necessarily mean local projects trust them.--Rockfang 09:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are 700+ projects. Requiring any particular commons admin to be a full blown admin on all 700+ is not practical... This is a limited permission, made possible by the new global groups functionality, not full blown adminship. It enhances the ability of Commons admins to investigate deletions and movements of images, and improve descriptions and licensing, which benefits all 700+ projects. But it is a passive permission only, it does not grant any active rights like restoration. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

29.  Oppose per what Ral said. I'm pretty sure that some commons admins/crats would fail in other languages' RfA. If they can examine something deleted in, say french wikipedia, without letting the French community to examine this candidate, that's a major flaw. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm fairly sure alot of us would (fail), simply because we aren't active in those communities. A good portion of what RfA is, is a vote to see if the community is comfortable with giving that person god like powers (read: delete stuff). I know I wouldn't pass an RfA on en.wp, because I barely do anything there. For myself and a lot of Commons admins, Commons is our home project - not just something we do in our spare time. At the same time, we're not asking for full admin permissions on every project, we're not even asking for half of the permissions, just one tiny view ability. So I'm not sure why the idea of an "RfA" is even involved. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm referring to those that're active in both commons and their native language. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30.  Oppose - I oppose this for the reason I gave at Commons. A user whom the English Wikipedia has explicitly decided not to trust with the admin tools should not be given a subset of those tools by another Wiki. If it were possible for an individual wiki to remove the permission from a particular user (ie, it is automatically granted to all Commons admins, but any local crat can take it away upon either abuse or community decision), then I wouldn't see a problem with it. As an enwiki admin, I have not been working image issues as much as I used to, but when I did, I would frequently find a copyvio image has been moved to Commons and then need to go find someone there to delete it. Should enwiki admins be given partial adminships on Commons so that we can delete images without having to trouble ourselves with the local processes/customs? No? Then why would you have other wikis do the same for Commons? --B 22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well the permission to delete images is different then the permission to view the deleted content. Furthermore, Commons Administrators were made admins on Commons because they have been trusted to work with images on commons and this permission is for verification of licenses. Alexfusco⁵ 22:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you define as "explicitly decided not to trust". About the only case that I can think of, is that someone has been banned (wouldn't be able to access it anyways) - or a user that has had their Adminship revoked (is it not possible for them to learn from their mistakes?). Any other case (say a failed RFA) is not "explicit" it is simply a failure to garner the needed support (Remember... AGF). Additionally, If you see a copyvio on commons. Feel free to "Nominate For Deletion", it is fast (5 seconds, for a good 'net connection), easy (2 clicks), and ANYONE (Even IP's) can do it. So... You don't need deletion. On the other hand where is the fast and easy meathod for Commons admins to help keep YOUR images. Name one wiki based solution that takes less than 10 seconds. That is the point of this "tool". Allow Commons to do their jobs more efficiently and save your images. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 05:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there's one Commons admin whose December 2007 en wiki RFA failed with only 15% support. 187 users opposed the RFA. So that's a pretty affirmative statement of not being trusted. As for your suggested alternative of nominating the image for deletion, this flagrant copyvio took over a month for a Commons admin to resolve. This one took an unbelievable 4 months. On the other hand, a commons admin asking for help on WP:AN would probably get the information they need or a temporary restore in under 10 minutes. I don't think it's too much to ask those commons admins that we as a community do not trust with the tools to take that 10 minutes. --B 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but you're opposing because, like most wikis, commons has a backlog which needs to be sorted? Heck, en has a category for backlogs. Yes, some stuff is copyvio and it can take a while to get to it if people don't tag it with {{copyvio}}. We're trying to work through the DR backlog, and we're making good progress. That is not a reason to oppose, in fact it's a reason to give us the power, since we won't waste time trying to explain what we want every time we will be able to look and then go on to the next image. And, for crying out loud, "commons admins that you don't trust" - say he has failed an RfA. Fine. You're not giving him the power to delete stuff or make major decisions about the wiki, you're giving him a power with which he could do precisely nothing to harm your interests. If he was truly not trusted, he would be banned. Why would a commons admin want to go and look through all the millions of images you have deleted to find the "attack images" - it would be easier to just create their own, which would lead to them losing admin powers on commons. Seriously, finding an "attack image" is easy - this is the internet. But consider this: there are two sorts of people liable to abuse power. 1) People who like abusing power. These people would never have become admins on commons. 2) Those who just snap one day for some reason. There's nothing you can do about that, and frankly they could be disruptive without looking through your deleted images. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

