Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/11

OTRS member permissions

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This proposal, despite community support here, cannot succeed because it is opposed by the Wikimedia Foundation on legal grounds. (The comment, towards the bottom of this lengthy section, is quoted here in full.) We should look to alternatives for improving OTRS. Rd232 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

“	We are always respectful of and impressed by community initiatives. For that reason, it is tough for us to put a barrier in front of folks who are sincerely seeking a solution to a challenge. So our apologies in advance, but, to be honest, it will be difficult for WMF to support the proposed solution in this case. Please allow me to explain in brief. With this proposal, WMF is concerned about possible increased liability for the Foundation and OTRS agents. Sensitive legal matters may be deleted, and, for that reason, increasing the size of the group who can view such deleted material could arguably increase WMF's liability. In addition, OTRS agents could risk personal liability by undeleting content that had been originally deleted for legal reasons (either by the community or WMF). We appreciate the opportunity to be consulted, and we are sorry we cannot support this. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)	”
—17:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Geoff Brigham, general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation

---

Right now if we look at the user rights for the OTRS member group we see that they only get autopatrol, which has led to comments justifiably asking what the point of the group is. Certainly it provides verification of membership for the OTRS userbox and prevents tags by the edit filter for non-OTRS members adding tags to files. However, it's been brought up on the OTRS-permissions mailing list, where OTRS agents who work at both Commons and Wikipedia on getting validation for media content at either location have to deal with the difficulties imposed by deleted content referenced in emails. If a file is deleted the OTRS agent cannot check to see whether conflicting information was placed on the description page for comparison to the email that has come in regarding the file. And for files that have been deleted, OTRS volunteers must continually pester admins or make a request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests‎, remember which files were requested, keep coming back to check for a restoration, then finally add the proper tags before emailing that the restoration was performed. OTRS agents working with permissions do so for both en.wiki and Commons but in many cases are an admin on one but not the other, despite the fact that files can be uploaded to either.

In order to expedite the process, reduce the workload on the limited number of admins, and acknowledge the trust already placed in individuals considered knowledgeable enough with the projects already to answer emails to our readers, it is proposed that the following rights are to be associated with the group to facilitate the operations that OTRS agents would need to perform as part of their duties and which are hindered when content has already been deleted:

• Undelete a page (undelete)
• View deleted history entries, without their associated text (deletedhistory)
• View deleted text and changes between deleted revisions (deletedtext)

Please note that the above does not include the ability to delete in the first place. – Adrignola talk 15:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Could you write or link something about how the users became OTRS members? How we can be sure they do not abuse their new rights? -- RE rillke questions? 15:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What about a new usergroup like "advanced OTRS agent" which can be elected without such a high barrier like admins? -- RE rillke questions? 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To the first, m:OTRS/volunteering is where it is requested, and that page also provides information on what the requirements are. Note that the OTRS admins are "especially interested in users who are entrusted with any special tools on local projects". As to the second, if people think it would be a good idea. I thought I'd try to reduce complexity. – Adrignola talk 15:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Adrignola, would this new permission be granted to all OTRS volunteers or only to Commons-OTRS volunteers, provided they are at all a "separate" group? --Túrelio (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as when most people hear "OTRS volunteer" they're thinking of the people working on permissions for text/images and placing those tags with that orange logo on pages, that's also what I had in mind and probably didn't make very explicit. You only see the OTRS volunteers here with access to the permissions queues anyway. Since we have an OTRS-members group at Commons already and this is just adjusting their rights, it should be hopefully clearer than the parallel proposal at en.wiki as to who this would affect and include. But to answer your question very specifically, Commons-OTRS volunteers accessing the permissions queues (they are a separate group within the OTRS system itself and you can see that some people have publicly listed which queues they have access to at m:OTRS/personnel; the official list is on the private wiki). – Adrignola talk 20:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Votes

