Commons:Disputes noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search


Shortcut: COM:DN

Discussion (index)
Important discussion pages
1, 2, 3

Topics: Catalonia, Kurdistan

This page is for any user to report and get assistance with disputes they are having here on Commons. Please feel free to leave a message to report and get assistance with a dispute. Please be sure to include relevant diffs. Remember to sign and date all contributions, using "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.

Contents


[edit] User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT removes “move” templates

On July, 27, I have added “move” templates to most categories of provinces of Belgium (in particular, because “province” is misspelled). User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT have removed these templates, arguing I had to discuss before putting the templates in the pages (see User talk:Juiced lemon#Category:Provinces of Belgium, in French), without further explanations:

Adding a “move” template is the standard procedure to request a move and open a discussion about it. So, I request the restoration of the templates. User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT didn't discuss in the talk pages of the concerned categories, and he is not allowed to order that the issue doesn't grant discussions with other Commons users. --Juiced lemon 11:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New removal of template by User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT :

--Juiced lemon 12:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

 Support for Jean-Pol GRANDMONT.
  • Adding move-templates to a category - as juicedlemon did - is fine.
  • Also adding an explanation on a take page would have been nicer, but it not necessary.
  • People could even live with an obvious premature move, as long it is not entirely controversial i think; even without prior discussion. People do assume good faith, and are open for obvious improvements.
However:
  • juicedlemon dit NOT just add a move template (which may make sense, or they may not, that's to be discussed). He also already created the new proposed target category; which are - until now - duplicate. So far so good... not such a problem.
  • However, then he went on to make the existing categories a subcategory of the target category. As in [5], [6],[7],

[8], [9], [10], [11] effectively hiding and unlinkg the existing category, which are still in use for now , away under their duplicate targets. This also messes things up badly. In the process, some contained information was silently removed as well. This is NOT the standard procedure anymore. This is exactly what the standard procedure wants to avoid.

Can you still follow what is happening ? I can't really follow the whole mess anymore....
juicedlemon DID make a mess of it, so I'm not surprised people want things back to their original state, and start from scratch. That way, we can look calmly what's wrong with the current situation, and what can be improved.
To give a simple example. Assume a wrong category:North america exists ("america" with small a). This is rather evident, but assume one uses the {move}-template procedure. Well, in that case, you put the {move} template; start a discussion on the talk page; and watch the outcome. You do NOT create category:North America, make category:North america a subcategory from category:North America, unlink the existing category, and leave it all in big mess. Now repeat the same thing for 10 other categories, and you get the point.
So, if people can't get informed first and do proposal without introduction of wrong trees: full support for people like JP Grandmont trying to keep clearly ordered.
Disclaimer: 99% chance, juicedlemon will reply below, claiming he's innocent, claiming we're not working in a community ("community" being synonymous for "juiced lemon", and claiming Jean-Pol GRANDMONT is such a bad guy, etc... Tell me if this prediction turns out wrong ;-)
By the way, Jean-Pol GRANDMONT is one of the most valuable contributors I know on Commons [12] . Great collection !
Regards --LimoWreck 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I put the “move” templates on July,27, so you had a week to say that there was a categorization problem. On August,2, you edited Category:Liège (Province of Belgium), but you didn't restore the previous categories. So, don't tell us that you have just discovered this problem!
Note also that I complain about the removal of the “move” templates, and nothing else (see also User talk:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT#Category:Provinces of Belgium).
When you create new subcategories, like Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Liège (province), it's more convenient to categorize it directly in the target category, assuming the move is non-controversial. If the move fails, the new subcategories will have to be renamed. --Juiced lemon 17:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to keep discussing on this subject. Personally, I have a couple of comments and a conclusion.
  • Jean-Pol has been on holiday or picture hunting for several days
  • A lot of Flemish people will rarely do significant changes on the Walloon side without prior agreement. If the case of the Walloon region was not so urgent (justifying reverts), I would never have voted for deletion before agreement with the Walloon side, even it that would mean a pretty much annoying asymmetric solution in Belgium. So don't be surprised if LimoWreck did not react on the Liège move.
And as a conclusion on this last, lets say Flemish, part of the discussion (We still hope that we will have a reaction from the Walloon side as they have the last word in their region):
  • I rarely have seen LimoWreck, after such a big anger, replying with such a long detailed explanation in such a calm way. Only the end needs still some fine tuning, but overall, not bad Limo
  • The answer of Juiced lemon was much less defensive or aggressive than what we anticipated. Not bad Juice lemon
--Foroa 23:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, after having taken a look around here, it would be a bit pointless of GRANDMONT, LimoWreck or Foroa to make a remark on Juiced lemon's talk page. He would revert (is there a 3RR on Commons?) to keep the wrong situtation, accuse people, not listen, and list them on these administrator pages without self reflection... So I agree with people trying to save something. I'm also afraid we migth loose people like GRANDMONT (with hundreths and hundreths of great pictures) by the actions of someone with 0 uploads. Is there something like fr:Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage/Arbitrage on Commons to resolve such structural problematic behaviours in a consequent way ? --83.134.142.103 16:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • @83.134.142.103. Now you are not assuming good faith. It appears in this discussion that Juiced lemon is trying a bit harder to be civil and while he may not have any uploads, he certainly does have alot of contibutions to the Commons. --Digon3 talk 16:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

