Taking the liberty of assigning to fabrice for response.

To be clear, per the closing comment on the rfc: "...Of course individual users can still enable the tool in their preferences if they wish to do so.", the request is to flip the value in $wgDefaultUserOptions, not disable the extension entirely.

Thanks for filing this bug.

We would like to hold off on any actions related this RfC until the WMF has had a chance to discuss the community's wishes.

Most of our team is now on its way to London for Wikimania, so the earliest we can get together to meet about this RfC will be Tuesday.

We will follow up with a response within the next few days.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

What need to be discussed? Please respect the community wishes. The WMF only exists because of the community. Commons was builded by the Community and therefore the community has the rights to decide.

Please do this change today or i need to put some js hack in common.js.

I have zero tolerance is the Content Provider "Wikimedia Fondation" is ignoring consensus & policys.

The rfc has been pending for more than a month now. Surely waiting a couple days (probably 1-2 days at the most. Wikimania starts on wed) so that telavent people are no longer on a plane and can actually take the time to read the rfc fully, isnt going to kill anyone.

(In reply to Steinsplitter from comment #4)

What need to be discussed? Please respect the community wishes. The WMF only
exists because of the community. Commons was builded by the Community and
therefore the community has the rights to decide.

Please do this change today or i need to put some js hack in common.js.

I have zero tolerance is the Content Provider "Wikimedia Fondation" is
ignoring consensus & policys.

As MZMcBride pointed out in reply to comment 3 above, this argument has already happened on the English Wikipedia. You should really see 67826#c4 where Erik, on behalf of the Foundation, made the decision.

As apparent by the recent comments on the issue

(In reply to Ryan (Rjd0060) from comment #6)

(In reply to Steinsplitter from comment #4)

What need to be discussed? Please respect the community wishes. The WMF only
exists because of the community. Commons was builded by the Community and
therefore the community has the rights to decide.

Please do this change today or i need to put some js hack in common.js.

I have zero tolerance is the Content Provider "Wikimedia Fondation" is
ignoring consensus & policys.

As MZMcBride pointed out in reply to comment 3 above, this argument has
already happened on the English Wikipedia. You should really see 67826#c4
where Erik, on behalf of the Foundation, made the decision.

As apparent by the recent comments on the issue

(apologies for cut message)

As apparent by the recent comments on the issue the Foundation is making the final decision on this issue. I don't see why anybody would expect a different result on Commons than what was achieved on the English Wikipedia.

(In reply to Ryan (Rjd0060) from comment #)

(In reply to Ryan (Rjd0060) from comment #6)

(In reply to Steinsplitter from comment #4)

What need to be discussed? Please respect the community wishes. The WMF only
exists because of the community. Commons was builded by the Community and
therefore the community has the rights to decide.

Please do this change today or i need to put some js hack in common.js.

I have zero tolerance is the Content Provider "Wikimedia Fondation" is
ignoring consensus & policys.

As MZMcBride pointed out in reply to comment 3 above, this argument has
already happened on the English Wikipedia. You should really see 67826#c4
where Erik, on behalf of the Foundation, made the decision.

As apparent by the recent comments on the issue

(apologies for cut message)

As apparent by the recent comments on the issue the Foundation is making the
final decision on this issue. I don't see why anybody would expect a
different result on Commons than what was achieved on the English Wikipedia.

Different project different circumstances? How about we wait for the official response.

Commons is a special place. It is not a encyclopedie like wikipedia. Commons is a bit unusable with this tools. We have Community consensus and i ask you to respect community consensus. Commons was builded by users and not the WMF (I really like the WMF, but sometimes they are making some errors and i really like Erik - he is doing a great Job and i am so happy that he works for the WMF. And i am not here to troll)

Again and again: Please respect community (at least for logged in users) decision - at lest on commons. Commons is a media file repository and this tool make it a bit unusable.

• And i am not here to troll or PUSH my POV. I am here to help the Commons community. It is important that somone looks at this thinks and take care of it. :)

Thanks for the request and the note, Steinsplitter. As per Fabrice's earlier comment, please give us a couple of days to get back to you.

Please refrain from site JS hacks. Any such hack would almost certainly cause unintended consequences inconsistent even with the RFC itself. In addition, as with any configuration change request, WMF reserves the right to apply its own judgment and make a final call regarding configuration of software on WMF sites.