• (Edit conflict)  Oppose - I may weakly support 'deletedhistory' and 'deletedtext' tho I think only administrators should be able to review such revisions (OTRS agents already have access to private material so it's not that I'm really concerned with that). But 'undelete'? No, that's too much. If undeletions are needed COM:UNDEL is there. Use it. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Undel is that slow that Users like me gave up to request something there -- RE rillke questions? 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see an OTRS agent restoring a file as being any worse than an admin without OTRS access blindly restoring a file based on some random number. – Adrignola talk 15:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support: I never encountered a problem with an OTRS member regarding to the abuse of those rights. They have a hard job and need these rights. Furthermore they are "checked" while becoming a member. -- RE rillke questions? 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support as per Adrignola. Yann (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support tool needed for the job, should be part of job's rights.--Havang(nl) (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support at least the assignment of deletedhistory and deletedtext as tools obviously needed for the job. For me, giving OTRS members undelete too is fine, but I could conceive that others may have objections like hinted by Marco Aurelio above, so not assigning undelete while getting the two other rights could be a kind of compromise. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Anatoliy (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per Adrignola MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral - I think deletedhistory and deletedtext are OK, but I'm concerned about undelete. There could have been reasons for deletion apart from permission, reasons for which even admins need to use COM:UDR instead of just undeleting - Jcb (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• I've suggested over at the parallel discussion on en.wiki that if such a user group were given the ability to view deleted revisions, holders of the right should need to submit the relevant ticket number to a log when viewing deleted revisions. I'm not sure if such a thing would be desired here, but I thought I would mention it. (Note that such a suggestion is dependent on changes to the software) –xeno 03:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  That'd be easy to cheat, since looking at deleted revisions isn't logged (and probably there's no need I think). You can simply have a look at a deleted page or file and noone will notice that. And given the fact that until recently images could not be oversighted that's an aditional reason for me to restrict the ability to view deleted materials to few people. Elected people if possible. Of course OTRS agents (I'm one despite not being flagged as such here) work with confidential information and thus, in one hand I'm not very concerned with deletedhistory and deletedtext but on the other hand increasing in a large number (see NVO below) the access to deleted content concerns me for basic privacy reasons. Best regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  My suggestion would require the software being updated to have a separate permission for logged viewing of deleted entries. –xeno 17:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  Designing a log for recording views would be very difficult, since views are not logged by the software in the same manner as edits or deletes. If it was possible, though, then that would be a good idea. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Support granting deletedhistory and deletedtext;  Oppose granting undelete. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support including undelete. I personally ignore tickets regarding deleted material on Commons because it's annoying to have to continually post undeletion requests. ←fetchcomms 04:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• There are 200 OTRS members who are not administrators. Just make all active OTRS folks ex officio administrators, sort of a mass coronation ;). I mean, one hundred sysops more or one hundred less - no big deal. NVO (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support OTRS voluteers are trustworthy and should have the tools they need to do the job, in my humble opinion. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose unless the Foundation agrees it's OK, and the process of OTRS access granting is clarified. There are legal implications, potentially, to substantially broadening the base of users with access to deleted material - see WMF comments at en:Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles. Perhaps more likely than just given everyone access would be an OTRS Advanced User usergroup, given to OTRS users with current rights to view deleted material on other WMF wikis, relying on at least that process of screening. Rd232 (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Weak support for "undelete" right, strong support for the other two rights. SV1XV (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unneeded. Ask an sysop without details. Ebe123 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support including undelete. Kropotkine 113 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I do oppose the "undelete"-rights, but I support the other two rights. There are over 250 admins that can help with undeletions. --High Contrast (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support This comes up very frequently in the OTRS permissions queues. There are a few dozen OTRS agents, many of whom are admins either here but not on the English Wikipedia (as in Adrignola's case) or on the English Wikipedia but not on Commons, and it's a royal pain in the arse trying to deal with tickets relating to deleted content on the project where you can't see it. A lot of people who email OTRS don't realise the distinction between WP and Commons, and there really isn't that much difference and the difference isn't that much—OTRS agents do much the same job on Commons as they do in the enwiki filespace, and allowing them to view and restore deleted images on both just makes everybody's lives easier. The other clear advantage is that OTRS agents take personal responsibility for the undeletions, rather than asking admins to take responsibility on the basis of a ticket the admin can't see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support for viewing deleted content, personally I also have no issues with undelete, but I can understand other people's concern, so  Neutral on undelete --Ben.MQ (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support OTRS members often get requests concerning deleted media. On Commons, those requests might be users whose uploads were deleted due to incomplete information being supplied. I trust the OTRS application process. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support At least deletedhistory and deletedtext should be granted because they are neccessary for all OTRS actions referring to files that are already deleted. Undelete also appreciated for the OTRS agents to finish their work without needing admin assistance in every case. --Krd (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm afraid that this is likely to be a problem. :/ Since I'm both an OTRS agent (who is not an admin on Commons) and currently under contract by the WMF, I was hesitant whether I should say anything, but I've been told that it's okay for me to speak up. (I'm still allowed to be a volunteer. :)) I've been involved in some (limited) conversations about this, and I think it's likely that the legal department won't approve this change from the status quo. Given that, I wanted to check on an alternative. What about if we created something like a cross-wiki board for OTRS agents, maybe at the OTRS wiki, where admins on specific projects can be asked to assist in tickets by OTRS agents who are not admins there? That might diminish (if not solve) the problem without risking running afoul of legal concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That might help, but I'm not sure how practical it would be, given OTRS volume of tickets. Knowing nothing about how OTRS works, I'm slightly wondering if the system could be adapted so that a person handling a ticket could flag it as needing input/action from someone with particular permissions. Then people with those permissions can focus on those tickets. Rd232 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • @Moonriddengirl, do these concerns affect all three permissions proposed by Adrignola or only the real undeletion? --Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Their concerns are for deletedtext. I've also been involved in direct discussions with the legal department in seeking to address their concerns. I don't share the concerns given that administrators are community elected while OTRS agents are privately screened and selected. Admins' actions are subject to public oversight; OTRS members' responses to emails are not. So one could say that on a certain level even more trust is placed in an OTRS volunteer than an admin. So I don't buy the argument that there'd be any higher level of legal liability should anyone but admins have access to deleted revisions, given the group of people we're talking about here. I find it offensive to imply that OTRS agents who deal with confidential information on a daily basis would not be able to keep information that has been deleted private. – Adrignola talk 12:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Adrignola, you may know more about this than I do, as I have not been involved in direct discussions with the legal department, only overheard conversation between other staff, but I don't believe that there is any implication intended that OTRS agents are not trustworthy. :) Per conversation on the en OTRS mailing list, it seems to me that the idea is simply clearly defining a specific and limited group that has access to deleted content. (By "limited" I do not mean in terms of numbers, but specifically "this group" as opposed to "this group" and "that group" and "that group".) I'll see if I can get specifics. Another idea I tossed on the en mailing list, if this should not be permitted, is that we might create subqueues into which we could put material that needs specifically admin attention? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Ardignola, no one is suggesting that the users aren't trustworthy. Only that the legal department, as risk managers, have identified a risk that this permission may expose us to greater liability. That's not saying people aren't trustworthy, it's lawyers trying to keep us all out of hot water.  :) Don't take it personally, it's their job. Further, this isn't them changing their mind: legal has been very clear through two general counsels that this wouldn't happen. We don't give deleted revs to people who aren't admins. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
          • And there is no chance to create a new user-group, which is elected like admins but get the 3 mentioned rights only? -- RE rillke questions? 20:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I can check with legal. Generally speaking, if someone is elected like admins, is there a reason to not just elect them AS admins, though? I honestly dunno how legal will feel about it, but my gut says they'll be holding the line on this one. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
              • See also en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted in which then-General Counsel Mike Godwin "vetoed" a previous proposal (though it was much broader than the one here). The current General Counsel, Geoff Brigham, endorsed Godwin's statement. The statements from each are at the top of the linked page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
              • A lot of voters on RfA expect a large amount of contributions in the Commons-namespace or on deletion-requests. OTRS members are more active on file-pages. That's why they may fail as admins (like recently one) while nobody mistrusts them (e.g. because known from homewiki, good contribs in file-namespace, ...) -- RE rillke questions? 10:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support OTRS members are trusted not to misuse their rights, also why not give them the tools needed for their job? —stay (sic)! 01:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Due to several recurring concerns raised by other users, I've somewhat modified my comments above. —stay (sic)! 09:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose 'undelete' but I support deletedhistory and deletedtext.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 13:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support for these permissions for the "Commons-OTRS volunteers". --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose without Foundation approval. Ironholds (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support. Sounds sensible to me. Users with OTRS access can be trusted with these features. WJBscribe (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• outright  Oppose undelete function....though kinda ok with review functions as I understand the need but I still have reservations. I have previously had OTRS access including commons.permissions (resigned because I didnt/dont have the time) but in that time I deleted many copyright violations but cant recall any action I performed that was an undeletion. While OTRS are identity verified there isnt any review of a person gaining rights by this community I believe that such actions should only be performed by the people Commons Community have themselves chosen to review. Gnangarra 06:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • updated a serious review of the users within the OTRS reveals too many that arent even remotely active on commons, including one that has made one edit in 2 years. Gnangarra 14:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose all. Creating new categories of users who have access to deleted information is always a bad idea. If a non-admin OTRS volunteer finds that they regularly need admin access, there's no reason they can't request to be made an administrator. (See also my comment in the legal discussion, above.)--Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. From this discussion it is clear that 'deletedhistory' may be added without any problem - it has a community support and encounters no legal objections. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have not heard from the legal counsel to revise comments made previously on stonewalling any viewing of deleted material even by those with access to non-public data already. The addition of deletedhistory alone would not show the file's content or the initial upload summary for any file uploaded with the Upload Wizard. So you can tell who uploaded a file? Big deal; usually they tell you they did in the email they sent. In short, this proposal is going nowhere and the relevant comments by the legal team should have been on Meta to avoid this complete waste of time. – Adrignola talk 17:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support as per rationale on en.wiki, this should reduce bureaucracy which has to be a good thing. Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Philosopher. Creating a new category of quasi-administrator rights would be a dispensation from the process of having to apply for an administrator status in order to use them. Horses for courses. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support for viewing richts,  Neutral on undelete. OTRS-volunteers are already given a big amount of trust, so this seems like a reasonable proposal to reduce bureaucracy. --Terfili (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support viewing rights so that OTRS volunteers are better able to answer requests, but oppose undelete. Local admins were invented for a reason, and I really don't see a pressing need for OTRS volunteers to be able to undelete pages themselves. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - A very helpful feature indeed for OTRS volunteers. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• an otrs volunteer myself, i  Support "deletedhistory" and "deletedtext", but  Oppose giving volunteers the right to restore files/pages etc. the possibility to view deleted versions of files would be terribly helpful for everyday handling of requests. i cannot accept permission emails if i don't know the underlying picture, so i'd have to ask an administrator to somehow send me the image or describe it to me and even then i'm never quite certain about it. this is both time-consuming and, if you ask me, unnecessary. the viewing rights are a matter of trust, but given that otrs volunteers have access to information much more sensitive than that on commons, i do not possibly see a problem here. as to the right to restore content, however, i think this is not a good idea. for one, deleting (and undeleting) content is a particularly community-specific thing. commons has its own policies, practices etc. users who restore previously-deleted content should be familiar with those, as well (i actually agree with jcb on that -- scary). this, however, cannot be guaranteed for otrs volunteers. the selection process for otrs does not include a check for the user's capability to handle undeletions on commons. second, i fear that the "undelete" right is potentially a weak point for the proposed extension of otrs volunteers' privileges. the legitimacy of such a privilege is based on the community's approval for it. if wrong decisions are made by otrs volunteers, this could be critical to public support of the extension of rights for otrs volunteers as a whole. —Pill (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• As another OTRS volunteer, I feel the same as Pill above:  Support deletedhistory and deletedtext,  Oppose undelete rights. There's just no need for such rights. Undeletion should be reserved for admins elected individually by the community here at Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary

This has been open for nearly two months, so I think it's about time for a summary.

1. All rights
   1. Pro: 20: Rillke, Yann, Havang(nl), Grand-Duc, Anatoliy, MorganKevinJ, Fetchcomms, NVO [implicitly - make all OTRS admins], Hydroxonium, SV1XV [weak support for undelete], Kropotkine123, HJ Mitchell, Ben MQ, Dcoetzee, Krd, stay (sic), Turelio, WJBScribe, Eraserhead1, Sreejith K
2. 'deletedhistory' and 'deletedtext': 29 pro, 6 against = 83%
   1. Pro (all rights): 20
   2. Pro (specifically): 9: Marco Aurelio, Jcb, John Vandenberg, High Contrast, MMXX, Terfili, Ajraddatz, Pill, Huntster
   3. Against: 4: Ebe123, Gnangarra, Philosopher, Gavin Collins
   4. Against unless WMF agrees: 2: Rd232, Ironholds
3. 'undelete': 20 pro, 13 against = 61%
   1. Pro (all rights): 20
   2. Pro (specifically): 0
   3. Against: 13: Marco Aurelio, Jcb, John Vandenberg, Rd232, Ebe123, High Contrast, MMXX, Gnangarra, Philosopher, Gavin Collins, Ajraddatz, Pill, Huntster

In conclusion, there is a high enough support for asking WMF whether they can support 'deletedhistory' and 'deletedtext' (the indications are no). Support for 'undelete' is perhaps not quite high enough, but it could be included in the request, and if WMF is OK with it, it could be discussed further. Now, any suggestions on getting a definitive answer from WMF? Rd232 (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I had been in discussion with Geoff who asked for additional information to understand the issue better. This was provided on September 4. I have not heard back. The only thing definitive at this point is that I've been told the ultimate decision rests with the Foundation. – Adrignola talk 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pushing this to Geoff, hopefully something will come of this in the near future. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adrignola. I want to apologize for not getting back to you. You should not have had to wait this amount of time, and I feel bad about it. I had responded to someone else about a similar issue, and, for some reason, my mind played games on me, making me think I had answered. I promise to get back by next week. Geoffbrigham (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We are always respectful of and impressed by community initiatives. For that reason, it is tough for us to put a barrier in front of folks who are sincerely seeking a solution to a challenge. So our apologies in advance, but, to be honest, it will be difficult for WMF to support the proposed solution in this case.

Please allow me to explain in brief. With this proposal, WMF is concerned about possible increased liability for the Foundation and OTRS agents. Sensitive legal matters may be deleted, and, for that reason, increasing the size of the group who can view such deleted material could arguably increase WMF's liability. In addition, OTRS agents could risk personal liability by undeleting content that had been originally deleted for legal reasons (either by the community or WMF). We appreciate the opportunity to be consulted, and we are sorry we cannot support this. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional discussion

I didn't know where else to put this, so I was bold and created a sub-header!

I'm wondering if people might feel less concerned about this if it were only to be granted to OTRS agents who are already admins on the English Wikipedia (or other "big" WMF wikis, but most OTRS tickets seem to relate to enwiki content)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be pretty good support for the current proposal here without any qualifications added to it. This might be something to suggest at the parallel proposal at en.wiki. Can't quite agree with your last statement, as most tickets sent to permissions-en would be en.wiki content, most sent to permissions-commons would be Commons content (and OTRS people with access to one have access to the other). Then there's tickets linking to the en.wiki mirror location of Commons content sent to permissions-en or linking to the place where the mirror used to be. And maybe I keep taking all the Commons tickets, leaving few for you. :) – Adrignola talk 00:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Does all the OTRS members have the same knowledge of Commons' policies?  ■ MMXX  ^talk 14:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone in the OTRS-members group here (those with access to the permissions-commons queues) would never have gotten access to them in the first place otherwise. Perhaps this concern is why you opposed undeletion? OTRS volunteers would be restoring files marked as lacking permission or violating copyright. So more important than policies is knowledge of copyright. As the guide to adminship says, "Copyright law is not by any means a simple area, and you are not expected to know everything, but admins should have a decent understanding of our current policies and practices". So admins don't have to be copyright experts, but OTRS volunteers practically must be, as nobody else will check a ticket to verify an OTRS agent's claim that everything is good unless the ticket is questioned, input is solicited, or someone is curious. – Adrignola talk 14:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I opposed, I somehow agree with the HJ Mitchell's comment above, I'm not concern about OTRS members who are already admin on other big projects but I'm not sure about giving this right just to anyone, on the other hand, I agree that it's easier and faster that OTRS members could be able to handle undeletion requests by their own.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 16:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Are OTRS user trust worthy well my quick checking shows some are doubtful, others clearly dont the experience on Commons to show that they even understand our policies and requirements(see below). Additionally this has the appearance of a backdoor approach to the perennial request for admins on other projects to be given automatic admin rights on Commons something this community has rejected many time before. Gnangarra 01:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• If a user is trusted and competant enough to be answering OTRS emails, I don't think that there is a need to limit these rights to only users who are admins on some wikis. I'd prefer to have some sort of discussion before assigning the otrs flag to users here. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• As someone who was an OTRS volunteer before being an admin anywhere, there is plenty that a competent and trustworthy volunteer can offer without being an admin. Accessing deleted material is essential for some requests on OTRS, but these are the minority. The OTRS volunteer acceptance process should ensure that volunteers are trustworthy to handle confidential material and we should then be able to trust the volunteer's judgement to only handle OTRS requests that they have sufficient policy knowledge and experience to address competently. This change would make my life slightly easier on Commons, however having never been involved in a case where someone's OTRS access was revoked, I suspect there may be a (theoretical?) issue with granting rights on Commons which have no open process for the Commons community to remove if trust is lost through poor behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Log

