Commons:Oversighters/Requests/PierreSelim

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 52;  Oppose = 1;  Neutral = 0 - 98% Result. Successful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request was added on meta, though still on hold as PierreSelim hasn't identified himself yet. Trijnsteltalk 13:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Matanya changed user rights for PierreSelim@commonswiki from OTRS-member, sysop to OTRS-member, sysop, oversight with the following comment: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=5729244#User_PierreSelim.40commons --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PierreSelim

Vote

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

Note: Scheduled to end no earlier than 10:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi community,
I've been meaning to nominate someone for oversighter for quite a long time, and decided it's finally the moment to do so. As the youngest oversighter on this project, I've been handling 80% of all suppressions for more than a year now; recent events—in which I urgently needed a second opinion from a fellow oversighter—made me fully realize that we're in quite a pressing need of a second active user with those privileges, to answer or discuss the occasional e–mail or IRC request.

This said, I'd like to present to you PierreSelim, who is not only one of the most active administrators on Commons right now, but also an experienced photographer (with over 250 highlighted files) and OTRS agent. I believe that his activity on Commons to date, including his involvement in Wiki Loves Monuments, and his other Wikimedia endeavours (that I'll leave for him to mention, should he feel like doing so) make him a good candidate for this position.

Some of you might be aware that as oversighters, we perform just a handful of actions each month (see our statistics). However, the nature of those actions, which are often delicate and involve people's private information or content that might be deemed illegal make it vital that we respond to requests in a prompt and decisive manner; the said delicacy makes it also important to be able to get a second opinion in a matter of hours if not minutes.