31.  Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite and Effeietsanders. --Brownout^(msg) 06:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32.  Oppose Per the convincing reasons above. seresin (¡?) 06:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. for now:  Oppose following Effeietsanders and others, although, with one exception, "my" wikis are not concerned. Commons admins have not been voted for, and as such cannot automatically be seen as trustworthy, on local projects. As soon as the privacy issue is solved, I favour the proposal. Viewing deleted images and their description pages should be a time saver, and safe enough, when local admins can hide problematic ones. --Purodha Blissenbach 10:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34.  Oppose Given the very real wikistalking and privacy issues already addressed. Online harassment is not to be taken lightly and once someone's privacy is compromised it's not so easily reversed. Many good admins and editors have retired rather than deal with ongoing harassment. Until we have a higher standard to ensure compromising material is kept under wraps it will need to be guarded by those entrusted with that task. If some piece of information is needed en.wiki seems to have some very active admin boards so assistance is always at hand. Benjiboi 13:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We're not talking about enwiki, but rather about all wikis. Please take a larger view of this issue and rethink your conclusion.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that you also think that commons admins will be able to see the deleted history of every page on whichever wiki. Read the introduction, it’ll only “grant commons admins the ability to view deleted image and image talk pages on all projects, no other namespaces or sysop rights will be granted by this proposal.” — H92 (t · c · no) 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

35.  Oppose --Svens Welt 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Code·is·poetry 12:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37.  Oppose per Seresin. Ninane 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

• I'm sitting on the fence right now. I agree that there is a large problem with images that have been brought to Commons from other wikis and I thank the users presenting this proposal for addressing it. The problem needs to be discussed to see if a good solution can be found. This proposal certainly has the potential to help speed up the process and that is good.

• But I share some of the concerns stated by others in the discussion. Some admins on Commons have lost the trust of their local communities and been desysopped or resigned their tools "under a cloud". I can see potential problems with them having access to deleted material of any kind. This needs to be addressed in some manner, I think.

