This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Mass uploads of copyrighted material related to Universiade 2013. I nominated a dozen for speedy deletion, but it is probably easier to nuke them, since there are many more.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Objection.
1st - by procedure. Some of deletions are violative because were executed at quest of one person, were no warned me at usertalk page, had no discussion, had no consensus and had no time to these.
2nd - by essense. I've released arguments and earlier. But from my opponent I've received constatating words again only. I may constatate "photos in this cases are non copyvio" and "objects are non-copyrighted" also. In Commons:Copyright not any words about tickets and objects with logos and not allowed "copyrighted symbols" etc logos itself. No prove that doubtful pictures and objects are under copyright and "copyrighted symbols" presented. My uploads are not author's/owner's artwork pictures and logos itself but scans and photos of paper or fabric objects with incompleted or small trivial pictures from public places that makes no able to reproduce the originals - absolutely like photos of buildings, cars and coins that also has design and authors. Moreover, please note, due to worry of some wikieditors, I've reduced additionally an images resolution more when reupload deleted files of tickets. Non-reproducing, low resolution, public placement, state owning are decisive at worries. Kazaneer (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Specifically, about buildings, cars, and coins. Cars are mass-products, and the design is not copyrighted. Coins in principle are copyrighted, but some of them can be released by government in public domain (I am not sure specifically about Russia, but I believe this is the case). Then the only requirement is to have own photo. Whether buildings can be uploaded on Commons depends on the country, see Commons:Freedom of panorama. Specifically for Russia, everything built before 1917 can be uploaded, other buildings can be uploaded 70 years after the death of the architecht, or if the architect gave an explicit permission through the OTRS service.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Your expains works contra you and confirmates the violations at deletions. It's absolutely wrong that design of car is not copyrighted, their's (or other mass-producted things) reproductions are punishing. And absolutely clear that millions of photos on Commons of building and coins no received OTRS from they authors died they or not. Shoted me logos and pictures were place on hundreds of objects in public streets and paper or fabric things. Shoted me souvenirs and tickets were issued in 45x2 hundred and 800 hundred circulation. Id est all are public "mass-products" also. You mix and confuse a photos and an objects on photos. I've no took photos of other authors or from other internet sites, and self made photos are no under copyvio criteria of speedy deletion and need to be listed and discussed for consensus. Kazaneer (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You completely no looks that this and other rules and copyright templates descriptions makes the emphasize on 4 listed me above (non-reproducing, low resolution, public placement, state owning) and other circumstances to take a decisions about copyvio in various considered cases. But you completely misunderstand that rules of wiki exists for all images without double standards for categories of things and objects (as example for cars and others).Kazaneer (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Due to you took to delete not asked files related to Universiade 2013 only but my past years contributions also and no nominate similar thousands of photos of buildings of Russia or cars elsewere or etc of others, it looks as unexplained trivial pursuit of me, unprecedental there as I see.Kazaneer (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks??? Давайте по-нашему, раз пошла такая вакханалия преследования и удализма чистой воды. Ну и чего Вы добились и добиваетесь? Зачем "охотиться на ведьм" там где их нет, т.е. ревностно пытаться блюсти сентенцию "пусть рухнет мир, но торжествует закон", если это вообще-то не закон, а википравила, трактуемые весьма по-разному от случая к случаю в зависимости от того, кому они успели попасть под горячую руку, а кому нет, и даже они не нарушены. Для чего существует википедия прежде всего - для натянутого, мнительного, в самой жесточайшей трактовке от некоторых, соблюдения правил или для по-возможности полного информирования читателей? Какая это будет энциклопедия, если конкретно в таких статьях как о Универсиаде-* или Олимпиаде-* не будет самых ключевых иллюстраций их символами (лого и талисман)? Вы предпочитаете, что лучше тырить фото с официальных/авторских ресурсов и, растрачивая викиресурсы, дублировать их в каждой из нескольких национальных вики с шаблоном нонфри и полным враньем что заменяемости нет, а не делать удовлетворяющие тем 4 и другим условиям