Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 34;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 0 - 100% Result. Successful. 99of9 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odder

Vote

Odder (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been getting increasingly clear over the past few months that Commons is, once again, rather low on active bureaucrats. Given that only about half of our current bureaucrats are active right now, I figured out it would be nice to have some fresh blood and have decided to seek community approval to join the team.

I have been active on Commons since late 2005; I became an administrator in August 2006, and an oversighter in May 2012. I also have access to the permissions queues on OTRS, and have been added to the translationadmin user group after the Translate extension was enabled here (incidentally, I authored that patch). Outside of Commons, I'm a general Bugzilla lurker (some people might know me as this guy who fixed your configuration bug), and a proud Tech News contributor.

I believe that my involvement with Bugzilla and the experience I've gotten there make me able to cope with the role of a bureaucrat; while I have never held that role on a Wikimedia content wiki, I'm familiar with the interface and the buttons, as I have bureaucrat access on the Beta cluster and have played with the tools quite extensively on my own private MediaWiki instances.

I find the role of a bureaucrat to be predominantly a technical one; if elected, I intend to follow community consensus and relevant policies as closely as possible. As a bureaucrat, I would probably be mostly involved with adding users to various user groups—this is something I do quite often right now—but I'll also do my best to help with the backlog in bot requests and username changes (though this is a function that is supposed to be removed from bureaucrats in near future once SUL is finalized).

I'm looking forward to hearing and answering your questions (if any). Thanks, odder (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Did't get what you mean by your "edit summary"? Jee 05:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, me neither! I just intended to add "s" (short for "support") but I think my browser must have auto-filled the rest from a previous comment. Sorry for the confusion! -Pete F (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Here's a topical question for you. What is your approach to re-sysop requests? How would you proceed in the following two situations (Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental):
  1. A longstanding, active and trusted admin, having resigned her sysop permissions two months ago on the grounds that life was temporarily too busy (not under "clouds"), now privately requests that her sysop bit be restored.
  2. A longstanding, but never very active admin, trusted as far as you can tell, resigned her sysop permissions three years ago on the grounds that life was temporarily too busy (not under "clouds"), and has not edited since, now publicly requests that her sysop bit be restored.

--99of9 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @99of9, thanks for the question.
In the first case, I would ask that they publish their request on the bureaucrats' noticeboard for the sake of transparency, clarity and archiving; if no controversies (such as a sudden appearance of the "clouds" you mentioned) were to occur in 24 hours, I would restore their sysop access.
In the second case, if the user has not made any edits or log actions at all during that three–year period, I personally would not restore their access, but instead would ask them to edit for a while, say a month or two at least, and then apply for access through an RfA. Three years is a very long time in terms of wikis; many things might have changed (and generally do change) in such a period, and it usually takes some getting used to how stuff (including the interface) works.
With that said, I think it should, in the end, be up to the wider community to decide how such situations should be resolved; we have a pretty workable de–adminship policy, and I can't see why we can't have similar arrangements for re-sysopping (or, if not a policy, then at least a guideline or a universally accepted written procedure). odder (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --99of9 (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rschen7754! Commons is my home wiki, and it's a project I spend most of my free time on. (Though I have to admit I recently properly fell in love with Wikidata and tried to create/improve a railway map for Wielkopolska.)
Except for the regular admin duties, I'm currently mostly active in my oversighter role; while I have access to OTRS, I'm not as active as many other agents, because, frankly, I can't get used to the new interface. Elected or not, I definitely won't become the most active Commons administrator all of a sudden (it would be really hard to beat Fastily in that matter anyway), but I believe I can help in a fair share of bureaucrat responsibilities, and take some pressure off of the shoulders of our active 'crats. odder (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the technical rights, "leading" is a key component in the Bureaucrat role. Does this mean that a bureaucrat should never be controversial or potentially seen by others as disruptive; further, are there examples of anything you have done in the past that you would not do while wearing a shiny 'crat hat? --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fæ, thanks for the questions.
The definition of controversy is, I believe, too wide for any kind of functionary (or even a regular user) to avoid them; as this is something that occurs on any collaborative project on a regular basis, the most important part is not simply avoiding the existence of controversies (as virtually any action can be understood as controversial), but the way in which one deals with them, and learns from them.
A similar situation exists with regards to potential disruption; of course, the devil is in the detail, so every situation should be judged on a case–by–case basis, especially given that wikis are, by design, supposed to be written communication, and misunderstandings are bound to happen, be it due to unclear writing, grammar, or just the fact that someone is not a native speaker of a particular language (in our case, English).
