On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Pete: there's not really any point in making this
thread a laundry list of
times that admins and crats on commons fucked up vs times they didn't fuck
up.
As I said (at Fae's suggestion), there's no reason to clutter the list. If
you want to dig into this, I'd suggest setting up a wiki page (or a
discussion at, say, the Commons Village Pump). And the reason I suggested
it is, as I said, to generate some actual examples, so that we can move
away from the sweeping generalizations you have been repeatedly making in
this discussion thread.
Admins and crats on commons have also historically
made a large number of
decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly.
David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not make this
assertion more true merely by repeating it. Examples, please -- or else
please drop it.
A project where people with advanced userrights fairly
regularly make decisions that fly in the face of WMF
board resolutions and
are not censured by their peers is a project with problems.
And then you repeat it again, within the same message. Again, without
substantiation.
I guess you could argue
that the resolution only says that the board
"supports" the POLA rather
than requires it,
Indeed: the Board apparently recognized that the POLA as they defined it
does not create black-and-white scenarios, and rather than requiring
anybody (besides the ED) to do anything specific, concluded with a general
request that the community take it into account. That is a strong argument
against your position, not a weak one. It clearly demonstrates that there
is no rebellion against this resolution, for the very simple reason that
*the resolution (wisely) contains no specific mandate against which to
rebel.*
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:14 AM, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 May 2014 05:04, Kevin Gorman
<kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No, Russavia: I'm not suggesting that
Commons' policies should mirror
those
> of ENWP. I'm suggesting that Commons should have a process in place
that
> ensures that it follows the clearly
established resolutions of the WMF
> board, which I would remind you *do* trump local policy. This
particular
incident
failed to do so, and it's not the first time that such a thing
has
occurred on Commons.
See, there you're asserting that this is a slam-dunk violation, and
it's really clear just from this thread that it really isn't. Your
personal feelings are not the determinant of Wikimedia comment, and
won't become so through repetition.
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>