сканы и фото для единого викисклада по принципу "и волки сыты, и овцы целы"? Вы полагаете, что все злобные правообладатели жаждут преследовать за все "недобросовестные" сканы и фото на викискладе (что за всю историю всего викисообщества и было-то считанное число раз, и совершенно по другим обстоятельствам), но должны смотреть сквозь пальцы на "добросовестно" сворованные изображения в национальных вики? Вы уверены, что после того как если и вдруг "хватит времени" удалить с викисклада все современные фото всех зданий и предметов (на 99% которых нет OTRS и получить это на всё нереально), википедия останется энциклопедией, а не станет до1917педией, о70летнемстарьепедией, некрономиконопедией и тп? Или Вы считаете, что статьи о всех современных зданиях, предметах, событиях могут обходиться голым текстом, хотя по определению невозможно составить полное представление только по описанию словами и "лучше 1 раз увидеть, чем 100 раз услышать"? Вопросы, как Вы понимаете, риторические, чтобы прежде чем заниматься удализмом, подумать во имя чего он. Kazaneer (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh and AFB, it was my interpretation that Pleclown was telling 3 people to go away from the thread, but didn't provide a definitive opinion on the outcome, pending the results of the subpage. If Pleclown would like to tell me I'm wrong, I'm happy for them to do so. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, it can be interpreted that way but it effectively closed the thread which was subsequently archived. All this has now calmed down and I think it is best to keep it that way. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree, if Ottava Rima's natural charm can't get them into enough trouble without haters both inventing new process without discussion at VPP, and dismantling existing process, then it's best to leave things in peace. Penyulap☏22:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
They're new to adminning, I expect they may have had poor advice. Generally it is best to actually name the people you refer to rather than allowing the participants of the thread to guess who you are threatening, perhaps needlessly too. There were about 15 people included in the discussion, if polled to ask 'who do you think he means' they may not all come up with the same answers. It helps to be clear about these things. Better still, if the discussion is or should be closed, then just close it in future rather than using threats, which simply make the atmosphere rather ominous. Penyulap☏01:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, we haven't usedCOM:RFC before for user conduct cases even if the text invites to do so. As it stands, the text was simply copied from en-wp and I do not see this as an improvement in regard to our regular procedures. We do not need to mirror en-wp here. It is simply preferably to have one place for user conduct cases and that is COM:AN/U. Consequently, I would suggest to remove the part on the RFC page that invites people to open user conduct cases at that place. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems little difference between arbitrarily changing it to a duplicate of en.wiki and arbitrarily changing it to a low traffic forum where just 'the usual suspects' vote upon things. The previous place it was directed to was Commons:Requests and votes#Requests for comment. Was there discussion about the change ? generally if an undiscussed change is disagreeable it's reversed isn't it ? Penyulap☏08:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
This problem [1] has not been resolved. Here is a potential solution - that both maps get deleted. After all, neither seems to have an adequate source, and the original image is gone. (Lilic (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)).
Bidgee is misusing his admin powers to control this file which he wants deleted. He already unilaterally deleted it claiming it doesn't exist, but has no proof of that. I initiated an undeletion request and it was restored. Then Bidgee tried two more times to back-door delete it, before Stefan4 converted his actions to a DR. Bidgee claims that because the sign doesn't appear in this PDF, it must be a hoax and be deleted. He ignores the fact that the PDF is obviously incomplete in it's list of signs, because it starts with A11, and then jumps to A16-A23, then skips over to A26-27, then skips to the 30s and so on. It doesn't start at the beginning, and has so many jumps and skips that there are obvious omissions, and we know that an omission is not always proof of non-existence. Now, we do have File:Denmark road sign A11.svg in the PDF, which shows what a sign warning of a minor crossroad ahead looks like. Based on that, and with the obvious omissions in the PDF, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Denmark would also use a similar sign to warn of a minor road ahead on only one side. However Bidgee will not allow the file to use the PDF as a source, even as a reasonable assumption, and has protected it so it can not be added back.