I've been active in the Wikimedia world for far too long not to be part of any controversy. There are many things I regret and which I wouldn't have done or would have done differently had I been granted the gift of foreknowledge; even if I hadn't put my candidacy forward, I would still regret them (and I do). As I cannot (yet) influence the past, all I can do is to live with it, learn from my mistakes, and move on; and I try to do that to the limits of my abilities. odder (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize your answer to my question; no and no. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Odder: Glad to see you said that you regret and willing to learn from your past mistakes. Hope you will refrain from comments like this; especially calling your colleagues, "you fools". Jee 12:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as a 'crat, do you support my freedom to identify myself as gay, in the same way as a female contributor would be supported to feel free to identify herself as a woman in our on-wiki discussions? --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: I believe that everyone has the right to identify themselves however they please. However, as I think I wrote publicly at least once (or twice), I see no reason why anyone would mention their age, gender, race, sexual orientation or any other demographical characteristic (for lack of a better word…) in discussions that have nothing to do with it.
You have repeatedly mentioned the fact that you are gay in many such discussions, and many people before me have confronted you about it; many (or at least some) find it unnecessary and believe that you are somehow using this to suggest that people treat you the way they do solely because of your sexual orientation, and not on the basis of what you actually say. I have already told you this is not true, and I stand by my comment. odder (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to draw you back to my question, rather than a discussion about your beliefs, do you or do you not support my freedom to identify myself as gay in exactly the same way as women contributors are free to identify themselves as women in discussions—which women are free to do "in discussions that have nothing to do with" them being women? From what you have written here so far, it appears that you do not support LGBT self identification in the same way as you support (male/female) gender self identification. --Fæ (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do support your right to identify as gay in any place you deem suitable, just as I support anyone's right to identify as they please wherever they want. This doesn't change the fact that, as I said, in many discussions, such self–identification is often pointless, unnecessary and irrelevant. As for your last sentence, I haven't said anything of the sort; indeed, I specifically included gender identification in my first answer to your question. odder (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully as a 'crat you will pay attention to the distinction that when I say "speaking as a gay man" or "from my gay perspective" in discussion, then repeated assertions that identifying myself as gay is 'oppressing' or 'harassing' others, does create an oppressive environment for all LGBT contributors. Please appreciate that being gay fundamentally informs my cultural and ethical values, making it a relevant part of discussions that touch on those values. It is unfortunate that in your answers here you support my right to identification, but at the same time you criticise me for actually doing so. As Nemo highlights with the linked examples, on this project women have a similar hostile experience. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: You are being dishonest. I urge you to have a look at the discussion where I brought this up; I never (not to mention repeatedly, and not even on this page) said that your identifying as gay is oppressing or harassing anyone. Also, please do take note of the difference between having a right to do something, and actually exercising that right. You have the right to identify as gay, but you don't have to mention your sexual orientation in every single discussion. That's a distinction of vital importance. odder (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"repeatedly" did not refer to you but, to the behaviour I repeatedly find in discussions from a small minority of contributors when I mention that I am gay; please do not call me dishonest, I would not expect a bureaucrat to call anyone a liar without unequivocal evidence. If you support my right to identify as gay, then if I add "gay Wikimedian" in my signature, you will support my self identification. To say I have a "right" but have no privilege to apply it, is no right whatsoever.
