Commons:Village pump

‎Policy violation by admin Ecemaml
← Older revision
Revision as of 16:41, 24 March 2013
Line 788:
Line 788:
 

 

 
:: From what I am able to see Ecemaml didn't violate any policy by closing early or closing as keep, both were justified. But what I am noticing in this community is the desire by a few admins in some cases to add the "rationale" to their decisions which has less to do with the reason than with expressing their pleasure in making such closures. This actually does nothing to explain why they close something like a DR in a particular manner, but does anger the person that disagrees with such a decision. In this case the closing comment could have easily stated "within scope, FOP", even closing without an explanation would be better (that is basically like saying "I agree with the arguments on the 'keep' side"), but the admin chose to close with the irrelevant statement. Now, I personally believe in free speech, and thus even a closing comment of "fuck you, cunt!" would be ok by me (in fact if it would be directed at me, I would find it less distressing, after all such name-calling is less likely to stick). However, what we can do as the community, without demanding some sort of censorship is to make a '''request''' that administrators, while they speak in their capacity as such and not as just another user, refrain from personal attacks, and fully explain their reasoning when such can be unclear. [[User:Sinnamon|Sinnamon]] ([[User talk:Sinnamon|talk]]) 07:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:: From what I am able to see Ecemaml didn't violate any policy by closing early or closing as keep, both were justified. But what I am noticing in this community is the desire by a few admins in some cases to add the "rationale" to their decisions which has less to do with the reason than with expressing their pleasure in making such closures. This actually does nothing to explain why they close something like a DR in a particular manner, but does anger the person that disagrees with such a decision. In this case the closing comment could have easily stated "within scope, FOP", even closing without an explanation would be better (that is basically like saying "I agree with the arguments on the 'keep' side"), but the admin chose to close with the irrelevant statement. Now, I personally believe in free speech, and thus even a closing comment of "fuck you, cunt!" would be ok by me (in fact if it would be directed at me, I would find it less distressing, after all such name-calling is less likely to stick). However, what we can do as the community, without demanding some sort of censorship is to make a '''request''' that administrators, while they speak in their capacity as such and not as just another user, refrain from personal attacks, and fully explain their reasoning when such can be unclear. [[User:Sinnamon|Sinnamon]] ([[User talk:Sinnamon|talk]]) 07:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+

 
+

 
+
:::Policy is very clear, it states '''"In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier."''' So by not waiting the 7 days in order to get community input he violated policy, did he not? The provision is made that the close can be done '''after''' seven days, not '''before''' seven days, except for clear copyvios, which was not the case, so the seven days of the policy should have been respected. This point is important because adherence to policy is precisely what gives legitimacy to this project, and policy violation is detrimental in general. If an administrator violates stated policy is small, insignificant matters, can his judgement be trusted in larger issues? When it comes to application of policy and procedures, administrators are compelled to follow them, becacuse if not, what the point of having them? We may as well wipe out policy and give administrators the authority to do whatever based solely on their (questionable?) opinions? As far as the closing argument, his closing statement is slanderous and uncivil, for it implies an unsubstantiated accusation and it ignores the legitimate reason for nomination. --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|talk]]) 16:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

 
:Although it's not often necessary to close DRs early, it is technically allowed by the [[COM:DR]] page (under ''Overview''): "Once an administrator has sufficient information to come to a decision, the deletion request will be closed and the file either deleted or flagged as kept." There's no explicit 7-day minimum. Also COM:DR is not technically a policy or guideline; perhaps it should be, since it's normally viewed that way, but it isn't. But again, I would rather not see any DRs closed early - in my view, if a DR isn't so mistaken that it can be deleted, it shouldn't be closed early. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 12:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:Although it's not often necessary to close DRs early, it is technically allowed by the [[COM:DR]] page (under ''Overview''): "Once an administrator has sufficient information to come to a decision, the deletion request will be closed and the file either deleted or flagged as kept." There's no explicit 7-day minimum. Also COM:DR is not technically a policy or guideline; perhaps it should be, since it's normally viewed that way, but it isn't. But again, I would rather not see any DRs closed early - in my view, if a DR isn't so mistaken that it can be deleted, it shouldn't be closed early. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 12:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=93203917&oldid=93198558