Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Request for reinstatement of sysop rights (break)

@GorillaWarfare: didn't see the old fashioned way to alert used. Just in case. --DHeyward (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for double-checking! I am indeed aware, and we are discussing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• must be quite a discussion based on how long it's taking. Not to rush things, and though not an arb, I fully support the reinstatement of the bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are differing views, but yes the discussion is ongoing. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what there are different views about @Euryalus:? I wasn't desysoped as part of an arb proceeding, but to ensure that a temporarily compromised account could cause no damage. As far as I can see it, the only thing needed to continue here is to ensure I am who I say I am. I believe that I have done that already, but if not would be glad to go buy NF a coffee if he is on campus tomorrow, or voice verify with any current arb/functionary/admin/Wikimedian whom I have previously met.

I don't think this is (nor do I believe it should be) a referendum on my current popularity among currrent arbitrators, admins, or the community as a whole. I think I have established that I am who I say I am - if I haven't, I'd be glad to go buy NativeForeigner a coffee if he is on campus tomorrow, or voice-verify with any of the hundreds of Wikipedians I've previously spoken to in-depth, including Gorilawarfare, Keilana, Andrew Lih, a great number of WMF staff, and a great number of other admins/arbs/CU's/OS'ers/WMF trustees/people who have written books about Wikipedia.

Unless concern remains that I am not who I say I am, I believe the only appropriate action for a crat wandering by to take would be to flip the bit. If some portion of arbcom believes that I have committed a desysoppable action by not throughly vetting the equipment on a network before connecting to it, thy have procedures in place to try desysop me themselves, those procedures are separate than the crat actions here and haveso far not been forthcoming. I could see delaying the 'crat switch a bit if they were eminently forthcoming, but it's been days. Though I'll get it done eventually anyway, I had intendedd to spend a good chunk of the next few days rewriting, rearranging, and restructuring content in a few area (woo, hefty amazon giftcards,) and given the way I work it's a bit of an unnecessary pain to rely on a second admin or just waiting for the bit to be reswitched.

Particularly given that it would have been possible for me to switch passwords on my mobile, and never mention that I had discovered that I had connected to a network that was at the time the target of both software and hardware keyloggers, it seems like disincentivizing good behavior. I'd be happy to voice verify that my account is back under control with any functionary who has heard my voice, which includes quite a few of them. Keep in mind that punishing people who divulge security lapses makes it less likely that future security lapses will be divulged - and this one would've been pretty to hide unless I am in fact delusional (I'd love to read the doc with legal implications about that whole mess of worms that some poor legal WMF intern would get to write about desysopping proccedures in that situation...

Fundamentally, this is a process for the 'crats. If they're content I say I am, they should flip the switch. If they're not, they shouldn't, but should lay out what identity proof they'd like. If Arbcom wants to try to desysop, I can't stop hem from doing so (though I do think it'd vbe rather wasteful,) but it should be through their own well-established processes - not unnecessarily taildragging the processes of the 'crats. (Noteworthily perhaps, since I reached out to her individually as the first Wikipedian friend I saw on FB with advanced privs, I would be skeptical of any claim that Molly's original actions in blocking/locking/striping my account were taken by her under the color of the committee as a whole.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the committee is discussing, but this is the same reason it would be imprudent for a bureaucrat to fulfill this request without waiting. They may have access to information we don't. I do apologize for the delay, hopefully we will hear soon. –xeno^talk 13:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Speaking as an editor not an arb clerk) Given that

formal statement/decision), as Kevin has asked for in his last para, or ask ArbCom to desysop. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know on what you're basing your beliefs about the motivations of the Arbitration Committee. I won't speculate on what Salvio giuliano indicated the committee is discussing; however, in certain scenarios that come to mind, restoring the bit without awaiting further comment or direction would be reckless (and this is without any sort of prejudice towards Kevin Gorman or his rights to the administrative toolset).

The

WP:RESYSOP

procedure has built-in delays: immediate re-sysop is not guaranteed, there is an automatic waiting period to ensure sufficient bureaucrats can review and comment on the request. Other bureaucrats are likely witholding comment because we are awaiting further information, and we will require some additional time for bureaucrats to review whatever new information becomes available and comment before the request is finally processed.

That being said: if there is going to be a further significant delay, the committee might consider issuing a temporary injunction on the matter as appropriate, as clarity is required as to whether the committee is taking up the matter, in contrast to comments by arbitrators GorillaWarfare and Thryduulf in the thread mentioned by Callanecc above which indicate the desysop was a self-request and discussion of his admin tools belongs at WP:BN (Special:Permalink/666705786#Kevin Gorman - compromised account desysop and block). –xeno^talk 15:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only on the fact that some arbs have said we're discussing it which has effectively stopped a crat flipping the switch. Given that the desysop was not done by a decision of the Committee's they've effectively desysoped (or stopped a resysop) without the process of level I or II.

Given that the request was made more than 24 hours ago that requirement of RESYSOP has already been met, so now it's just waiting for a crat.

Thanks Xeno, that was my main point: if they don't want to resysop to happen at any time they need to post a desysop decision (which short of opening a case with an injunction) is the only to do it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the requirements of RESYSOP are not yet met: the hold period "may be lengthened at a bureaucrat's discretion, if new information arises." In this case, it's been lengthened for an indefinite period of time, and clarity is required because it's not really fair for the request to be held in limbo (especially given Kevin's indication that he's unaware the reason for the delay). –xeno^talk 16:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all self-requested removals are grounds for automatic resysopping - such as resigning under a cloud. (I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here). --Rschen7754 15:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do wish that whatever the concern is would at least have been directly forwarded to me by now. I have a feeling that whatever question there is I could answer on FB in about thirty seconds, and I suspect that taking longer than anticipated to return rights to someone who followed best practices in locking down a potential opsec issue may have the effect of discouraging fourthcomingness in the future, at least potentially. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a stalker comment. No idea what arbs are discussing but I've been involved in security related stuff. The issue isn't just insuring the privileged account is no longer compromised, there is also the question of how it was comprimised and questions of diligence to the rules regarding account protection. The easy, extreme case is Snowden. He fled the country and the immediate concern is shutting down his access. The next concern is how he got access and that led to the firing of his cubicle mate (Snowden keylogged his passwords but that should have never worked if the coworker followed policy - yes, the NSA has more restrictions than WP but the illegal keylogging wasn't a defense for the coworker and it was the "two"-party authorization that gave him access). It's never just "everything's okay now." Anyway, just 0.02 that security breaches and impersonations are more than just establishing the account holder. I would hope due diligence is a checkuser and account log to see if there are other accounts that are compromised and then analyzing any relationship. --DHeyward (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, but the Committee didn't remove the tools. So if they want to decide when they are returned they need to officially remove them first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's debateable whether the committee removed the tool the request came from an arbitrator after all. There is private information involved in the case, whatever Kevin may state. I'm certain the committee will get back to us soon, there is no rush as long as the decision is the right one. Worm^TT(talk) 18:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]