(In reply to Erik Moeller from comment #11)

In addition, as with any configuration change request, WMF reserves the right
to apply its own judgment and make a final call regarding configuration of
software on WMF sites.

I think this is an unhealthy oversimplification that is probably best avoided.

anonbackupaccnt wrote:

Under the present system the WMF Board is essentially elected by the editors, not some vague group of readers. Therefore the editors ultimately hold all authority. Whether this is desirable morally or not is a different question, but in practical terms the editors are the electorate. Should they wish to terminate an employee or implement a policy, and be sufficiently strong and unified in that determination, all they would need to do is elect a new board that will have new priorities and take such actions at the next elections. It really is that simple. I would be willing to wager a fair amount of money that this situation will be included in questions asked of next year's board candidates.

(In reply to Erik Moeller from comment #11)

Thanks for the request and the note, Steinsplitter. As per Fabrice's earlier
comment, please give us a couple of days to get back to you.

Please refrain from site JS hacks. Any such hack would almost certainly
cause unintended consequences inconsistent even with the RFC itself.

I can change the JS without asking the WMF if the community agree. The WMF is a content provider and should respect community consensus. The WMF exists _only_ because of the community.

(I have notified the Board of Trustees via Mail)

I have posted a response to the Wikimedia Commons RFC, here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer_software_feature#Response_to_the_Media_Viewer_RfC_on_Wikimedia_Commons

Consistent with my response, we will not disable Media Viewer for all users on Wikimedia Commons, but we will disable it for logged in users there, given its unique function as a media repository with a strong emphasis on curation tasks.

We will implement this configuration change in coming days. Please note that users who had previously enabled Media Viewer as a beta feature will need to re-enable it as a user preference.

We hope that this solution can address the unique requirements of editors on Wikimedia Commons, while continuing to provide readers with a tool that improves their viewing experience.

Fabrice Florin, on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation

in coming days

https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments#Week_of_August_4th

No we won't.

Maybe next week, but I'm not sure if enough people will be back in the rotation for that to make sense - a bunch of people are taking vacations, etc.

Fabrice Florin: Why you ignore community consensus?

NO COMMENT. WMF has lost trust. There is *consensus*

WMF is ONLY a CONTENT PROVIDER and not WIKIGOOD.........

See Fabrice's comment above. Closing this as "resolved" "invalid".

Steinsplitter; you did not read what Fabrice said fully. He said the Foundation will disable it by default for logged in users only. You ignored that part and accused him of out rightly rejecting the whole idea when he agreed to a compromise. Claiming he has overridden consensus is hypocritical as you as an ambassador to the community by marking this bug as invalid; have just rejected his compromise which does partially agree with consensus while your rejection makes it look like the Foundation failed to compromise or agree.

Either I suggest you agree to the compromise by Fabrice or avoid making accusation that he has rejected the idea.

I read Fabrices comment - please avoid making wrong accusations. And plese stop twisting my words.

I have closed this bug to avoid moor drama...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer_software_feature&curid=34170406&diff=130986946&oldid=130983802

(In reply to Steinsplitter from comment #20)

I read Fabrices comment - please avoid making wrong accusations. And plese
stop twisting my words.

I have closed this bug to avoid moor drama...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:
Requests_for_comment/
Media_Viewer_software_feature&curid=34170406&diff=130986946&oldid=130983802

Umm, you re-opened it.

Reclosing WONTFIX (As a reminder: bug resolutions should reflect status of what is going to happen, not what particular groups want to happen).

Reclosing WONTFIX (As a reminder: bug resolutions should reflect status of
what is going to happen, not what particular groups want to happen).

Just to be clear, I put that status because the solution chosen is literally not identical to what was asked for in comment 0. Its not meant as any value judgement on the solution chosen, or anything like that.

As Fabrice noted, we think this is a reasonable, rational outcome, so we'll proceed to implement it, unless there are major new concerns about this approach specifically. We can track this in a separate bug, for sure.

Commons really is different from e.g. the Wikipedia use case, and we hope this solution takes this difference into account while still providing a consistent experience for readers who view galleries on Commons.

Filed bug 69363 about disabling for logged-in users.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition&curid=3185782&diff=131341161&oldid=130142739

FIXED LOCALLY.

Hacked locally. Still needs to be fixed correctly per Erik. Please use the other bug.