When you look from Jean-Pol's position, he is 100 % right, because the renames are unnecasarily and not logical: some provinces with (province), others with (Belgium). If you look at a broader perspective, then the logic becomes more clear. We are mostly beginners in a beginning project and trying to build an international and multi-cultural community. Sadly enough, we are all working too much and have no time to look much around us. It is equally sad to state that we need crisises to stop working like a mule (fr: "le nez dans le guidon") and think a bit deeper and harder to improve the organisation. And that improvement, I think, will slowly emerge. An arbitration comité might be needed some point in time, but in the first instance, we have to try to make a cooperation and community without too many administrationa and comités. All suggestions, especially constructive ones, are welcome. If somebody wants to express themself in French, this is possible too; we will try to translate. --Foroa 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT would be 100 % right if our policy was to use misspelled names. As I indicated in the reason of this move request (other cases are similar), the name Category:Liège (Province of Belgium) is misspelled, that is it doesn't comply with our naming conventions, which widely repeat English spelling rules. “Province of Belgium” is not a particular province named “Belgium”, but any administrative division of Belgium at the province level, that is a common noun. Therefore, a correctly spelled category name would have been Category:Liège (province of Belgium).
Therefore, as I already said before, the renaming of this category is mandatory, because misspelled names are unexpected in any Wiki project. There are also causes of mess, because people usually add correctly spelled subcategories to them, but in an inconsistent manner.
User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT would be 100 % right if the Commons Community had granted him ownership over some part of the topics structure. So, he would have the right to chase away the unwelcome users and to despise them.
In fact, User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT have just scorned our procedures and was completely satisfied about that. In my opinion, such behaviour is not compatible with communitary work and would not be tolerated. --Juiced lemon 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Timeshifter destroys interwiki links

This user reverts my edits in order to destroy correct interwiki links (to Wikipedia articles, according to the current Commons custom) and conceals the discussions in his talk page (see this diff and recent history).

I request assistance in order to obtain correct linkage for Category:Graph_theory and civil attitude from this user (I consider the systematic removal of my messages as offensive). --Juiced lemon 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on Juiced lemon's talk, but it seems this dispute is about alternate workarounds for a weakness in the software, and perhaps would be more appropriately discussed on the Village Pump. --SB_Johnny | PA! 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:rtc wants to delete all GFDL-1.2-pictures (done)

This request Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:GFDL-1.2 by User:rtc intends to delete many pictures under the 1.2-license by deleting the template at first. Perhaps we should watch this tricky projekt carefully. He contributed no media to the commons:

  • «rtc, how many media did you provide for the commons up to now? --Mbdortmund 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • zero. My work is almost exlusively in requesting the deletion of non-free media, which is at least as important, if not more important than providing free media. --rtc 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)»

--Mbdortmund 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No media? - Rocket000 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to discuss this here. It’s the user’s right to propose a license template for deletion and he doesn’t need a certain amount of uploads to do this. --Polarlys 00:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking that that activity should be prevented in future. These discussions always degenerate into bad faith, and a more complex strategy is required than merely "delete it!". I've kept template, but encourage further discussion of the template at a more appropriate location. COM:L, the VP and the template's talk page seem sensible (I've copied the debate there).--Nilfanion 16:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
A request for deletion is the right way to discuss such issues. Rtc did so before and whenever a lot of people reacted in an inadequate way (euphemism of the day!), sooner or later these requests were closed and we figured out how to coordinate these deletions (thousands of files, BTW). Without this request, nobody will care about progress in this matter. --Polarlys 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What Polarlys said. COM:DEL has a lot of visibility (more than, say, template talk pages) and no admin in his/her perfect mind will rush to close a template deletion request without a clear consensus anyway. Patrícia msg 17:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this. However I feel COM:DEL can never deal adequately with these contentious templates. Here's why:
  1. Debate occurs on whether the template should be kept or deleted.
  2. Admin determines which better represents consensus.
The problem with this is these templates need more than delete or keep. Administratively, we need a strategy to deal with the images. By handling them as they are on COM:DEL at present, if the result is "delete" what exactly is the admin supposed to do? That needs to be discussed prior to closure of the discussion, but as they are done at present on COM:DEL prevents that from taking place. I'm aware that the template talks have low visibility, but these discussions should start there, in many cases a rephrase of the template will be sufficient. Saying COM:DEL is high visibility is not exactly true either, important template discussions like this one can and will get swamped in the numerous image discussions. I will note these debates are highly prone to trouble, and the fact it is a deletion request seems to agitate the users who want to keep the template (think the Italians for PD-Italy, the Russians for PD-Soviet etc. If we have a page, such as Commons:Licensing/Templates, specifically to discuss (not "request deletions of") these templates, we might be able to reduce the wiki-drama at the source.--Nilfanion 22:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Or a Commons:Request for comments? Not a bad ideia. I understand your point of view and agree that the matter transcends a simple Delete/Keep decision. But the fate of the tagged images is usually taken into account when deciding what to do with a template: some may just need relicensing because they were abusing a wrong template anyway, some need to be deleted or tagged for deletion. Taking those discussions out of COM:DEL will reduce wikidrama, absolutely agree with you on that point too, but I don't think that the visibility is decreased for being one in many hundreds of deletion requests: such requests are typically open for several weeks/months in order to, in the end, do "the right thing". There's no rush :) Patrícia msg 22:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree there's no rush. The reason why I say there is low visibility on COM:DEL is this. This discussion should be linked from many places, once it slips off the COM:DEL main page it would have been very hard to come by (if not for this thread and the likely escalating drama). Doesn't help that in this, and most similar discussion in the past, no attempt to put a deletion notification on the template occurred.--Nilfanion 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Disputes_noticeboard"
Personal tools