As far as I'm concerned this is an absolute abuse of his admin powers. The PDF has so many holes in it's list, and I've already shown in the DR discussion that there are several signs which don't show on in the PDF, and by his logic they wouldn't "exist" either, but they still show up on Google Streetview. Fry1989eh?03:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The file is tagged no source, which is correct. Can you provide a source of some kind? Where did u find the no. of the sign? I think there's a big misunderstanding going on. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not the uploader, so IDK where the number came from, but based on A11 showing a minor road on both sides ahead, it is reasonable to assume that the next number up (A12) would warn of a minor road on one side, with the ".1" being for the right side and ".2" being for the left side. It is a perfectly valid and reasoned assumption, it wasn't just plucked out someone's ear. Bidgee has acted absolutely inappropriately here, he didn't just mark it as no source, he unilaterally deleted it as "doesn't exist". He didn't delete it because it had no source, he explicitly claimed that just because it's not in the PDF, it must not exist. And now he's trying to claim the same in the DR, and he has protected the file because he believes that the reasonable assumption of derivation isn't enough. He is bullying his way around with the file, and it's stupid.
Bidgee's already abused his powers when it comes to road signs in the past to get his way. File:Australia and New Zealand slippery road surface sign.png was originally named "Australian Slippery Road Surface sign", however it was categorized in both Australian and New Zealand categories. Naturally I removed it from the New Zealand category, but Bidgee edit warred to keep it in the New Zealand cat, and then he even went so far as to rename the sign to include "New Zealand" in it's name just so he could have it in both countries' categories. I guess since it was his upload, he felt he held some special ownership rights to it, btu we all know there are no such rights here on Commons. Now he's using his powers once again to get his way with a road sign. He needs to stop bullying his way around. Fry1989eh?03:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Right, and you have no ownership and aggressive issues on Commons? You have bullied editors on Commons to get your own way, while ignoring what they have to say. Bidgee (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The file had "Australia" in it's name, and YOU edit warred to keep it in the category for a completely different country. Then you renamed it to further your desire to have it in both. You had no source, no proof, no reasoning to have it in categories for two different countries, you just wanted it there and did everything you could to get your way. Fry1989eh?03:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes it's perfectly wonderful that you can provide a claim of source 9 months later, but you didn't back then. We already had an SVG of the New Zealand sign at this point, there was no need to put an Australian sign in a New Zealand category, you just wanted it there. It's like putting a Finnish sign in a Swedish category, that's exactly what you did and if I was the one doing it, you would be complaining about my actions too. Fry1989eh?03:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you ask for a source? No you didn't. Urm, so I can't rename something that's clearly used in NZ as well because you created a svg? You have clear ownership issues and we have countless AN/U topics in the past. Bidgee (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so I actually have to ask for sources now. You're telling me you had a source all this time and you could have used it right away to silence any concerns, but you chose not to because I didn't request it? What a joke! If I have a trump card I'm gonna play it, whether someone asks for it or not. Fry1989eh?04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
And I'm not surprised Bidgee would try and accuse me of hiding the full truth. I already admitted in the DR that the uploader is a sock of Jermboy who has uploaded countless socks and used IPs as well to vandalize and abuse road sign-related content. In fact, I've been teh primary guard against Jermboy, I'm the one who watches out for his hoaxes, I just nominated 6 of them today! However, unlike his other uploads which are random, unsourced, and appear to just have been pulled out his ass, this upload actually makes sense. It's actually based on an existing sign, and has a reasonable assumption on it. All Bidgee has been able to provide is "It's not in the PDF, it can't exist". Well Bidgee, what about the other signs I've shown on Google Streetview? They're not in the PDF, I guess streetview and my eyes are lying because they must not exist either based on your flawed logic. And now you are using your powers of protection to further your belief that this sign in no way exists. It's an abuse. Fry1989eh?03:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Really?, you didn't state it here! Again, you're not basing the sign off fact, but basing it on assumptions (may as well say fiction). Just because you see other unrelated signs that are unlisted, doesn't mean this sign is fact. Bidgee (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
