Commons talk:Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship)

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

Transferred

[edit]
How ironic. This is coming from a user who does not how to sign his comments, cannot spell proper English, lacks a clear understanding of pd-art rules [1] (see talk page) or the correct usage of painting templates for... well, paintings[2]. Gryffindor (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC) tr. from the project page, see w:en:Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Herrick (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To my kind of view - I've studied history of art at the University of Cologne as part of my M.A. degree - there's a obviously lack on science backround on your site: in the history of art this kind of painting frame concens to the art because it shows his dimension in spite of the fact that this frames are "Kunsthandwerk" [artcraft] (and so your argument of three-dimensional "art" has lost it's dramatic line - you'll get problems by using some renaissance images). As an author and editor of scientific publications I know that most of the publishing houses dislike the unprofessional brute cutting of such artificial frames - and the unrealistic use (colour etc.) of Photoshop possibilities used by your maygarian friend was horrible and punishment for the eyes which can take a real look at the Stadtmuseum Düsseldorf. And please stop your own contra-productive, unscientific and unprofessional renaming-project. It's only your missguided interpretation of simple common standards and you don't understand the point: An image frame is craft (Handwerk) no art. Your violation of image history is an unacceptable missuse of your sysop rights. My conclusions - and the of other users - were the result of professional work with pictures. --Herrick (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the amount of canvassing that has gone on here

[edit]

Due to the amount of canvassing that has gone on here, and the lack of reasoning for many votes, this will obviously be a tough one for bcrats to close. Would it be sensible to ask people to elaborate on reasoning to make bcrats' job easier? A look at each voter's history, here and on de.wiki would be a good idea too. How do you turn this on (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, also this has been canvassed on other projects like de.wiki --Kanonkas(talk) 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I echo these concerns by How do you turn this on (talk · contribs) and Kanonkas (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of interest:

  • Note at German Featured Image page: [3] ("gekidnappt" - ach so!)
  • Notes to individual users: Sir Gawain, Wuselig (perhaps even off site) and Cecil.
  • Coordination of block voting [4]
  • Possible us vs. them mentality - "Anglos" [5]

MfG, Эlcobbola talk 22:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil is a bureaucrat just to note. How do you turn this on (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me being a bureaucrat should not be important for making up opinions in this case (actually it should in no case, just to be more exact). I already had problems with Gryffindor long before I was elected to those extra rights and had asked Herrick to inform me about the start of this request so that I'm able to support it. After all Gryffindor has not only one not accepted decisions of other admins but reverted them several times to follow his own agenda. -- Cecil (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see these contribs. --Kanonkas(talk) 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your problem. Of course one needs to take action together. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is the votestacking. In short, "While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Commons users". --Kanonkas(talk) 22:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To help ensure that a balanced sample of commons users is represented, it might be wise to put a neutrally-worded notice on the village pump notifying people of this discussion. TimVickers (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was there, and it was removed at least twice, for reasons that I do not understand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an interested but unaffiliated party I have added a short and as neutral as possible signpost from VP. If it is removed then the only conclusion that can be made is that the admins consider that this forum and such debates to be their own private playground, which they desire to keep us riff-raff from. KTo288 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Эlcobbola for this collection. I didn't know these links. Why didn't Herrick inform me? Because he thought that my support is not needed?  :-(. But I gave him some hours ago the advice to link this site on every wikipedia which is involved in Gryffindor's manipulations. I guess they are 300 or so. But perhaps he thought this is too much for the servers. I don't know. Mutter Erde (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing 'crat/'crats & with sympathy

[edit]

I confess I have not read this in detail. However I am quite sure that this is not the intelligent way to treat this issue/problem.