I suggest you sit back and reflect on this, it is a topic that as a bureaucrat you may well have to handle sensitively, and be looked to provide guidance for within the scope and policies of this project. Frankly, if you do not understand issues of gender identity or how to best support freedom of expression for LGBT topics, it may be better to just say so, and offer to avoid these areas should you become a bureaucrat. --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Fæ not banned yet? Seriously, how much longer must this trolling and harassment continue (*diffs can be supplied). It is impossible to have an honest discussion over an issue of disagreement with Fæ. That is essential for membership of this community. It really is time we look past his "biggest contributor this month" boasts and recognise the poison here. Admins, have you no guts? -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, please take your grudge to the appropriate place. Thank you. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tuválkin, if we say nothing when editors behave dishonestly and are silent when editors are forced to defend themselves from insinuations such as this, then we are complicit. If you think my assessment of Fæ's comments are inaccurate and merely a "grudge" then please take that to the appropriate place. Otherwise, please don't try to downplay my serious allegations as a personal tiff. Thank you -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you actually find a discussion where editors self-identify as "male" or "female" or "heterosexual" in the manner in which you remind us all of your status? -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Delete. Please delete. I am a woman from a working class background. [This one discussed a lot on gendergap list too.] I am a woman. I have to work twice as hard to even be heard here. And neither of them was banned on any project from working on content related to the personal status in question. Of course it's boring to hear such complaints, including Fæ's, as the complaints from all the blocked users who believe to be victims of conspiracies, cabals and the New World Order; however I think it's fair to let them do so if they wish to be boring. :) --Nemo 12:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't ask you, Nemo, and those don't count because the person was involved in a discussion where female POV was felt relevant (though in the first link you gave, the person was actually criticised for mentioning their gender). It is natural when the discussion involves it. And it is natural for everyday conversion to mention things which give a clue to one's status (i.e., one has a wife/child/partner). Fae isn't being boring but is playing games and it isn't fair at all. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say he's playing games and then you complain I answered your question as if this was a quiz with you as anchorman and Fæ as participant? I answer all the questions I wish, especially as my point is that you can just use Special:Search if you're really interested in the answer. I'm eager to see the results of your research on Meta or the village pump. --Nemo 18:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is not an "answer" to the question so is not helpful. -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What game are you playing Fæ? I would expect any admin or 'crat to be supportive of all good-faith contributors who wish to disclose or identify their sexuality or religion or other aspects of themselves, and to be particularly sensitive wrt minority groups that may be subject to intolerance or persecution. But this sensitivity should not be abused, and any editor making repeated unfounded and frankly ridiculous allegations of bias (*diffs can be supplied) should be admonished and ultimately shown the door. Am I making myself clear Fæ. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you are often quite critical of the WMF. What is your opinion of the role that WMF resolutions play in respect to Commons policy? --99of9 (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @99of9: I don't make a secret of the fact that I'm often critical of the Foundation, but I try to voice my criticism where criticism is due. It's not like the Foundation are all ugly ogres, and it would be inconsiderate to think that they are; indeed, my personal experience of meeting and cooperating with WMF employees or contractors—be it through Bugzilla+Gerrit, Tech News or fundraising translation—shows that they are nice, friendly and passionate people — but sometimes they do things that are hard to understand from a community perspective, and I think we shouldn't hide our opinions and feelings when this happens (how else can you improve if you don't know what you're doing wrong?).
  • As for the second (or actual) part of your question, I'm not sure what is the exact legal weight of Board of Trustees resolutions when it comes to on–wiki matters (for example, are they at the same level as policies and terms of use?); but even if one puts the legal deliberations aside, Board resolutions are always worth taking into consideration; in the end, the Board of Trustees has significant authority as the supreme body of the Foundation which owns this site. odder (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "I find the role of a bureaucrat to be predominantly a technical one; if elected, I intend to follow community consensus and relevant policies as closely as possible. As a bureaucrat, I would probably be mostly involved with adding users to various user groups". This seems to imply your job would involve actions that are a mere technicality rather than difficult. The 'crat role is one given to those the community trust and respect above the level even for adminship. And our policies are imo a bit skeletal thus requiring common sense and personal wisdom. Difficult decisions will be needed at times and the role may bring you into conflict with other users, admins, 'crats and the WMF. While you have done a lot of "stuff" and are very active, those aren't necessarily good indicators that you are the right person. Can you elaborate on why you think you are a good choice? Perhaps give examples of difficult decisions you think were wise, or where you handled conflict well. Can you name something (not just volume of activity or fixing a bug) you have done on Commons that makes you proud. Other than just providing another pair of hands, how would your appointment improve Commons? -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for the question, @Colin. Apart from the technical insight I've gathered as a Bugzilla lurker, I think I might do well as a bureaucrat also thanks to the experience I gained as an oversighter. While I cannot get into details, being bound by the privacy policy, I think it is safe to say that being an oversighter is a constant battle between protecting people's privacy and well–being and making sure that we stay true to our values of accountability, openness and transparency. While none of the activities I have in mind are publicly visible, I have learnt a great deal; I'm grateful for getting the chance to do so and hope that my service as an oversighter is of value to the community.
  • I went through some of my past contributions, and I can't remember any particularly dreadful conflicts. I'm no saint, and there have been some minor to moderate glitches, misjudgements and misunderstandings; I try to learn from them and move on. As for some tough decisions I had to make, I can only remember two off of the top of my head: in May 2012, I was part of the group that closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg (NSFW), and in January 2013, I closed Commons:Deletion requests/Template:SejmCopyright, against significant opposition from the community.
