User:Kanonkas/Dispute resolution/Gryffindor's renaming

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

NOTE![edit]

  • Everybody is welcome to vote, with a reason please.
  • Any evidence should be put here with discussion.

Outside views[edit]

Outside view by Kanonkas (talk)[edit]

If Gryffindor is to be seen renaming art-images or an image without consensus it is my recommendation that he will be temporarily blocked. This will also be noted on COM:AN/U as well on the talk page of this page. Also he needs to establish consensus for renaming images for 1 month (that time he will be on a parole). There is the exception that Gryffindor can rename non-controversial as images with clearly bad names. A great example of that is strings of arbitrary numbers/letters, default names from cameras, etc. Any admin who believes Gryffindor is going against this can block him, but should not be involved in a dispute with him. If this here happens again after he has been warned previously with a block but continues then a de-admin request can be filed as dispute resolution has failed in this case.

Users who endorse this summary
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution. J.smith (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution. Dschwen (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution. --Herby talk thyme 12:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution. RlevseTalk 15:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution.Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg conditional support I don't think a block is necessary if Gryffindor will agree to abide by the need to establish consensus and to hold back from renaming for a while, until the matter is satisfactorily sorted out and agreed on conventions are arrived at. But I applaud the attempt to resolve this in a way that is less drastic. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • See [1] this clarification] of what Kanonkas meant. Thanks for that. Consider this a regular support then, as it is exactly the clarification I was looking for. ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution. MBisanz talk 17:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution. --Gothika (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by J.smith (talk)[edit]

As I see it, Gryffindor's renaming schema is somewhat destructive. Our search function relies heavily on the name of the image. Replacing the name of a painting with a string arbitrary numbers makes finding a particular image that much harder.

From what I've gathered though following this whole mess Gryffindor's primary reason for the renames it to more logically order the files in the categories. Gryffindor - if your reading this, you can accomplish the exact same thing by simply passing along a variable in the category. For example: [[Category:Topic|sortby]]. The default behavior is to sort the articles by it's file name, but if there is a "sortby" it will use that word/phrase instead.

Singed, J.smith (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sounds reasonable. --Kanonkas(talk) 02:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dschwen (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cirt (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Anonymous101 talk 10:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Herby talk thyme 12:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AFBorchert (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution. RlevseTalk 15:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution.Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As above, but I think that by now, most users will realise that trying to reach a specific image naming scheme in an area where no formal rules exist, is completely pointless. --Foroa (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MBisanz talk 17:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution. --Gothika (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I endorse the summary and I endorse the recommended resolution. -- Rarelibra (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by KTo288 (talk)[edit]

This dispute resolution is pointless. There is no dispute, Gryffindor has already made it clear that he will no longer make such changes, and out of pure self preservation and in all likelihood he will honour his word. On this one issue.

However this does not wipe away the fact that Gryffindor misused his powers, that a fault in his character led him to doggedly pursue a course of action in reordering Commons to his own personal agenda despite the concerns and requests of other users to stop (something when committed by ordinary users has led to permanent bans). And not only this but that he used his power to hide the file histories of the original images he renamed. To allow him to escape without consequences for this misuse of power diminishes and taints the moral authority of all administrators. There cannot be one rule for ordinary users, and another for administrators however hard working. There cannot be the appearance however untrue it maybe that existing administrators are a clique which will seek to preserve their own privileges by protecting one of their own however serious their actions.

Gryffindor should therefore be stripped of his administrative powers however this striping need not be permanent, after a suitable interval, six months seems fair, Gryffindor may seek to be made an administrator again in the normal way.KTo288 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ordinary users have had permanent bans for less. Running for reelection is possible, but I would not likely vote for this administrator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Elcobbola (talk)[edit]

I note this is the “views” section and, accordingly, the following is my view and does not include a recommended resolution.

The Gryffindor “episode” has been a series of unfortunate failures. Parties failed to work with each other and failed to work with the community, which has resulted in drama, frustration and stress which could all have been avoided.

