Commons:Requests for comment/Separation of powers

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment (Note that I am now a Checkuser and have just been nominated for Bureaucrat, so I might be affected if this proposal were to be adopted.) Although the roles are very different, they share a need for a team approach, with frequent consultation among the team members. Over time, the team builds trust. If we assume that each of the roles needs five to ten members to be able to react rapidly 24/7 to serve our global community, then if this proposal were to be adopted we would need fifteen to thirty people who enjoy the trust of the community and each other. I'm not at all sure I can name fifteen active Commons Admins who fit that requirement -- I know that I can't name thirty.
Also, remember that separation of powers evolved so that tyranny could be held in check -- first the tyranny of the monarch and then the tyranny of the majority. Nothing on Commons is conducive to tyranny. Anything that a Checkuser, Oversighter, or Bureaucrat does is subject to review and reversal, in all cases by colleagues with the same powers and in many cases by the entire community. Individuals abusing any of these permissions will be brought up short very rapidly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)