  • As for the things I'm proud of, there are about a dozen of them, but I'll just mention a few. First and foremost, I'm glad to have been involved with Wiki Loves Monuments; I'm also proud to have convinced a friend to release over 300 hundred pictures of Polish comedians and cabaret artist (that was before the current era of requiring OTRS permissions). More recently, I'm proud to have created over 150 (200?) logos for Wikipedia, Wiktionary and other projects; it had been a massive step towards the future of having all our logos in SVG, and it was further improved by many logos created by Google Code-in students under my supervision this past December. I'm also glad of having started suppression statistics as a step towards better accountability and transparency, and of having written the yet-undiscovered Oversighter's Handbook. odder (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the replies. This helps me get a much better idea of you as a person than just your recent contribs, which can appear as so much noise. The SejmCopyright discussion looks like a tough call and you appear to have put much thought into it. The toothbrush image is of course very controversial and decisions on controversial images are IMO more of judgement-call requiring wisdom than a mechanical application of policy. I think in that case, a reasonable person might have closed it either way with justification. Our deletion forum encourages an adversarial attitude that polarises controversial debate. One example of that IMO is use of COM:SCOPE as binary setting rather than a spectrum of educational value that provides weight to an argument but isn't a trump card in itself. Another is the wikilawyering that if policy doesn't require it then it must not be done or if policy doesn't forbid it then it may be done. These two examples are found where people seek to dismiss other viewpoints on a technicality rather than to accept their validity (even if one disagrees with them). It is interesting that our Commons:Deletion requests page mentions "consensus" but the Commons:Deletion policy does not.
  • Do you believe that policy and the law may require us to delete images, but we are not required to host any image. Or do you believe that provided an image is even marginally in SCOPE, is freely and legally licensed for use, then we are required to host it?
  • You job may be to close debates that were less than useful. What do you think could be done to improve the quality of debate on Commons and to encourage consensus-forming? I realise this is a tough question but I'd hope a 'crat would be seeking to improve the system rather than just work within it.
Colin (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I am aware, there are certain requirements in the United States federal law that make it illegal to knowingly reproduce and present some specific materials, so we are (or, at least, the Wikimedia Foundation is), indeed, required to permanently remove such materials. Aside from legal requirements, there are some other reasons—such as moral ones—based on which we can (and maybe should) delete some files: I, for one, have made at least a few dozen courtesy deletions where it was perfectly legal for us to host a file, and I know that other admins perform such actions, too: perhaps they don't occur as often as some people would wish, but they are definitely not unheard of.
  • As for the other part of that question, SCOPE is a tricky beast, and people's understanding of its limits varies greatly. I don't believe that we have any responsibility to host every single freely licensed file that just might be, at some point in future, in the scope of Commons; that policy clearly says that the files have to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, with the word realistically being the clue and the seed of all misunderstandings.
  • With regard to your second question, I believe that a good way to encourage consensus-forming is to make it easier for people to participate in discussions; obviously at least some understanding of English will always be necessary to communicate here, but the introduction and adoption of the Translate extension are good first steps to involve people who haven't been previously able to join such discussions.
  • One particular thing that I believe I have grasped quite well thanks to my involvement with Wiki Loves Monuments is that it is often easier and effectively better (and faster) to take many small steps instead of huge leaps, whatever you do. In the past, we have often, as a community, taken on huge policy reforms and updates, and quite often failed miserably. Perhaps it could help us improve our consensus–making ability and have focused discussions to make use of this tactic, even if it might appear to take longer at first: start small, take one step at a time, and summarize and simplify as much as possible. odder (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you blindly promoting CC 4.0 and other free concepts through your off wiki activities. It is good, and "free culture" is the heart of this project. But we (yes; media contributors are also part of this community) are facing many concerns and this is one among them. I would like to hear how you involve in such discussions and help the community to solve their problems? Jee 13:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jkadavoor: I can't remember having anything to do with Creative Commons licences version 4.0, except perhaps sharing (re-tweeting) some tweets announcing their release and adoption here on Commons, so I don't think I'm blindly promoting it. As for your question: I only followed a short part of that discussion after it started, but I agree that its outcome is quite unfortunate; a significant number of people have released their pictures under a free licence with the knowledge that they release only a lower quality (resolution) version of it, and this is an issue we'll have to solve in near future. Seeing as this particular issue is so complicated as to involve Creative Commons lawyers, I think that the role of bureaucrats—other than their feedback as regular community members–is very limited; if need be, they can, perhaps, help to encourage community involvement, summarize the findings, and contact external entities.