There are obviously things that need careful consideration here & the tone/speed (& obvious canvassing) of the voting suggests anything other than careful consideration. I think that this might be seen as something that should be stopped, placed on hold & a real discussion take place rather than this. The outcome might still be the same but there should be real discussion before such action. I realise that others will not see the world as I do. --Herby talk thyme 09:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want a real discussion - but G. often ignores the hints of other users on his discussion page. And to claim it's canvassing it's simple propaganda of remarkable newbies like User:How do you turn this on without reading the facts. --Herrick (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Kanonkas and Cirt (and Herbythyme) - and many other users. We're able to make up our own minds. We think it's canvassing - you don't. We disagree - that's life. How do you turn this on (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a different of quality between Herbythymes arguments and your polemic concealment technique. --Herrick (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Polemic concealment technique"??? That's an amazingly non helpful way to word things. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this proof! Ceterum censeo: G. has to be  Removed --Herrick (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the main page of this I see that, sadly, Commons has changed beyond all recognition to me. This is not a proper process for dispute resolution and much of the approach shown is based on attitudes alien to Commons. I'll reflect on my work here I think - this is not the atmosphere I wish to work in or be involved with. --Herby talk thyme 12:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Herby, consider this when reflecting: vocal minority. There are many pleasant and motivated people here on commons which - at least to me - make it fun to work here. --Dschwen (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Dschwens summary ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dschwen as well. Most users here are friendly and collegial. Don't let the actions of a few spoil your view of things here. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing process

[edit]

As a note, there will certainly need to be a 'crat chat about this when it comes time to close... it will not be closed on the say so of just one 'crat. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pages have been set up but discussion is not yet underway... see
These pages will help us have a constructive evaluation of the results of this de-adminship request. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Decision by the Community has to accepted by every Bureaucrat. Bureaucrats are not in a high Position, they only Janitors like Admins with some more Functions. If you really belive, Bureaucrats can decide, if they wan't to accept Community-Decisions, wo must think about you're Bureaucrat-Status. The Result will be clear. It's a new election. If Gryffindor have 75%  Support-votes, he kept his Buttons. If not - he loose. It's totally simple. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Marcus, we just need some time to count votes, check if any account is a "single purpose account", check if all signatures correspond to the actual users, etc. It's a long complex page, and we need to check these things. Cheers, Patrícia msg 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus: The duty of the 'crats is to determine the consensus of the community. NOT to make the decision themselves, but to determine the consensus of the community. Your evaluation is not necessarily an accurate reflection of that consensus. Maybe it is and maybe it is not, we shall see, once we start evaluating. We have used this process several times now, and we will again in future if it is necessary to do so. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

[edit]