Comments with varying degrees of civility and tact were left for Gryffindor on several talk pages. Gryffindor failed to realize or, alternatively, to act upon the realization that several editors were distressed by his/her actions. Gryffindor, in several cases, failed to use the administrator tools in an impartial manner (e.g. deletion of revisions of Image:Pieter van der Werff 001.jpg while involved in a dispute), failed to hold him/herself to the higher behaviourial standards expected of administrators (e.g. revert warring, although not up to 3RR, on Image:Sommerlandschaft Lucas van Valckenborch.jpg) and apparently failed to consider the disruptiveness and necessity of certain image renaming.

Bringers of this action have failed to assume that Gryffindor was acting in good faith, have failed to approach the community in a timely or conciliatory manner and have failed, perhaps due to procedural differences between Commons and certain Wikipedia projects, to act with due and necessary transparency and forthrightness (e.g. off-Commons drafting of de-adminship request, canvassing, etc.)

It seems clear that both sides have contributed to unnecessary escalation. It is unclear, however, that Gryffindor’s actions are deserving of removal of administrator access. Aforementioned issues with transparency and canvassing impact our ability to assess the degree to which Gryffindor’s (mis)conduct has adversely affected users of Commons content. Failure to exercise less “extreme” steps of dispute resolution which may have mitigated issues is, again, unfortunate. Ultimately, however, the underlying concern seems to be not how Gryffindor has been renaming, but whether Gryffindor has been taking administrative action without sufficient consideration of the community’s wishes. I encourage proposed solutions to consider and address what editors are articulating to be the actual cause of concern (consideration of others), not just the effect (unilateral renaming).

Users who endorse this summary
  • I think a number of fair points are raised in this summary. Mistakes were made and communication could have been better. We should all learn from it. That the desysop request apparently seems to have serious issues surrounding it does not mean that the concerns raised in it were not valid. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sensible points well made, thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Good summary. I think that it is important to state that the dispute concerned mainly the (re-)naming of pictures for which there are no real naming conventions nor associated procedures. --Foroa (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by KTo288 Mk II (talk)[edit]

Although it is denied by some the Gryffindor de-admin vote clearly shows a fault line running through Commons as can be seen in Elcobbola's compilation of voting patterns. Although Gryffindor did not set out to personally and individually offend de:wiki users, a cheap jibe reflects attitudes that can explain some of the fury with this individual administrator.

However I see the Gryffindor's misdeeds however great as only the seed crystal in an already saturated solution.

Despite there being the mantra "Commons is a multi-lingual project" English has become by default prestige dialect on Commons, the language to draft policy, decide on administrative processes and select administrators, to the extent that other languages are excluded more by a desire for speed and conveniance rather than an official linguistic chauvanism. However the ability by the speakers of other languages to assume good faith is strained by the sheer ineptitude and laziness of projects such as the 2008 Election suffrage poll. Which gave the appearance of John Crow like restrictions on participation by contributers from sister projects, not helped by the fact that it was drafted and conducted in its entirety in English.

However this never needed to be the case. Look at what what appeared at the top of the page just a few days later the Commons:Photo-Workshop Berlin 2009 project which was translated into multiple languges in a matter of days with the simple addition of "please translate this to your own language if you can!"

That fiasco also showed a failure to realise that there is no longer the ability to make local upload of images on some sister projects such as the Spanish wiki, and therefore policy on Commons directly influences what images that can be used unlike en:wiki, and just why users primarily of sister projects would be so concerned at a diminishment of their voice on Commons.

The brooding resentment against the primacy of English is unhealthy and needs to be lanced. My solution would be to copy the EU process of having a rotating presidency so that the working language on Commons rotates through the major languages with each language having primacy for six months before moving onto the next. We should probably start with the working languages of the UN, Russian seems a good a language as any to begin with. So for the next six months all work on Commons:Administrators, Commons:Deletion requests, dispute resolution and policy should be carried out in Russian, followed in turn by Chinese, Spanish and French. Since English has been the working language on Commons almost from the start it seems fair to skip it this time round and go directly to maybe Arabic, Japanese or German.

This of course may present problems for English speakers who are not bilingual. What happens you ask when someone puts a warning on my talk page when I can't make out head or tails what it says. How can I follow changes in policy when its being done in a language I don't know, and its down right scary that admin powers are being given in a process I can't scrutinise.