  • I notice that you've taken some part of that role in that discussion, and I applaud your efforts. That discussion as a whole is a beautiful example of our users' competence, involvement and passion, and I hope it will be resolved in the best way possible (ie. without the need to delete hundreds of thousands of pictures, including the Bundesarchiv donation). odder (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were three recent high profile community discussions on certain images that go to the core of major divides within the community, namely: Pricasso, Streisand, and Santorum. You were absent in each discussion except to make one comment regarding a concern about the group who stood up to close the Pricasso case describing them as a Ginger Group. Do you think your absence from these controversial and divisive discussions represent community leadership? Similarly, there was another divisive debate recently regarding the loss of community support for a bureaucrat for his lack of leadership and displaying poor judgment. Your only comment in that entire debate was to "keep" thus demonstrating continued support for this user having the same tools and mandate as you are now seeking. Should we construe from this lack of participation in critical matters for the community that you are actually seeking just the tools and would rather avoid the leadership mandate? Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Odder: An excellent question. I don't want to caught you on your previous actions, including the very recent ones, as you already said that you are willing to learn from your mistakes. I noticed that your involvement in discussions on VP are rare; but glad to see you are trying to active nowadays. The concern expressed by Trijnstel above is also very important; so expecting a positive reply. :) Jee 05:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the questions, @Saffron Blaze; I'll respond to them in a couple of hours. odder (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze: That's a lot of questions in one go, so I'll try to answer them one by one; please feel free to ask for clarification if I'm not precise enough.
Although I followed the Pricasso discussion for a few days, I did not participate in it for two reasons: (1) I have no opinion on whether the image should be kept or deleted (but I believe that, given the involvement from so many community members, we deserve a closure of more than two sentences) and (2) I disliked the atmosphere of it; I found it to be too personal and decided not to get involved.
The Streisand and Santorum discussions were pretty much done deals when I looked at them for the second time; I would've voted to keep the Streisand picture, but I don't have any opinion on the Santorum files. On one hand, they are political satire and represent an issue that received huge coverage in U.S. media, but on the other, they can reasonably be understood to be attack pieces or art created by non-notable artist(s). I would be fine with either outcome, and I can live with the files being kept.
As for the ginger group phrase, I first understood it to be a neutral synonym for initiative group; it was only a comment from Colin a few days later that made me realize that it's not exactly what that phrase means and that it has a negative connotation to it. It might have been unfortunate, but it wasn't my intention to hurt anyone by using that phrase.
With regard to russavia… We certainly disagree on some matters—especially on whether all Polandball cartoons are in scope for Commons—but I've been working with him for too long, especially in suppression-related matters, not to appreciate his efforts as a bureaucrat. I agree with the opinion that that controversy might not have been russavia's finest hour on Commons, but it would've been unfair for me personally to look at his involvement only through the prism of that situation, and that's why I decided not to elaborate on my !vote there. I know that people disagree with my decision, and that's just fine.
As for your last question: if elected, I will not avoid taking responsibility or leadership, but I would hate it if my opinions were given greater weight than other people's solely because of my role as a bureaucrat — especially in discussions where people's opinions should weigh the same and be given the same amount of consideration. In short, I believe in leadership limited in scope and in circumstances. It might be an ancient and too democratic understanding of the role of a bureaucrat, but that's how I see it. odder (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; and glad to see Trijnstel changed her vote. :) Jee 16:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response odder. I do have one follow up. In the Pricasso closure debate you asked the question "...why didn't we let the bureaucrats close this discussion? How do you reconcile this with your statement above where you see the bureaucrat's leadership role should be limited in scope? Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze: I don't see how these two statements clash. I made a suggestion that the bureaucrats might be a good choice, as a group, to close that discussion — and the community at large decided to follow a different path. That's a perfect example that we can, and sometimes do, limit the role of bureaucrats. odder (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@odder: Not sure how my question led you to believe I was interested in how we as a community limit the scope of bureaucrat involvement in community decisions. I was trying to ascertain why you thought the bureaucrats were in a better position to close that debate than the group of admins. Asking the question as you did makes it rather explicit you think the bureaucrats are a better choice to close controversial debates. I assumed your opinion was based on the bureaucrat's position of trust and mandate for taking a leadership role in the community. This then would contrast with your statement that the bureaucrat's leadership role should be limited in scope. Regardless, I think you have offered some insight into how you would react to important community debates and decisions. Thanks. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: I'm no expert when it comes to pictures of identifiable people; I don't think I've ever uploaded such a picture on my own (though I have moved a few from Flickr or other external sources); I'm more of an SVG contributor. I haven't seen those discussions before you linked them here; as far as I see, these are issues worth discussing, and I liked your idea to improve {{Consent}} better than the suggestion to delete it. Perhaps it might be worth advertising those discussions in the village pump and other places so that people who are interested and knowledgeable in those matters could have their say? odder (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; and it seems 99of9 is more involved in it than other crats. Hope he will take care of it. Jee 12:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder&oldid=115693725"