[Foundation-l] Adminship tools on Commons

Darko Bulatovic mail at itam.ws
Sat Apr 14 22:44:57 UTC 2007

jkelly at fas.harvard.edu wrote:
>   I think that it is worth pointing out that, in general, Commons is reasonably
> open to granting adminship to users and that many Commons users are especially
> aware of Commons' need for dedicated admins fluent in languages that are not as
> well represented as they should be.
>   That said, this needs to be balanced against the very same point that you
> brought up; because of Commons' nature as a multi-project resource, a deletion
> on Commons can impact dozens of projects, for instance.  Projects without local
> uploads are, in effect, relying on the Commons community to make smart choices
> about who can delete their images.  I think that Commons in general does do a
> good job of balancing these concerns, and I'll note that we get more complaints
> along the lines of "some admin did something that impacted our project" than we
> get "this dedicated Commons user didn't get adminship even though our community
> supported it".
>   Incidentally, I think that the Commons bureaucrats made a reasonable decision
> in the case being discussed.
It is quite obvious regarding "sysop" I think that is not problem and 
that it is just side effect, but Yoni will make clear this and what are 
his intentions. As always the obvious is not problem. Many project are 
dependable on Commons as probably Hebrew wikipedia is. So maybe little 
better communication is necessary to make interoperability better.

I really doubt that one respected admin on Hebrew wikipedia, for whom 
many other admins from same community put word, is here to vandalize 
Commons. But as I sad, here is really missed the focus and that is 
 >reason< for asking the admin tools.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list