User talk:Winged Blades of Godric

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Winged Blades of Godric!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9[edit]

Hi, I initially presumed you were making comments as part of the Working Group. My apologies if I have implied this anywhere without knowing for certain. Thanks -- (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@: - No qualms, at all:-) WMF is likely going for some global imposition of (IMO, downright crazy) rules under strategies and all that. This was discussed over en:Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#"The_classic_notion_of_an_encyclopaedia_and_'universal_knowledge'_needs_to_be_discarded". and en:Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#"...tensions_might_emerge...", wherein some pointed out that Commons will near-certainly reject these proposals and that they have a real chance of forking out, if the licensing changes are indeed employed. So, I decided to aware you (plural) of the recommendations, since it is quite unwise to expect WMF doing the same. Regards, Winged Blades Godric 10:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They will be taking feedback untill Sep. 15 or so I am told. I am not very acquainted with how RFCs run over here but it will be optimum to end it, by that time and post the consensus at Meta. Winged Blades Godric 10:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively the proposal acts as a community RfC. However if the WG wishes to try to ignore it, we can run a global RfC on meta, which would be super hard for anyone to ignore when it comes to implementation. At the end of the day, administrators can simply delete material which is against formal consensus, regardless of what a WMF employee wants to state is a Commons "policy". It would be a jolly interesting future for our projects if the WMF want to start protecting media from administrators who are simply applying verifiable and possibly repeated and retested consensus. -- (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation[edit]

Per this, it doesn't look like you have access to the permission queue. This is what would add you to the OTRS global group (compare [1] and [2] ctrl-f "global group"), which is the relevant group the the software looks for when tagging edits like this with "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member". It should more accurately say "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS permission member" because it doesn't take into account access to local queues like info-en. GMGtalk 14:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]