SO WHAT if I didn't state it here? I stated it in the DR, and I linked the DR here! You think people are so blind or lazy that they won't take the time to look at the DR, and just take my words here for gospel truth? You really underestimate everyone here's ability to look around before passing judgement? I've been the primary fighter against Jermboy's creations and nonsense, I've nominated probably 50 of his BS uploads by now, I've reverted hundreds of his sock edits, and I've reported his socks here whenever I notice them. Obviously I am not his friend. And yes, I'm basing keeping this file on assumptions, assumptions that are reasonable and make sense. You on the other hand aren't just arguing that the file is unsourced, you're claiming it doesn't exist! You're saying that you know for a fact that this sign doesn't exist and never has, simply because it's not in the PDF. I've already proven that belief to be flawed, and you refuse to directly address that, instead whining that I can't prove it does exist. Why should I have to prove something does exist to someone who thinks it doesn't simply because of an omission? Fry1989eh?03:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This is where you fail with your argument, you always think that your always right but it's an hypocritical argument when you want me to prove that it's a hoax but you don't need to prove that it isn't. Bidgee (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually I am right. I don't have to go down every single road and pathway in all of Denmark to prove something does exist, when I've already proven there are other signs on Danish roads that aren't in the PDF but clearly do exist. You on the other hand do, because you're claiming it doesn't exist. You're pushing a certainty that is near impossible to prove. You're claiming that you know for a fact that this sign has never existed. You're not claiming that we're unsure because we've never seen one yet, you're claiming you know for an absolute fact that it doesn't exist. You know just as much as I do, that you can not prove that. Fry1989eh?04:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I really don't see the point. I'm making a reasoned assumption based on evidence we already have; I'm supporting the theory of evolution, if you will, based on what I see before me. You'd be surprised on how many people actually follow that logic. Bidgee on the other hands, is pushing a certainty which he can not actually prove. There's a big difference in the standard of evidence between a theory and a certainty. What do you expect a Danish-speaking user to say, "I'm from Denmark, and I've never seen this sign!"? Fry1989eh?04:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
What nobody needs is to wait for a DA-N speaker. The issue of content is one for the talkpage of the file, not AN/U, which is for user problems including admin problems. Bidgee clearly is unable to act as either an editor with an opinion on the file OR an admin carrying out requests. Perhaps Bidgee, you could tell me which role you wish to fulfil with this file, editor OR admin ? or perhaps you just want to continue to misuse the tools ?
Fry is not prone to fabrication, so I'd ask you Bidgee, is it true that you have been performing admin actions in relation to this file ? Because the history of the file indicates clearly that you have, and your opinions given here speak for themselves. Penyulap☏05:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This very much has everything to do with the discussion, otherwise we wouldn't be here!
Did I say Fry "is prone to fabrication"? No I didn't. I said that he was basing it off assumptions, it's Jermboy27 (and socks) who is the known fabricator (ie: hoaxer). Thankfully I've found a source, wasn't easy to find but at least we can now say it exists. Bidgee (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I've run into this editor on another wiki, where their behaviour has been less than exemplary, I would support de-sysopping Bidgee. Retrolord (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
While this isn't a policy nor guideline but has been said many times by different people, that issues that happen on Wikipedia (whatever the language), stays on Wikipedia. But since you want to mislead the Commons community, it was your behaviour and not my behaviour that was found to be in poor form. Bidgee (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Bidgee you know what Penyulap was getting at. By insisting that this file is a hoax with such certainty as you have, you are implying that I'm supporting a fabrication. Of course he didn't say that outright but it was obvious what was meant. I don't lend my support to things without a good reason, especially when it comes to a vandal sock that I've been one of the primary victims of. He still vandalizes my files, makes up fake categories, uploads fake images based on them, and other BS that you don't face on a regular basis. I had to weigh my faith in the possibility of this sign being true (based on known evidence) over what I've seen this troll do in the past. Fry1989eh?17:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Hedwig in Washington(mail?) 08:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of useful uploads, but I have to confess I do not see any use for some files such as File:DSCN9418 (5411169810).jpg which have neither description nor a useful filename, so it's impossible to know where the photo was taken or what it shows. Maybe it's difficult to filter some of those out before bot uploading? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
And it's without any categories, which makes this file (+ a big amount of other ones) fully useless. Really sorry to see that it's been for for several months now. Is there any possibility for bots to filter out Russavia's uploads which only have hidden categories, to mark them {{Uncategorized}}, so that there's some likelihood for a later categorization? --A.Savin09:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm? Files without categories but with {{Uncategorized}} tag some day will become categorized, as some people check maintenance categories from time to time. Files with neither categories nor the template, nor a meaningful description: no chance to find in maintenance categories, no chance to find via search function, so they probably have to wait... VERY long. --A.Savin09:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Raise it up on a DR as being out of scope if you are concerned. The image would have been helped if the (several) associated Flickr categories had been added, even if