I know that one can watch a file without actually undelte it.

1. Does the "undelte" right enable this functionality, too?
2. Is this event logged somewhere to see abuse?

-- RE rillke questions? 09:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can watch any file, whether it has ever existed or never existed. Undeletions are logged like deletions. In the same log, in fact. – Adrignola talk 03:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I expressed myself unclearly. With watch, I meant view. I read this and my question is whether viewing a deleted image is logged. -- RE rillke questions? 07:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The viewing of deleted revisions is not currently logged in the software (for admins or otherwise), but it's been mentioned as something that some people would like to have. – Adrignola talk 13:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a few bugs about "undeletion" and "log" on bugzilla but not what I was looking for. Should I file a bug (feature request)? Or did I miss something? Thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 13:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What feature? as Adrignola said, viewing of deleted revisions (page or file history} is not logged and IMO it doesn't need to be logged, but undelete actions are logged.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 14:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You may call me a control-freak. But I would appreciate logging viewing deleted content to see abuse if the undelete-right is granted to OTRS-members. But let's see whether other users have the same desire. -- RE rillke questions? 17:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Abuse by viewing or undeleting? because these two are different.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I want a log-event being triggered when someone looks at a deleted file or file-revision and when restoring (the latter is implemented, I know). I don't know what terminology MW uses for this. -- RE rillke questions? 18:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? deleted contents were once accessible for everyone and IMO there is no risk of misusing, also OTRS members are trusted and they already have access to nonpublic information.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 19:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, there is no logging of viewing content or logs in MediaWiki at all, on the grounds of fundamental principles of privacy. Logging the views (even of deleted contents) sounds absolutely unacceptable. Logs can only be taken on actions that change content or metadata. --Krd (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection of privacy of users who upload the wrong image etc. is much more important than cover up an admin's or OTRS member's action. There is nothing to protect and I can see absolutely no problem with logging it. Whether this log is public or for admins only visible is another question. Logs were always a good method to unveil problems without actually showing the content. Viewing deleted content requires elevated privileges and use of them should be logged. -- RE rillke questions? 19:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Krd - I see absolutelly no need to log who looks at deleted revisions. Other "risky" log views are not (at least publicy) logged, either. I recommend reading Commons:Privacy_policy#Reading_projects. Logging publicy what I look or leave to look is unnaceptable for me. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Using admin's button is not "reading". It is viewing deleted content which is not publicly visible. Checkuser is also logged and it is just a "viewing something without changing content", too. And it is good that it is logged. -- RE rillke questions? 10:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

By viewing a deleted page I am, in fact, reading it's content deleted or not. Using CheckUser is logged of course (and it's good as you say) but for example viewing the CU log or the OS logs are not logged (not publicy at least, maybe in non-public raw database logs). That's what I intended to say. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 10:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I never suggested logging viewing of a log. That really makes no sense. Since the deleted contend is not visible and there is maybe room for abuse, I thought it's better to have a log. When viewing deleted content, one has a specific reason given and reasoned by the function as administrator for doing so, therefore I see no problem with logging it. The undelete feature is not for "private reading". -- RE rillke questions? 14:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I know of how the mediawiki software logs views, having a log for views would be very difficult, and would involve some redesigning of the current system of looking at deleted revisions. Actions such as blocks and deletes are easily logged, as a database is being modified. If each page view were recorded in a database in such a manner, then Wikipedia would require thousands of servers and be very, very slow. When viewing deleted versions of files, there is a message "Do you want to view revision blablabla of File:Blablabla.png?" and a button that must be clicked to continue - whether or not that action is added to a database I'm not sure. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If such a log were available then I'd support it being enabled. Transparency is rarely a bad thing. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternative

Instead of giving OTRS users permissions on Commons why cant Commons Admins, Crats(subject to id requirements) be given automatic access to the OTRS commons queues, this would be simpler solution. Gnangarra 07:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could clarify how common it is for Commons admins not to have OTRS access; that's certainly one area that would make sense to address if it's common. This might also complement my thought above, that the OTRS system could perhaps be adapted so that a person handling a ticket could flag it as needing input/action from someone with particular permissions. Then people with those permissions can focus on those tickets. Rd232 (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just compare Commons:Administratoren and Category:Commons OTRS volunteers. --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well a detailed comparison would be some work :) but the headline numbers are 263 admins and 175 OTRS volunteers, so clearly there is some room for improvement. Rd232 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The manual listing and category may not be accurate since you have to add yourself or add a userbox. Better to look at Special:ListUsers/OTRS-member and note how many do not have admin access. I recently asked for removal of inactive OTRS members at the bureaucrats' noticeboard, so this list also contains only active members to boot. – Adrignola talk 13:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) – Adrignola talk 13:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That OTRS list isnt all well that maintained, I can readily identify 2 editors who have previously had RFA declined, another editor who has made two edits on commons since May 2010, another who had made 1 edit since Mar 2009. I also can identify a user who left a chapter committee under questionable circumstances. What would be more useful is for that list to show what queues these members have access to and remove the OTRS rights from users who dont have access to the commons queues. Do some much needed house keeping, show us that its being maintained appropriately before asking us extend trust to this user group. Gnangarra 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked for those who no longer have access to OTRS to be removed from the list. Everyone in that list has access to OTRS regardless of how much or little they do on Commons currently or whether they failed an RFA. I am not an OTRS admin so I have no power to force anyone out of the system if they aren't pulling their weight. Only those with access to the permissions-commons queues should be a member of this group. – Adrignola talk 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Then that list needs to be addressed as editors who dont have the experience or the knowledge of Commons policies should not be answering those questions, and they definately should not be given permission to undelete files. Gnangarra 01:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Add more guidance at Commons:Deletion requests

In view of some recent discussions (which we needn't discuss here, hopefully, so I won't link to them), it seems clear that it would be helpful to have a little more guidance to administrators about the community's expectations of how deletion requests are handled. I propose adding to Commons:Deletion_requests#Instructions_for_administrators:

Administrators are encouraged not to close requests where discussion has stopped but unresolved issues remain. Administrators should always be aware that even a strong consensus can never trump copyright law nor override Commons Policy.

Administrators closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision. In many cases, where there is little discussion and no disagreement with the request, no details are required. However the more complex a discussion, and the more users have argued for the opposite outcome than the administrator's decision, the more a clear explanation of the decision is required. In any event, administrators are expected to clarify or explain their decisions on request.

The context for this addition can be seen here. I believe my addition is not any new requirement, just a description of what the community expects. It is carefully worded not to create any simplistic requirement admins must remember in closing discussions, just general guidance. The only firm part of the wording is the requirement to explain or clarify on request, which surely cannot be controversial. Note also that Commons:Deletion requests is not formally a policy or guideline, which perhaps limits how controversial it should be to make such additions to it. Rd232 (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, this risks getting more complicated than I expected. I'm going to split the proposal into two parts, and I've taken the liberty of moving relevant comments into a subsection. Rd232 (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

Discussion

Conclusion

Proposal: add

Administrators are encouraged not to close requests where discussion has stopped but unresolved issues remain. Administrators should always be aware that even a strong consensus can never trump copyright law nor override Commons Policy.

Discussion

Deletion requests must be decided at some time, also when there is no consensus. When discussion has stopped, there is no point in keeping the DR open. I agree with the second part, about giving a rationale for the decision. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion can stop without reaching a conclusion. What I'm trying to suggest is that administrators should be encouraged to ensure a conclusion is reached, and not just close a discussion with unresolved issues by counting heads. I didn't want to go into too much detail, but I didn't mean just leaving such situations open indefinitely, but actively trying to move them forward - for example when there are unanswered questions, by trying to get answers to them, either from the people they're addressed to, or from others. Maybe an extra sentence would help explain that. Rd232 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are to accept that rule, though, there would have to be a time limit. At some point it makes sense to acknowledge that there is simply no consensus for something and/or that people aren't interested enough to comment/work towards a consensus. There shouldn't be any long-term deletion requests - it's just unprofessional. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word rule; this is guidance on what is expected of administrators, not rules requiring something. Administrative discretion and judgement is expected. Perhaps you're right though that some guidance on time limits is needed. There could be a two-step time limit combined with some way of bringing extra attention to these particularly difficult DRs. Something like: if there's no conclusion in 1 month, list the DR for extra attention (in a manner to be agreed), and give it a further month. If it's still not resolved then, default to keep if it's a scope issue, and default to delete if it's a copyright/permission/licensing issue. Allow exceptions at administrator discretion if there is a specific reason to give more time. Of course, this is going into different territory than I had in mind, by creating new guidelines, but maybe that's necessary. Rd232 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is just the question: "Which way should a DR where is no consensus/ not enough copyright knowledge should be decided?" And I am sure there is no general answer to this question. Should possibly unfree files being kept? Should we delete those files that are, additionally probably highly used? That's why I would not favorize a "time-limit". Those conroversal DRs should be on a more prominent place, maybe — in order to get more people engaging in discussion. -- RE rillke questions? 12:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, we could just have a time limit for making the DR more prominent, say 1 month, and then leave it open-ended. How can we get DRs that need it more attention? (How many of these old DRs are typically open?) Rd232 (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pieter will be shocked to hear that I agree with him. Personally, I think the first sentence is way too vague, open to abuse, and is frankly a solution in search of a problem. In discussions where there is an unresolved issue and it is being meaningfully pursued (someone is chasing down OTRS, someone has volunteered to make inquiries with a source, etc. etc.), discussions are almost always left open. I just find the first sentence to be an unnecessary level of instruction creep. I have always seen admins use common sense when closing such discussions. Automatic arbitrary time extentions seem pointless - strikes me as simply a vehicle to allow copyvios to linger unnecessarily, or properly licensed/public domain images to remain in purgatory. If there are discussions that would benefit from wider participation, perhaps we should have a noticeboard of some kind that would allow either people to solicit more input. If a DR gets listed, then perhaps there is an automatic 7 day extension before it is closed, although these discussions typically last as long as they need to (a mandatory month is just silly). But there should be some sort of proactive step before anything gets triggered (either a participant who would like further input or a closing admin who sees that the issue is not fully resolved). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence is redundant. The instructions already say: "The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. " /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no problem repeating it, but others may see that as unnecessary. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of the redundancy; I see the first mention as more directed at participants, the second specifically at admins to emphasise that closure is not by headcount but by substance. Rd232 (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Normally I'd say that making it harder for admins to decide issues is a bad idea. But after reading the de-sysop discussion elsewhere maybe you have a point. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ideas to help reduce OTRS backlogs