I believe that PierreSelim's level of activity will help expand our responsiveness and that his experience as an administrator will provide valuable feedback and insight into the sometimes complicated issues we deal with. I'm sure that he will be a valuable asset for the whole oversight team; I also believe that he is a quick learner and will make proper use of the Oversighter's Handbook which I created for this exact purpose a couple of weeks ago :-) odder (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: PierreSelim has accepted this nomination. odder (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.  Support, of course! I find Pierre's one of the trustworthiest colleagues here, so why not also an OS? --A.Savin 10:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support. Full confidence in the candidate. Though, as an admin I rather rarely need to request OS, as Commons' admins also can "hide" content, though not in the OS-level. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support JKadavoor Jee 11:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose comprehensively untrustworthy. My late grandmother could throw PierreSelim farther than I'd trust him. Penyulap ☏ 11:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended discussion about this statement moved to the comments section under #Discussion of Penyulap's statement. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Of course. Pierre-Selim is definitely someone to be trusted even with the most sensitive tools ; and I am sure he will not take less awesome photographs after. :-) Full support. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support of course! Full support.--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support I may be a newer member here (at least activity wise) but have never seen Pierre do anything that would make me doubt his competence, endorsement by other trusted members of the community only bolsters my opinion. Good luck. Liamdavies (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support. Reliable and considerate person. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support Comprehensively trustworthy, and my impression from a couple of meetings in real life with P-S is that he would respect the expectations for confidentiality that contributors and the general public rely on our oversighters for. Considering events over the last year, I believe he is the sort of mature chap that would find ways of side-stepping strong-arm tactics of "authorities" to the benefit of Commons scope and policy; should this ever occur. --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support Good nomination. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support Of course, a good choice! Silve de Pikkendorff 17:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support Why not? -FASTILY 20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support (per Penyulap above) -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support Experienced and trusted nominee. INeverCry (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support — Active and trusted. -- Rillke(q?) 07:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support Avenue (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support Taivo (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support --Krd 09:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support Per others, especially Jean-Fred.--Jebulon (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support I haven't any reason against... why not? --Alan (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support, strong candidate, -- Cirt (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support - Tiptoety talk 06:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support Go Pierre ! Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 19:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support. Érico Wouters msg 02:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support. Trustworthy user. Sémhur (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  Support --Natuur12 (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Of course[reply]
  31.  Support late to the party, but absolutely. russavia (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32.  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33.  Support He has my vote.--Jockzain (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34.  Support Utilisateur de confiance, et très bon photographe. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35.  Support indeed. --Aga (d) 18:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  Support Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37.  Support. --Ecce Ralgis (háblame) 02:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38.  Support. Ayack (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  39.  Support - Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40.  Support--Veronidae (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41.  Support Rzuwig► 19:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42.  Support Ralf Roleček 10:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43.  Support --Pelz (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44.  Support Probably should have happened a while ago. A trustworthy and passionate Commonist. Sarah (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45.  Support Answers were overall satisfactory :) --Isderion (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46.  Support Answers are good answers. No problems here. Razorflame 19:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47.  Support Ezarateesteban 23:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48.  Support and fully. Seems a very good addition to the oversighter team. (How could I miss this?) Trijnsteltalk 10:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49.  Support Totodu74 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50.  Support of course yes :) --vip (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51.  Support Ок! Ivanaivanova
  52.  Support Sure. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53.  Support I was initially glad to see that you had a 100% support rate. In any case, happy to support you. Killiondude (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I would be interested to hear from PierreSelim how much of a burden he believes being an oversighter will be (more than 2 hours a week? I have no idea :-)), and whether this means he will cut down on some other valuable ways that he regularly supports Commons. --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, he is one of our great photographers. It would be a pity if this gets stuck in favour of dealing with oversight-issues. -- Rillke(q?) 11:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks both of you for your kind comments. I do understand your concerns however I do think I have spare time for tasks such as oversighting. According to the activity on Commons:Oversighters/Statistics I don't think it will take me more than 2 hours of my time per week. As Odder mentionned it, I believe it is important to have more than one OS active in order to have the possibility for a second opinion on urgent matter (and also in order to let Odder take some days off). Do not hesitate to ask if you want more clarification. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like that PierreSelim speaks more than one language because I think it's important that also the non-English speakers have a person to contact and also that that person can deal with cases that are not in English (but in French in this case). Google Translate can be helpful, but doesn't always do the job. What I am missing here however, is a statement from the candidate why he thinks he is the right person for the job. PierreSelim, please discuss your approach to personally indentifiable information removal, including some examples of things you'd remove and things you'd not. As an Oversighter has access to private information, the number of oversighters should be kept low. How many Oversighters do you think are appropriate on Commons? --Isderion (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a current oversighter, I consider this a very interesting question, thanks for asking it, Isderion. I'd really like to see how PierreSelim responds to it :-) odder (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, the question is very interesting. I will detail my answer this evening (CEST). --PierreSelim (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the Global Oversight Policy I'm seeing mostly 2 cases:
        1. Publication of non-public information. A simple example, I have willingly published my identity, however I do not have published my phone number. If somonelse was in the same situation I would not OS simple plublication of his name, however I would OS the publication of his phone number. Also a courtesy for people who published personal information in EXIF data, unblurred ID pictures, etc.
        2. Blatant libelous information
      • The global policy list other cases such as copyright violation, however I think the one that needs to be suppress are suppress with office actions. In limit cases, I'll ask for help form more experienced OS (and from WMF staff when needed) Do not hesitate if you need more clarification. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi PierreSelim, thanks for answering this question. I would like you to expand on the second point of your answer:
  1. The global oversight policy uses a wider definition of potentially libellous information. How would you define this? Can you mention some examples?
  2. Would attack user names and offensive edit summaries (which are mentioned in point 4 of the policy) be included in your definition?
  3. How do you find the potential requirement of acting upon an advice of the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation in case of such information? Would you be willing to respond to such a request, or would you prefer it to be handled by the Foundation through an office action? If so, why? What would, in your opinion, be the difference between the two?
  4. There is (still) an ongoing discussion, both in the European Union and in the US, about whether IP addresses can be considered publicly identifiable information. What is your opinion on the matter and how would this influence your decisions as an oversighter? In other words, would you be willing to suppress IP addresses of registered Commons users, and if so, why? If not, why? odder (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. By blatant libelous information I meant a clear case of potentialy libelous information (sorry my English is not always as good as I would like it to be). I can think of few discussions on the COM:AN/U with such information. It's not easy to build an example that won't be ridiculously obvious, I would think of trying to "call a user of being a thief without proof" would fit, or call somone a child molester without proof would fit this. For the last one we had a very good example of a limit case last year with Beta_M. I this is when I would ask for help of people more experienced in dealing that kind of stuff (other OS, the WMF liaisons or even the WMF legal team for such questions).
  2. It would. However, I'd rather focus on things that are directly harmful and sensitive for user (i.e. personnal informations, and libel)
  3. Acting upon advice of a WMF General Counsel is a bit weird, I mean office actions seems the simplest thing to do in those cases. I guess, it may have an interest if the advice was asked by a member of the OS team and the WMF gives a advice on how to deal with such case.
  4. And last question, on the IP address I consider it a personnal information (better safe than sorry).
PierreSelim (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow-up on your answer to the first question: if you have a look at the history of the Beta_M discussion, you'll notice that there hasn't been any admin or oversight interference, and no revisions have been rev-deleted or suppressed. Why do you think it would have been worth intervening in that case, and where would you draw the line between action and lack of it? odder (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First the page history is probably not accurate because the page was moved. Secondly, there was a lot of information and potentialy libeling information leaked during the discussion such as in this diff (where a name of a convict is associated to a user. However, with such context and sensitive matters I believe it would have been better dealt with if sent to WMF paid staff from start and dealt off-wiki by staff. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To odder: As your statement contains some criticism about the current Oversighters (not active enough; that's at least how I read it), did you try to contact them? For example Tiptoety or Raymond seem to be quite active (at least on IRC). --Isderion (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you clarify what exactly you're asking? As I wrote in my nomination, I tried reaching out to current oversighters about the recent case, without any luck. As far as this nomination is considered, I seeked the opinion of the whole oversight team before I started it and am sure that they can confirm that and perhaps take an active part in this vote.