just as description. This would be a useful improvement to the upload tools and Russavia may want to investigate the possibility. From checking the source stream, this appears to be a shot taken of the surrounds of a temple, rather than the temple itself. It might be justifiable for that reason (others in that series have obvious value), but it would be a weak justification. In general, Russavia has been uploading some reasonable and useful Flickrstreams, I believe this photo is not representative of the value of that work. I daresay you can find several hundred arguable shots in my 100,000+ uploads, for example the near duplicate photos that were part of my 20,000 Art History images from LACMA last week, some of which I highlighted myself, but are easier to address as they come up after upload rather than manually reviewing and correcting LACMA's catalog before doing anything; personally I would welcome DR's on the arguable images as this would test out policy interpretation for any future uploads I may attempt. --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
A quick view on Russavia's recent uploads provides enough evidence that his uploads are neither "worthless files" nor "outside of wikimedia project scope". Sure, batch or Flickr-stream uploads will often need better categorization and description, but that's mainly a question of available time. I've seen the same issue with highly productive photographers who upload lots of own images. And I know that Russavia usually re-checks all these uploads some time later and requests a number of them for deletion by himself.
I think, we can close this now. Anyone's free to start a DR if they feel a particular image to be out of scope. Russavia is kindly requested to check his last year uploads whether there still are entirely uncategorized files. --A.Savin11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Thanks for reporting this. I've blocked this user for a week. While it appears to be indeed very likely that this is a sockpuppet of Noormohammed satya, I have in this moment no time to research this in-depth. If the sockpuppet is confirmed at en-wp or if another colleague comes to the conclusion that this is a sockpuppet, this user can be indef'd. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I've turned down a request to rename this file. Apart from the absence of explicit reason, the inherent implication of the request seemed to be just attributing this pic to the uploader which need not necessarily be correct.
I wanted to mark this file for DR as sometime I remember similar penis pics were marked for DR. Is there any consensus on the acceptability or otherwise of such pictures? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
Fastily was quite vague at a recent DR he closed so I asked for clarification at his talk page (see User_talk:Fastily#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FTemplate:Non-free_graffiti) as "Administrators closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision" (see Commons:DR#Instructions_for_administrators). Instead of giving a clear answer he wrote some platitudes and even stuff that is not true. This request for clarification draw the attention of another user, Canoe1967, who made not really helpful comments as he is not the closing admin and cannot read Fastily's mind. At one point that user got somehow upset and made this clearly unhelpful and provoking edit (a c&p of a comment he wrote earlier). I reverted the edit 2 times and explained on his talk page why I think his comments were not helpful. Next my rollback right are removed and I got a warning from Fastily. This is problematic in 2 ways: First as an involved person, he should abstain from any administrative actions (see en:Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins. Second Commons:Rollback#Misuse_of_rollback_permission states that "users misusing the rollback tool to revert constructive edits may have their rollback permission revoked". Canoe1967's comment however was not constructive. Also reverting an unconstructive edit 2 times while also talking to the other party doesn't seem like thing you would revoke someone's rights for. Solutions:
Restore rollback rights
Fastily won't use any administrative tools when he is involved
Fastily stays away from me (after this story I consider him biased and commons is big enough that we don't have to cross paths; this involves not deciding any DR when I have commented there). I will also stay away from him. --Isderion (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I would not comment on the core crŭ of the issue, but I suggest Fastily or other admin restore the complainant's rollback right. If a person holding a right misuses or is believed to be misusing a right, it is always better to discuss the issue, and rights should be removed only when the person choose not to heed at all over a time, or exhibits a lack of understanding and unwillingness to learn the correct usage which does not seem to be the case with Isderion. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
I'd agree that one misuse is not enough, however I do notice that Isderion lost the tools based on involvement and is here complaining about involvement. So I would find the idea that Isderion doesn't understand involved use, or why it is wrong, rather dubious. Isderion used the tools in this matter. Penyulap☏03:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
@Isderion, while I do agree that Canoe1967's pasting of 4 copies of his earlier comment below your last comment wasn't too mellow, it wasn't a personal attack that would require immediate removal. Also, after Canoe1967 reverted your 1st removal of this quadruple-comment, you should just have stopped and left the discussion. Using rollback a second time was indeed a bit inappropriate. While I might have warned you first, before taking any action, I can understand that Fastily wanted to immediately stop the growing conflict. Of course, I don't know your earlier mutual (Isderion/Canoe) "history".
