The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
these discussion took place during the rfc and have been preserved as record of them, they shouldnt be altered or continued. If you have a need please start a new discussion Gnangarra 18:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Are comments not allowed in the "discussion" area?
I posted a general comment in the discussion area, but it was removed by an admin with the suggestion that I was a "liar" and asked for diffs even though I made no specific claims and was clearly just giving my own opinion:
“I find it hard to understand the Commons community.
Are you a pedophile, or have you been convicted of distributing child pornography? No problem. You are welcome to edit here. Just don't upload any kiddie porn.
Do you discuss WMF projects or Commons editors on an off-wiki forum? Then all links to that forum will be blacklisted, anything you say there is liable to be used against you here, and we may even ban you just for posting there.
What's wrong with this picture?”
If this was unacceptable commentary in the discussion area, what is that area for? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The removal edit summary actually said ...prove each claim with diffs. Otherwise, I call you a liar. I wouldn't have removed your comments myself - it is opinion. But it isn't particularly helpful opinion - it's quite general and almost "forum-ish", if you see what I mean. In short, the RFC main page is focussed on problem-solving, and your general wondering would have been better on the talk page in the first place. Rd232 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, do you not see the irony in the fact that part of the problem is some Commons editors lumping all contributors to these sites together - and you're doing just the same in reverse (lumping all Commons editors together)? Rd232 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't actually lump all Commons editors together, but I forget that not everyone has read other statements that I have made on this subject. My impression of the Commons community is that the vast majority are basically hit-and-run editors - they upload images and go away again until they have something else to upload. Some editors spend their time doing all of the patrolling, categorization, etc that is necessary for Commons to work well. Then there is a very small but vocal group who seem to have a disproportionate amount of control here. I take it for granted that none of the first group will read any of this discussion and probably don't care one way or the other. I would guess that most of the second group would rather spend their time working on things than arguing, so they aren't generally involved. When I refer to the Commons "community" it is really my shorthand for the third group and the small number of other editors like yourself who are interested in these kinds of governance issues. And of course I was generalizing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It's been almost a month now and discussion has dried up. I'd close this myself but have commented in it and also have a potential COI there, being a forum mod on ThatWhichShallNotBeNamed. Can we have an uninvolved admin evaluate the discussion and act accordingly? Thanks - Alison❤ 23:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Sitenotice added on 10 May. I think we should give the community one week (7 days) to see and respond to the site notice. John Vandenberg(chat) 11:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I think 1 week from sitenotice, and more if it stirs up a lot of discussion (which doesn't seem to be the case). cmadler (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
As an uninvolved admin, I see a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I weep for whomever takes on the task of closing this discussion. There seems to be an awful lot of bad blood here. Powers (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussions not subject to rules aren't always a problem
I don't think that discussions which are not subject to any rule, are always a problem, though they will seldom reach meaningful conclusions. Discussions about Commons could even be more fruitful when not subject to Commons' rule; not because of the Commons' rules themselves but because rulekeepers (like most people) tend to be less impartial when the discussion is about themselves or their friends. --Albert Noniem (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not acceptable, no matter who makes them or who the target is. Comment on content, not the contributor. (And yes, I see the irony in having to place this reminder here, given the subject under discussion.) Rd232 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Like calling someone a part of a "traveling circus"? The way I always approached this issue is that I'm quite fine with personal attacks and insults directed at myself, as long as the person making these doesn't go crying to an admin board as soon as a simple criticism of their actions is made, screaming "I iz being harazzzzed!". You want to go around calling some people a part of a "traveling circus" then deal with being called a clown (lemme be precise here "clown: a person whom it is impossible to take seriously because their actions are so fucking stupid and hypocritical"). "Comment on content" is a good general guideline but seeing as how some people with admin-powers don't even begin to respect it, it's sort of a still born request. If people with admin powers (on Commons mostly, but to a lesser extent on en-wiki too) had the personal integrity to set an example for the rest of the folk, then this "comment on content" injunction would be feasible. But they don't. It's a "I get to insult you but if you say something even vaguely negative about me then it's a "OMG I iz being harazzzzzed"" and "I haz my friendz banhamerz you" kind of thing. And then you get dropped into the middle of this insanity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, my reminder was directed at Commons contributors making comments on Commons. That includes admins and non-admins. Rd232 (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of us take our personal politeness and civility very seriously (feel free to correct me with a diff of mine if you disagree). The idea of trying to find exceptions or isolated incidents and then setting the standard of future behaviour at the lowest common denominator of past behaviour is not the best approach. I'm glad you've got a thick skin- I agree that helps too, but a model for community where disagreeing individuals relate to each other by constantly thickening their skins is far from ideal. Comment on content or behaviour, but do it politely and play nice. --99of9 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
? ..Um Huh..?
Now where have i heard that expression before .. [quote] Personal attacks are not acceptable, no matter who makes them or who the target is [unquote] ..?
Oh yes.. in just about every discussion anyone has ever made about Bullying (especially that subject as it pertains to schools (or workplaces- or anywhere in fact) ..
Persoanl attacks are NOT liked by almost everyone (except by the attackers themselves)
However.. just "like" in a school environment ..
NOWHERE can anyone ever expect to completely get away from personal attacks .. unless they go bury their heads in the sand - or lock themselves away in an airtight soundproofed room.
Thus: It will happen - irrespective of HOW you try to banish it.
Just my $0.05c worth. QUIX4U (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Andreas, wenn diese Figurengruppe von Zacharias Hegwald sein soll, dann ist sie 100 Jahre zu früh datiert (um 1530): Hegewald wurde erst 1596 geboren. Vielleicht überprüfst Du das noch einmal? Im Werkverzeichnis Hegewalds ist diese Arbeit bisher unbekannt. Auf der Wikipediaseite sollte vielleicht ein gesichertes Werk Hegewalds Schaffen illustrieren, z. B. die 1945 in Dresden zerstörte Adam-und-Eva-Gruppe aus Sandstein. WolfCaspar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf Caspar (talk • contribs) 2012-05-16T12:26:30 (UTC)
"Project_Page" or "Discussion_Page" - which one is the BEST one ...
Subject header: "==?=="
"Project_Page" or "Discussion_Page" - which one is the BEST one to be "used" to actually DISCUSS things .. as this topic's OWN MAIN PAGE appears to be highly confused.
Now - a long ago -- when I was just a NEW lad - new to editing on Wikipedia (that'd be now - oh about a year ago)...
I was forcibly TOLD .. (apparently by a BOT) .. that PROJECT PAGES ARE FOR FACTS .. and that Discussion pages are where questions should be asked & or answered.
Now -- as i'm STILL A NEWBIE 9editor that is) ..
What has changed.? (editing & asking questions and voting on a fictitional question -- now appears to be a "valid" fact -- to be ploncked at 1st instance .. on the PROJECT MAINPAGE .. and discussions thereof .. (not even discussed -- on the discussions page -- but other less irrelevant stuff appears there insatead..
Did I get told wrong .. by that BOT -- all those months ago.?
mediawikiwiki:Help:Namespaces#Project – "This namespace [the Project namespace] is normally used for meta-discussions related to the operation and development of the wiki." The Project namespace isn't filled with facts. In fact, on enwiki, the Project namespace is filled with essays and personal opinions. The Project namespace is meant to facilitate wiki-wide collaboration, whereas discussion pages are meant to facilitate collaboration concerning a specific subject. Commons' Project namespace consists of policies, guidelines, essays, and meta-discussion pages (e.g. COM:AN, COM:VP). There isn't really a single purpose for that namespace. Can you please provide a hyperlink to the message that the bot delivered to you? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.