• Currently, a Commons admin or editor needs to collaborate with a local admin to sort out problems with images, or have admin access on the local wiki. In general, I think that is a good, not bad. Local admins need to understand image related issues so that they can help prevent future problems as well as fix past problems. My preference would be a collaborative project developed rather then to bypass the local community. Recruiting more local admins to have admin access on Commons seems to be a better longterm solution. FloNight 12:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Long term is already solved: Users don't get the right that allows local upload until they have been around long enough to know to upload their free images to commons. With only a few exceptions all the new commons-eligible image upload traffic is already going straight to commons. The issue of significance is the hundreds of thousands of old images transfered from other wikis with incomplete or misleading information. Coordinating one offs for each of image for routine checking is obnoxious in the extreme since it either requires two people to do one person's work at half or a quarter the speed, or the work to be limited to the much smaller pool of people who are admins on both projects (and whos time is already split). I can't say that it's an impossible situation, since we've survived it for a number of years but as we dig deeper into the backlogs it becomes a more and more material issue and it's already clear that it's hindering work. Thanks for your thoughts. --Gmaxwell 14:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not true. If a media file has insufficient publicly accessible permission to be included on commons, the image has insufficient permission to be included on commons. The creator of a file doesn't lose his/her copyright, just because a member of a very small group of people says/writes (s)he thinks it is OK to copy it. That fact doesn't change if the member of the very, very small group states that (s)he saw something on a page which is only viewable by said very small group of people and another similarly small group of people. Erik Warmelink 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral I would prefer the long term solution to recruit more people who become admins in both Commons and another project, like me. This proposal does not realistically "open up every single project" IMO. There will be many cases where I would have to contact a local admin anyway to translate the delete image description page into my native language, the web site linked as the image source, etc. Zzyzx11 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   For some languages, true, but for the ones which are most used - french, german, spanish, portuguese etc; passable internet translation services exist. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Gregory, can you please expand on the potential to oversight images that you said is already built in to the mediawiki code, please? -- Avi 03:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bitfields for rev deleted. --Gmaxwell 03:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that although rev_deleted is not yet enabled on Wikimedia, it is already for a large part in the core MediaWiki software. So it should not take too long until oversighting images is possible :) -- Bryan (talk|commons) 09:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it = not known on the projects I'm active. How can it be a global vote without global promotion? I am skeptical its validity. --Aphaia 03:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I dropped a notice on w:WP:AN and the enwiki pump, but I think something this basic should be given the wikibanner treatment, similar to the global sysop discussion and the board vote. -- Avi 03:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Aphaia, it's only been open for a few hours. It's been advertised here and on foundation-l, commons users were asked to solicit comments from their hope projects, and many have been, but people are still waking up. --Gmaxwell 04:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I know that it was also posted on nl.wp and de.wp. And like GM said - it just started - you have 2 weeks to "notice it". --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And GM also posted a note on WikiEN-l too, so it has had decent exposure, although I'd still like the banner treatment, if possible. -- Avi 04:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've left a note on the English Wikisource's Scriptorium (as we were asked to advertise at our "home projects"). giggy _(:O) 07:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted at no:wikipedia:Tinget Finn Rindahl 10:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This permission would be nice on a per-user, per-project base. I am unlikely to become an en admin in the recent future, but I need this permission and I think I could get enough pros on en for limited rights. Nevertheless, there are some commons admins which should never see some of the deleted files at german wikipedia. Code·is·poetry 10:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? What is in german wikipedia? Is that what the librarians are hiding? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Herbythyme, above, answering to somebody: Let's not get into "who community is nicest" please. Commons is a strong community & well watched by some. Well, this discussion here (and the oppose voices) is not on better or worse community, but on the experience with communities as a whole. My experience is that the commons community is not different from other ones. Therefore I say NO just like I would say No if all admins from en.wiki or all admins from nl.wiki or other ones should get the rights of sysops (thou limited) on my project. It is not true that commons admins are controlled more than admins on other projects. I will support the idea, sure, but not in this way. -jkb- (cs.source) 12:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I will support the idea, sure, but not in this way." - Without trying to contest your vote, if you say your experience is the same with all communities, in what way do you think you could support the idea? giggy _(:O) 11:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • just as I stated above and in talks: at least opt-out must be granted, and these right are not avaiable generally for some hundreds of admins, but for a much smaller group that is beeng trusted by others, -jkb- (cs.source) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not your project. For someone who has indefinitely banned me from cs.wikisource, you should not even comment about "abuse of adminship" on other wikis. Look in a mirror for a change. -- Cat ^chi? 11:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • please stop tis harassing again. Or did you forget this RfC??? Or should I give more links on more domains??? -jkb- (cs.source) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How would this be granted? It should be automated so we do not nag stewards all the time. -- Cat ^chi? 11:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As for oppose votes, I cannot even think of why seeing deleted images would cause problems. I do not see what "abuse of power" is there in question. Sensitive stuff (such as personal info) must NOT just be deleted, they must be oversighted out. Abuse of power is a risk but not a valid concern. Commons is a well regulated wiki, no "abuse" of adminship would go unnoticed. Commons has a very low tolerance for such nonsense, much less than any wiki I know. -- Cat ^chi? 11:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]