In order to get your rollback rights back, I would ask you to state that you are not going to use them in such a way. I would then ask Fastily to consider restoring your rollback rights.
In regard to your request "Fastily stays away from me". Please, don't blow this out of proportion. Except of very extraordinary cases, we cannot put an admin under an interaction ban, as this would severely limit the function for which he was elected.
My god, this is all about a simple DR for a template. Please, take a beer, and tomorrow you will laugh about all that. --Túrelio (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
To my knowledge this was the first mayor disagreement I had with Canoe1967, other claims should be proven with a diff-link.
In the meantime, Fastily clarified his decision; I don't know why he didn't do it in the first place, that may have saved us a lot of trouble.
Túrelio, as you might know, technical solutions (e.g. block, removing rights) seldom work for social conflicts. They often facilitate the conflict, as they make one party feel powerless. Also as Fastily removed the rights 12 h after my last revert, it sure wasn't to immediately stop the growing conflict.
Also you didn't really comment on the conflict of interest that arose when Fastily used his administrative tools while being involved. --Isderion (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's get the facts straight here. Yup, I closed Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Non-free graffiti as keep. You disagreed here. User:Canoe1967addresses your concerns. You respond, immediately assuming bad faith, that I've ignored your concerns. That's one mark against you. Canoe answers here, and he's correct, DR is not a vote, it is a debate where the validity and effectiveness of arguments are weighed against one another at closing time. I finally reply here, explaining COM:PCP to you (which for someone who has been around as long as yourself, is concerning because you should know how to apply our core policies by now). Your response here to Canoe and me is mocking, sarcastic, and disrespectful. Up to this point, we have not only patiently explained policy and consensus to you, but also we have also elected to overlook your inherent assumption of bad faith. Canoe then attempts to reiterate his comments yet again. But that's not good enough for you so you fish the discussion out of the archive with the addition "...still waiting". At this point your tenacious editing and/or refusal to get the point (w:WP:IDHT has a nice description of this) after multiple patient attempts to explain the matter to you has become rather annoying. Not only am I fed up with it at this point, but also it seems Canoe is as well. Don't get me wrong here, while I certainly do not advocate posting comments the way Canoe did, it was highly inappropriate for you, Isderion, to not only revert, but also edit war with Canoe over the comments while using the rollback tool: [2], [3]. It is absolutely not okay to use rollback in disputes, much less using it to revert the talk page posts of a fellow editor, so I removed your rights according to policy. While we're on the topic, I'd like to point out that the definition and policy you cite above is w:WP:INVOLVED, which is Wikipedia's policy for involved admins. Note that Commons is not Wikipedia and rules that rules which apply there do not apply here. Furthermore, even if you were to apply Wikipedia's policy here, removal of your access because you rollback edit warred in a dispute you beat and dragged to my talk page is quite justified IMO. -FASTILY19:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to comment on some of your (Isderion) recent inappropriate behavior. Ever since Canoe started commenting here, it is clear to me (and unfortunately so), that you've made it your mission to harass and belittle Canoe, even though he has both kindly and patiently taken his valuable time to explain to you Commons core policies that you obviously don't understand. Let's get started: see here. Not too long ago, I awarded Canoe a talk page stalker barnstar for reasons completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. As soon as Canoe started participating in the dispute on my talk page, you proceeded to, in a disgusting level of bad faith and total insecurity, make an ad hominem attack on Canoe. Despite all this, Canoe ignores the attack and continues to (albeit futile obviously) explain the reasoning behind the DR to you. Your response to someone who continues to try to help you is most condescending. The discussion continues with you being rude and useless, while Canoe patiently (bless his poor soul) continues explaining amidst your arrogant, immature, and dickish behavior. I also note that you have started nominating files Canoe has uploaded to Commons for deletion out of spite. DRs/tags made in revenge against users whom you've disputed with is harassment, and a blockable offense (in fact, many users have been blocked in the past for engaging in such disruptive misbehavior): here, here. The bottom line is, you have interpreted our patient, good faith attempts to help you understand as an attack on you, and when taking us for fools and responding aggressively, arrogantly, and dickishly failed, you proceeded to run to AN and play victim in what has culminated a hurricane in a teacup. Repulsive. I suggest you find something better to do with your time here or leave the project. Regards, FASTILY19:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments by Canoe1967
Thanks again Fastily for the stalking barnstar.