The proposal above, Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#OTRS_member_permissions, on extending key admin rights to OTRS volunteers (the ability to view and possibly even undelete deleted material) has failed due to WMF opposition on legal grounds. I suggest we should discuss some alternatives to help reduce OTRS backlogs, particularly in relation to OTRS volunteers not having admin rights.

Here are some ideas to kick off discussion:

1. Encourage all active Commons admins to consider applying for OTRS.
2. Reach out to other Wikimedia projects to ask admins there who are active in licensing/copyright to consider (a) applying for OTRS and (b) becoming active on Commons and (c) applying for adminship here. Practically, this would probably begin with drafting a user message template here, and then translating it.
3. Create a streamlined "Expedited RFA" process for (current!) admins on other Wikimedia projects who are OTRS volunteers. Make it clear in COM:ADMIN that such users don't need to have a deep involvement with Commons in order to gain adminship, since OTRS membership ought to confirm relevant competence (in exchange, they agree to only use admin powers in relation to OTRS tickets, unless they pass a normal RFA). Loss of adminship on their main project would result in immediate loss of Commons adminship. Possibly require candidates for this to have globally "clean" records (no active or recent bans or long-term blocks), and loss of a "clean" record whilst admin would result in immediate loss of Commons adminship.
4. Alternatively, formalise idea 3. by creating a "limited admin" group specifically for such users (admins on other Wikimedia projects who are OTRS volunteers), with just viewdelete, browsehistory and undelete, and the understanding that these only be used in relation to OTRS tickets.
5. Create a system to easily identify OTRS tickets which need admin rights to handle, so that admins can focus on these. [This might already exist, I don't know; but reading between the lines, I think not.]

Both 3. and 4. would have to be run past WMF legal, but I think have a fair chance of success. Comments? Other ideas? Rd232 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd strongly oppose granting indiscriminate, blanket privileges to wikipedia administrators. First, let the immortals stay on their mountain - no need to import their Olympian shoot-first mentality here. Second, many have quite lax views on copyright - and it shows in their uploads. Third, many are kids - why entrust copyright matters to twelve-year-olds? Finally, RFA process here is mostly a formality - no public humiliation, no flogging, drawing and quartering - that is, it's not broken. NVO (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. However I'm not sure from your comment whether you've taken into account the double filtering involved in that suggestion, admins on other Wikimedia projects who are OTRS volunteers. Also I would like comments on other suggestions, or suggestions of your own. Thanks! Rd232 (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with OTRS functioning outside of commons - but I suspect that fully certified OTRS reviewers there are very scarce - their job is primarily here, not on wikipedia. For example, there are 11 OTRS agents on Russian wikipedia: 4 are commons sysops already, 4 are sysops there but not here, 3 are not sysops there, neither here (I left out one OTRS agent with limited functionality). Not much of a choice. NVO (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Well in that example, aren't there 4 candidates for limited Commons adminship? I'd be happy with that per project; indeed, considering the usefulness of language diversity, I'd be happy with a couple of dozen candidates from across Wikimedia projects. Rd232 (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose 3 and 4 - indeed, the RFA process does not seem to be broken, and I am not sure I want to see a Ru.wikiversity admin, who was banned in ru.wikipedia for disruptive behavior and stalking, to be an admin here without an RFA - whatever limited his authority would be. For 1, 2, and 5, I do not see any immediate problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK... I'm not sure if such a person would be given OTRS access(?) but I've clarified the suggestion that a currently "clean" global record could be a requirement. As to RFA not being broken - that may be true, but I'm sure there are competent OTRS-active admins on other projects who wouldn't consider full Commons adminship, for various reasons, but would go for a limited Commons adminship to facilitate their OTRS handling. Rd232 (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• As an OTRS agent, I have dealt with requests that relate to no project and several projects. I don't see myself as a Commons agent or Wikipedia agent. The agent needs enough good judgement to only lock tickets they have the skills to address competently, whether they are an admin in any particular project is not as important as language skills or understanding of policies and copyright. It's pretty easy to ask an independent project admin for assistance with a ticket when needed. Having more OTRS volunteers with good communication skills is far more important than having a mop of a certain colour. TBH, some admins of great experience would make for dreadful agents. --Fæ (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  Those are fair points, but Commons adminship is relevant because it enables OTRS agents to look at Commons deleted material, and to restore it if necessary. This was discussed more in the original section. Remember, these proposals do not at all affect who gets OTRS access, which is covered by OTRS admins' screening process, which explicitly says "Must not have a history of biting newcomers",, among other things (m:OTRS/info-en recruiting). Bottom line, we should encourage OTRS agents to get access to relevant tools, and that includes Commons adminship. In addition, we should try to encourage more people who are suitable for OTRS to volunteer, especially if they already have undergone the screening involved in getting sysop rights on a Wikimedia project (as m:OTRS/info-en recruiting mentions). Rd232 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  With regard to sysop rights, it is often overlooked that this is not a requirement for OTRS volunteers. I was not an admin anywhere when I started helping with OTRS. There may be an rationale that OTRS is a great proving ground for good admins. --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  Fine, but I already said Bottom line, we should encourage OTRS agents to get access to relevant tools, and that includes Commons adminship. Granted, we shouldn't overlook the agents that don't yet have any sysop rights, but I was thinking of the lower-hanging fruit of agents who do (lower-hanging because there's more evidence of trust - not just OTRS, but OTRS+sysop). But there's no reason not to consider both cases. So where does that leave us in terms of practical action? Rd232 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'll go ahead and contribute as someone who is a enwiki admin, but not here. There are a substantial number of tickets that I can't directly/conveniently help out with because of the lack of tools. (Disclaimer: I haven't done a whole lot with OTRS recently, I've been quite busy). The level of participation/etc requested/required in a commons admin seems very broad to me, and I'm not really sure what would need to be done to get it. Although the default inclusion of tools to OTRS agents is opening a huuuge can of worms, I do not see a problem with taking OTRS into account with an RfA. (admittedly, I would be affected) Just as administrators on other projects in enwiki can gain tools if they have a clear purpose, but do not meet the "requirements" NativeForeigner 토론 (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons standard icon set

