Pierre, if you could point out to where exactly I've insulted a volunteer I don't know, it would be appreciated. As someone who has been significantly active in meta-discussions about Commons, and at times significantly active on Commons, and who has monitored all traffic on all Wikimedia mailing lists (or at least 95% of it) for the last three years as well as a significant portion of traffic on individual projects, I'm also going to have to disagree with the idea that I know nothing about Commons :) Having looked back over my posts here, the closest I see is implicitly suggesting that Russavia might be snarky, and suggesting that people with advanced privileges on Commons, as a whole, have frequently exercised less than ideal judgement, as well as an incidental use of a profanity on my part (when interacting in multiple contexts at once, I don't always context switch appropriately.) The first two things which could be conceived as insults (I suppose) are first and foremost true, and secondarily I'm sure that Russavia can deal having it suggested that he might, sometimes, be kind of snarky.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-selim@huard.infowrote:
How about you shut your mouth and stop insulting volunteer from other projects that you just don't know. Really that would spare a lot of time to everyone here on this mailing list.
2014-05-13 21:39 GMT+02:00 Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com:
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. There are plenty of historical decisions on Commons that I agree wholeheartedly with. There have even been cases where I advanced
arguments
in deletion nominations that I honestly didn't expect to be accepted that were, including one instance where someone who initially voted keep took the time to go ahead and read the laws of the country the photograph was taken in w/r/t identifiable people and changed his vote. Instances like that are absolutely commendable, but they're also far from universal. 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.
Commons doesn't speak with a unified voice, but people with advanced userrights on Commons do speak with a louder voice than the rest of the community, in that they have the ostensible authority to actually carry
out
their actions. 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.
David: I haven't seen anyone assert that the image in question isn't a violation of the principle of least astonishment. I've seen several
people
suggest the image was acceptable for other reasons. If you can
articulate
a reasonable (i.e., not full of snark and one that indicates you've read
at
least most of the ongoing discussion) argument that putting the image in question on Commons frontpage (and the frontpage of numerous other
projects
in the process,) is not a violation of the principle of least
astonishment,
I'd love to hear it. Especially if you craft your argument to recognize the fact that the image was both displayed on projects that didn't speak any of the languages it was captioned in, and given that most Wikimedia viewers can't actually play our video formats. I guess you could argue that the resolution only says that the board "supports" the POLA rather than requires it, but that's a rather weak argument for putting a grainy black and white stack of dead corpses linking to a video many can't play that's only captioned in a handful of langauges on the frontpage of a project that serves projects in 287 different languages.
Kevin Gorman
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:14 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
On 13 May 2014 05:04, Kevin Gorman kgorman@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Pierre-Selim _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe