Commons talk:Bureaucrats/Proposed

Admin stuff

Why is the "How do I become an administrator?" section included here? Rocket000 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

'cos I'm still working on the page. I'll post on the main talk page when it's finished. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

OK, ready for comments now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Small tweak: [1] ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat's position in the community

I don't particularly like the words, I've used here, but I think it is clearer to think of it that way (and therefore it's clearer to explain it that way). I think the structure could perhaps use a tweak (its a bit cumbersome to read) as I wasn't in a good prose-writing mood or something :P  — Mike.lifeguard 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks fine. I have attempted a small tweak to the wording. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think this aspect should be here - it is important. The technical issue is important but what is behind it should be as much the issue. Good work thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa

Looks like a pretty substantial expansion of the Bureaucrat's role slipped in without much discussion. Leaders in community discussions generally? I don't think so. People who already are trusted and respected become bureaucrats, but that extra toggle on one's tools serves a specific purpose. It doesn't make a bureaucrat's opinion inherently better than anyone else's. Removing that passage pending additional discussion. Durova (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what the paragraph underneath the one you removed says. Btw, this should be discussed on Commons talk:Bureaucrats. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)