      Just to make it clear, I'm not criticizing anyone because I'm aware how real life responsibilities can limit one's availability; I'm merely pointing out that we're in a need of (at least) another oversighter so as to extend our responsiveness and our capability to respond to even the most complicated of requests in a timely manner. odder (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you already answered both questions, no need for me clarify. Thanks! --Isderion (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Autonomy on the candidates part seems lacking. I think the entire premise of the request is rather flawed, do you want an audience to disseminate information about potential problems to, or someone who can basically take your advice rather than make their own decisions ? I think a rule of thumb such as 'when in doubt rub it out' may serve a lot better than finding a second person who doesn't know what to do, and then making a arbcomm mailing list leak waiting to happen. Penyulap ☏ 14:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, specifically with the ArbCom mailing list leak part. I think I described the reasons behind this nomination pretty clearly in my statement; if you don't understand something, please let me know and I can clarify. odder (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The leak is common knowledge, or google is your friend, either way it doesn't matter because the point I'm making, or the thrust of the question is this, why are you trying to create a forum, or find editors to chat to and give advice to. I'd just say find someone like INeverCry or someone who has some idea, rather than find someone who relies on you and your guidance, which is more towards the meatpuppet end of the scale than the "independent competent kind" of people we need for the job. It seems you're not looking for someone who can do the job, you're looking for someone to give 'advice' to about specific cases. I guess looking up hive-mind might help too. That is the sort of problem that was apparently the fuss over the arbcomm leak, that people who are supposed to (yeah right) be independent were more advising each other through a soon-to-be-leaked mailing list. You shouldn't be building a hive mind is what I'm saying, but correct me if I'm wrong. Penyulap ☏ 14:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Have you requested oversight action in the past? In what kind of situations? Do you use your admin right to hide revision information often? In what kind of situations? --99of9 (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your questions:
      1. No I have never requested an oversight in the past.
      2. Yes I use the hide revision from time to time (~10 times over a year) to hide personnal informations when I'm asked too (licence plates, names, unblurred ID, etc.). I believe, now, some of the information I have revdel would have been better dealt with OS.
    • PierreSelim (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep in mind that, at least in Germany, there is no legal basis for requesting blurring a licence plate in almost all of the cases. -- Rillke(q?) 07:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Probably drifting off topic and could be picked up elsewhere) I think this is more a question of respect for expectation of privacy rather than hard legal requirements. In the UK one might argue that both the Data Protection Act and the (potentially enforceable) expectations of privacy even in a public place, may apply to a database of licence plates with locations, but without directly linking these to legal identities, I doubt this would be a serious concern for photos on Commons, particularly for vintage cars where the number plate itself may be part of the character of the artefact rather than an issue of the identity of the current owner. If we have a guideline or prior consensus on this, perhaps PierreSelim could point to it to support his past revdels and future OS actions? --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I too would like to hear from PierreSelim regarding the specifics surrounding his decision to revdelete a license plate as (at least where I live) there is nearly no personal information publicly associated with a license plate. Tiptoety talk 17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Decisions to hide license plates are not based on a legal requirement, it is however a very common courtesy practice in France to protect the privacy (association of information that may help to identify you and locations). My decision were only based on users request. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I forgot to mention, that in Switzerland, it is possible to identify vehicle owners for nearly everyone by license plate, sorry. -- Rillke(q?) 11:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PierreSelim, thanks for your answers so far. I have few more questinons:

  1. Can you give examples when you would use the oversight-tools and when you would rather use the admin-tools (deleterevision). For example are you going to oversight licence plates issues? Would you think that this is a oversight-case. On which criterion would you base your decision?
  2. Do you think that the personal information must be true in order to be oversighted? If yes, how should it be proven? Or do you think that even claims about personal information should be oversighted? Or would deleterevision be sufficient?
  3. Do you think that gender is personal information? Would you oversight if I say that user xy is female?
  4. Would you only oversight on request or would you actively search for things to oversight or would you take requests but if you stumble among things that you think should be oversighted you would do it.
  5. (from above) As an Oversighter has access to private information, the number of oversighters should be kept low. How many Oversighters do you think are appropriate on Commons? --Isderion (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer tomorrow or on saturday, I've been on an unexpected business trip without a reliable internet connection. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's Monday (evening). odder (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The licence plate exemple is quite a good one, as in many country it's only courtesy to mask it, I'd rather use the admin tool for that, however for countries such as Switzerland I would use OS tools as it permits to identify people (per Rillke comment).
  2. No personal information do not have to be true, proving the pesonal information that you are going to mask is true would certainly require to leak other personal information to the OS team, which I prefer we keep it to the minimum required.
  3. Yes I think gender is a personal information. I would probably OS such leak.
  4. Probably more the second choice, request and things I stumble over.
  5. Very intersting question, I'd say that we need to keep a low number of people with such access however we also need to have few active OS in order to discuss sensitive matters and be able to second guess each other. So for me 4-5 active OS on the last quarter is an acceptable number.
--PierreSelim (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is an active OS? Should inactive OS step down, because they have access to private data but don't serve the community? --PigeonIP (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support for PierreSelim

I would like to register my unqualified support for PierreSelim, one of our finest contributors.