Is it possible if people could have a look at this and comment on the case? Thanks, --Kanonkas(talk) 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least people should take a look at this worthwhile approach. It seems to appeal to some of the thoughtful members of this community. --Herby talk thyme 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or is something going completly wrong here. This suggestions to forbid Gryffindor to do something, to work in a special topic, to limit his rights just by writing down a few rules and allow everybody else to act against him (ok, actually those people who were already watching him are not allowed to do anything since they are already involved in the dispute), undermine everything an admin should be. This is a flimsy compromise just to let him keep his admin-rights but forbid him to use them fully in the areas he is mostly active. And by the way, you ignore half the problem here by limiting it to the renaming. -- Cecil (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed something is going totally wrong here, but already from the beginning (and even before that [6],[7]). Anyone who dares to voice a slightly different opinion as the supporters of this de-admin request is blamed either
And it comes back the same way by degrading each argument as canvassing. But that way it is so much easier. Ignore the arguments, everything is canvassing, work on as if there is nothing at all wrong with this project. And there is a lot wrong with this project, where admins decide deletion requests where they participated in the discussion (naturally the closing-result is the same as their opinion during the discussion), where admins fend of deletion requests for their own uploads by closing them and so on. A normal user alone stands no chance against it so if a group of them comes together and decides to at least try to break through the god-like-behaviour of a few people here it is called canvassing because they speak the same language. I finally understand why so many German users don't want to use Commons anymore. If you don't speak english then you are not part of the majority. And what happens with minorities is shown in hundreds of examples throughout history. -- Cecil (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil, if you disagree, why don't you post your view at User:Kanonkas/Dispute_resolution/Gryffindor's_renaming? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My view is already posted on this page, why should I duplicate it on something that either is an excuse to keep Gryffindors rights and appease his critics or something to silently acknowledge that there is a problem with him but not wanting to admit it. -- Cecil (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems some user(s) concider this attempt at dispute resolution "a little privat poll of some admins"[10] that must be avvoided - which really isn't a helpful approach at all, at least not if we're here to find a solution to a problem. Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me an unnecessary fragmentation of this discussion, which makes it much harder for interested editors to follow the various arguments. It is also unclear to me how that discussion fits into established structure within Commons, in other words: what legitimacy does it carry? Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It carries no specific legitimacy, as it is not part of our process. It is the effort of one user to introduce a more calm and reasoned approach to resolving the dispute here. That's admirable, even if unofficial. If it works, if folk reach a consensus about how to proceed, then perhaps there will be no need for a deadminship, and those calling for it may well choose to withdraw the request. If on the other hand, it does not, prior to the close of this deadminship, then the deadminship will be decided on by the 'crats. So, even if this page of Kanonkas's has no "legitimacy" it is nevertheless worth trying to use, to see if a calmer, more collegial, less adversarial solution can be found. ++Lar: t/c 04:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Lar said. If a user wishes to start an independent dispute resolution process to solve the problem in a different fashion, he is allowed to do so. It will not in any way dampen or diminish the legitimacy of the arguments made on the de-adminship page. Patrícia msg 10:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the supporters who sorted their case at a different place to subbmit it completly here it is a good idea to sort out dispute resolutions beforehand if there should be need to have such. Since beeing an "insider" (who actually qualifies as "outsider"?) I am not invited there, I want to put down my opinion here.

I believed from personal experience and from observing Gryffindor's behaviour in the matter discussed here, that a dispute resolution with him could not be reached anymore and that he had crossed a threshold that would kick ordinary users out of the project and that - he beeing an administrator -should mean that he should at least be stripped of the privileges he has missused.

What I miss from the dispute resolutions so far is, that Gryffindor would not be involved in the cleaning up effort neccesitated by his actions. So

  1. I don't think any administrator should get away with missusing the privileges granted to him by the community for his own sefish purposes. (Just believing that any deeds are for the greater bennefit of all, can't be enough, especially when beeing told they are not). This would indeed strengthen the believe with certain users that we do indeed have an Adminpedia, where different rules apply to a distinquished class of users who make the rules in some rarely visited backrooms. And
  2. I believe that letting Gryffindor of with some kind of reprimand or even temporary stripping of rights, without having to make an effort in repairing the damages inflicted by him will also be a bad signal to the community. It would signal that certain people can get by with breaking the rules and the cleaning up has do be done by the stupid masses. --Wuselig (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Wuselig: What do you mean by "Since beeing an "insider" (who actually qualifies as "outsider"?) I am not invited there"? Not invited to comment on this page?? In my understanding the whole point of a dispute resolution process is that everyone is allowed to comment and discuss. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as Finn said above everybody is invited to comment/discuss the issues on that page. --Kanonkas(talk) 10:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outside views has me confused. Perhaps you should clarify. --Wuselig (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wuselig, "outside" only means "not personally involved in the dispute" (i.e. there are usually two parties in a dispute, and this section is meant to solicit third-party opinions from uninvolved editors); it doesn't relate to one's project participation. It's merely a semantics issue and I would agree that the verbiage is not entirely apt for scenarios such as this. Indeed, everyone is welcome to comment there. Эlcobbola talk 13:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the Supporters I am personally involved. But that doesn't matter. I have said what I wanted to say here.--Wuselig (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Requests_and_votes/Gryffindor_(de-adminship)&oldid=51772382"