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(a)huard.info>wrote;wrote:
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(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(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>
--
Pierre-Selim
_______________________________________________
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>