There was some confusion with his name and another contributor. Sorry for the mistake. Thanks, Turielo for the reminder. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion of Penyulap's statement

Oppose comprehensively untrustworthy. My late grandmother could throw PierreSelim farther than I'd trust him. Penyulap ☏ 11:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather serious statement. Could you expand upon your reasoning, preferably with diffs? Tiptoety talk 18:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't give 'em so he doesn't get 'em. People can search for themselves. Penyulap ☏ 10:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People are lazy and time is valuable --Isderion (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and my time is not ? If I felt there was anyone at all listening, or saw some sign of a cursory examination, I'd comment further. I don't see that. What I do see are some people quick to attack a lone vote, to create hostility toward minority opinion. Example, Tuvalkin's personal attack here. I've seen what I consider to be a rude public dressing down of Hindustanilanguage, one of the gentlest amongst us, by PierreSelim. That's without what I consider to be the despicable interactions I've had directed at me by PierreSelim, who I don't believe for one moment considers the AN noticeboards to be for anyone but an admin 'class' and correct me if I'm wrong, PierreSelim. But I won't hold my breath, what I see is a person incapable of using tools in a community oriented manner, because I see every sign that PierreSelim sees different 'classes of people' on commons. I don't agree that he'd use the tools in an unbiased or fair manner. I see the entire premise of the request is flawed, because oversight is supposed to be about privacy. Giving additional people, who shouldn't have access to the tools in the first place, access, for the sole purpose of creating an 'us and them' forum for said private information is contrary to the entire purpose of oversight. Penyulap ☏ 03:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at a request for promotion, I will base my vote on my experiences with a user, but only after I have seen what other community members have to say, because many minds are better and more experienced than one. One tragic pattern I've seen across Commons and Wikipedia: someone cries that their voice isn't heard before even trying to make a point, and then proceeds not to make that point under the guise that it wouldn't matter anyway. With all due respect, this is indicative of a few things:
  • It is always a sign of unwarranted self-importance. Namely, the dissenter expects everyone to be familiar with all the interactions that they are familiar with, or to spend hours digging them up, while (ironically) refusing to take just a few minutes to give an overview.
  • It is always a sign that the dissenter isn't being entirely truthful, because if his point didn't matter, then why type up more than a simple "oppose" vote?
  • It is usually a sign that the dissenter knows their point is a weak one which won't hold up under scrutiny (hence the red herring about how unfair the entire community is).
  • It usually takes the rather classless tactic of "let me insult the whole community," so that when people (justifiably) retort, the dissenter can play the role of martyr in his head, and maintain his sense of moral indignation.
If you're able to prove me wrong on these points, and come up with a valid reason why Pierre would make a poor oversighter (beyond "because I said so"), by all means do so, and I will reevaluate my support vote. But everything I've seen so far points to an excellent candidate. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Googling PierreSelim and Penyulap is sufficient to find whatever you like. Example. "We should delete COM:AN/U and let the community deal with this, really Pennyulap[sic] has made this noticeboard almost unusable as a tool for the administrators. If there is a problem with someone we should just open a RFC/U let the community decide and the admins will enforce the decision if needed. Really enought to see non-admin complaining on how we should use our noticeboard. --PierreSelim (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC) " (bold added)
No meaningful explanations or diffs given, just 'us and them' mentality between admins and non-admins.
  • "Unusable" according the the current worldwide consensus reflected in new editor retention on en.wiki is that en.wiki is 'unusable' and the foremost problem is the 'us and them' mentalities rather than a single coherent co-operative group.
  • The idea that we need more oversighters, not because of workload, but simply to discuss material rather than wiping it out, to form a mailing list so that it too can be leaked out, as was the arbcomm mailing list, is appalling, and the idea that we need to promote more 'us and them' is precisely what will destroy editor retention here as surely as it has done so on en.wiki.
  • The premise of the request is that they don't know what they're doing and need to discuss it amongst themselves. God help me, I may be a lone voice in the wilderness but the blind leading the blind may not be as good as a public discussion of what is required of oversighters and some role-play hypothetical examples if it's needed. Keeping ADDING superfluous oversighters in the vain hope of finding one who knows what they are doing is going to take a while. Penyulap ☏ 04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Oversighters/Requests/PierreSelim&oldid=102231031"