However rest assured google languages is pretty good and there are always some bilingual and multi-lingual users who may be willing to help. Using machine translation may leave you sounding childish and uneducated but I'm sure other users will understand that you are doing your best, that they won't belittle you because you don't have the dexterity of language that they do in their native tongue. And of course presume good faith because those who have temporarily found themselves at the top of heirachy because of an accident of language will not take your inability to influence decisions and decision making to knobble you.

This is a ridiculous proposition you say. It is so unfair, how can I do anything when I can't communicate. Good. That's exactly the point and where many Commons users find themselves. And in case you are wondering no it isn't a real proposal but an exercise to make you think.

Rather than paying lip service to a multilingual Commons, admins especially should act as if every contribution and comment in any language was equally valid and valued, and not to pay so much store in minor speling, ponctuaten and grammatical errors, and to assume that because such mistakes have been made a contributer lacks the ability to make a meaningful point.

One aspect which gives the appearance that a self perpetuating clique is seeking to create a system which would exclude contributers from other projects from participating in Commons is the RfA process. No where is it expicitly stated that all registered users are welcome to stand and vote and although well attended and busy it is the same usual vices that are heard, with any sudden appearance of unfamiliar voices being seen as suspicious and as a possible case of vote stacking.

Its easy to listen to what we want to hear, easy when our own prejudices and inclinations are reflected in others. We are flattered when others make reference to our words, when it is claimed that others see us as an example. So much so in fact that it seems the best way to become an admin is to become a mini-me of existing admins, an example of the new boy at school gaining the approval of the in crowd by aping the dress, jargon and manners of its members.

In contrast it is unpleasant to be faced with dissent with things we do not want to hear even if they happen to be true, it upsets the apple cart and breaks the normal orderly that all is well.

The natural inclnation is to quash dissent, however there is a usefulness in dissent. What do you do when a friend decides that he can fly and is intent on running of a cliff to prove it. Stand with him shoulder to shoulder and go over it together, be there to put him in his coffin, hit him over the head with a stick.

What seemed like an invasion by a Germanic horde was far from pleasant, but at least enough users of de:wiki care enough to make an effort, to be willing to face the hostility and ridicule meted out to them. It may seem uncomfortable; but what would have been worse would for them to stop caring to give up on the Commons, and to just leave. That they throw away their cudgels and allow Commons to go over the cliff.

The German/English fault line I fear is not the only fault line on Commons, and unless it and the other fault lines be fixed Commons will be the worse for it. For my greatest fear is not that the Spanish or French users will be the next to stage a revolt, but that we may have already lost them.

Users who endorse this summary

Recommended Resolutions[edit]

<-- Recommended Resolutions goes here -->

Users who endorse this resolution
Users who oppose this resolution

Recommended Resolutions[edit]

<-- Recommended Resolutions goes here -->

Users who endorse this resolution
Users who oppose this resolution

Recommended Resolutions[edit]

<-- Recommended Resolutions goes here -->

Users who endorse this resolution
Users who oppose this resolution

General discussion[edit]

What I meant in my statement was "If Gryffindor is to be seen renaming art-images or an image without following consensus on purpose it is my recommendation that he will be temporarily blocked." and that if Gryffindor made an error we can forgive that. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola is making some good suggestions, might be wise taking a look at their example. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I will obviously accept the decision that comes out of the resolution. I have learnt a great deal in this process and will be more careful with edits, and also be more inclusive or improve in the communication process. Communication is the basis of productive work and it has to function on all sides, I will try my best to contribute my part to it. What I hope is that the lessons learnt will not be lost and maybe something positive can come out of it for everyone in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding for future users, maybe try to take a closer look at some of our rules and conventions that need to be made clearer? Just a thought... I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who is participating here and mediated and helped and worked to find a solution and again offer my apologies to all that feel slighted or were inconvenienced. Gryffindor (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Emm, are you writing this as an user or as an admin ?????????? btw: Have you anything done in the meanwhile to restore the old good file names? Examples please Mutter Erde (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: It seems like Gryffindor got desysopped. I encourage us to give dispute resolution a chance. I hope we can get community consensus to make this into a formal dispute resolution case. Now that Gryffindor has been desysopped one may want to consider changing your outside view. --Kanonkas(talk) 21:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This case is going nowhere for now. We need more discussion here. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions[edit]

To be closed and summarized when the conversation seems to have ended.