Irony: a multilingual image repository which doesn't use icons to support its user interface.

Proposal: develop a standard, high-quality icon set which can be used across Commons to support communication across our multilingual userbase (and also look more modern and friendlier).

Details: the MediaWiki interface is largely text-based, and that's probably difficult to change, both in technical terms and in terms of getting community consensus. I'm envisaging use of the standard icon set primarily in templates, and possibly by gadgets. It should be possible to use CSS to create a gadget which gives users the option to hide all icons. It's worth considering whether the set could fit into Commons:Project Nuvola 2.0+. Addendum: The development of this set should probably take place via a WikiProject, say Commons:WikiProject Standard Icon Set.

Some existing icon use:

• Protected file:
• ,
• - autopatrolled icon; - patroller icon; - rollbacker icon; - checkuser icon
• See also COM:ICON and User:Rocket000/Useful icon gallery

Some examples of icon ideas:

• Files under discussion:
• Icons for the 3 types of deletion process: speedy (i.e. more or less immediate), ordinary by discussion, and "deletion tagging" (delete if tagged for 7 days)
• File move:
• Help Desk icon
• Gallery icon
• Category icon
• Video/Audio/Image icons

Rd232 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• I would like to banish the term "file move". Of course MW calls it move but changing the title is actually only renaming. Therefore I suggest an icon like or or maybe combined with an image in the background. -- RE rillke questions? 12:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Renaming" makes a lot more sense for the average user, yes, so maybe we should try and phase "file move" out. On the other hand, the same is true of "moving" articles and galleries - that should just be "renaming", really, and we should be consistent with the terms. "Moving" is very well established in MediaWiki and Wikimedia websites and it won't be easy or quick to change. It should also be a separate thread, please! We can always change the icon later if/when the term is changed. Rd232 (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Irony continued... Discussing icons without discussing the purpose and placement of these icons? Example: you propose a "Files under discussion" icon . What does it mean? Where should it appear: template on file description page, template on file talk page, on Special:ListFiles, or even Special:Contributions etc. - ?? NVO (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  </irony> As you can see from the previous line, the proposed Nuvola-style symbols don't scale down well. So it makes sense to declare scope first: either it's about small icons, fitting standard text line (like  Support), or larger icons to fit boilerplate boxes. NVO (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  ? Inline templates like {{Support}} use 15px voting symbols. Most other uses of icons are in the 36px to 50px range, with some of the SVG ones occasionally scaled up more as decorative images. So what? Either (a) there is no overlap between inline use and other use, and scaling is irrelevant (b) there is some overlap, and some icons that don't scale down well might have to be modified for smaller sizes, either to produce one simpler version or a simpler version for the small size. I think A is largely the case because we don't want an overproliferation of icons in textual discussion, but it doesn't need to be worked out until we get down to actual per-icon detailed discussion, which should not be here, because it'll take far too much space; it should probably be a WikiProject. Basically, I don't know where you see a real problem. Also, your phrase "the proposed Nuvola-style symbols" is technically wrong; I'm not proposing any specific icon style, only that a standard set be established, possibly being redesigned from the ground up. That might go with Nuvola style or it might not; though in the absence of any resistance to it, I'd lean to Nuvola. COM:ICON (work in progress) attempts to collect current use of icons. Rd232 (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  I've added a reference above to Commons:WikiProject Standard Icon Set; I hope that makes things slightly clearer. Rd232 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)