I think Fastily agrees that Isderion's questions were adequately answered by my first response.
Isderion only mentions one keep !vote but ignored the six keeps in the previous DR.
After Isderion didn't accept my response as satisfactory I amended it.
Once more, after Isderion didn't accept my response as satisfactory I amended it.
After Isderion didn't accept that response as satisfactory I repeated it four times. I admit that may seem disruptive to some.
Isderion rolled it back and I reverted, which was repeated a couple of times.
At some point Isderion dragged it to my talk page as well. This is after he had been told that a correct forum would be needed to discuss the issue further.
18 minutes after my last response on my talk page he put two of my files up for deletion. Notification times are near the bottom of my talk page. I won't officially complain about this but others may. I just couldn't be bothered with two trivial files. I didn't realize that the agent for the BLP file hadn't filed OTRS and sent them a reminder email about the 7 day warning. They are on it now, with vigor, as it is used in his article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I feel this following on from this is a reason to take a rest from rollback for a while. The rollback tool was used, and the editor is here to complain of involvement, so that's reason enough for other editors to say Isderion shouldn't have it at all for any length of time.
Regarding the removal of rights by Fastily in a conversation where he is involved, Fastily does seem to be in better control of his emotions and better versed in policy than the majority of admins. It can justifiable be said that the warring going on was between Canoe and Isderion rather than Isderion and Fastily. Where the people well versed in policy can see this clearly, it may seem rather blurry to people unfamiliar with the policies that apply here. I don't see any loss of emotional control or removal of rights by Fastily based upon emotion or warring, but rather on solid policy. I'm not saying he was not frustrated, I am saying I do not see that factoring into the decision. It may be too surgical for comfort of the masses though, but with an excellent track record, I do not see this as a problem that requires attention. At the end of the day, removal of rollback given the, warring using the tools AND a clear understanding of involved won't be controversial. It was a good result that is rather hard to challenge.
This user has uploaded several images (at least) with incorrect licensing, has altered the licensing on others, and uses the file information areas to make a POINT. This image claims there is Nazi imagery in the flag in the photo, although it predates the Nazis by over thirty years. This image claims (as do all the photos) that the source and author are "Residency of Dresden" when the license here clearly indicates it comes from the digital archive of the NY Public Library. The uploader seems to be using "other versions" sections to give his opinions on things, and in the latter case, has altered the license. That issue is not pervasive through all the files, but the same source/author issues exist here, here (logos can't be claimed as personal property), and here. Certain of these images need to be removed, and others simply need to be attributed properly by the uploader, but this is not a positive pattern of behavior. Therefore, I would like an admin to look into this and take whatever action is necessary. MSJapan (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Raised eyebrows yes. But the word hacker has three meanings, only one of which implies some kind of bad faith. This should be kept in mind too. darkweasel9422:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hedwig, the diffs I posted should pretty clearly indicate that the user is claiming "Residency of Dresden" or "me" (meaning the uploader) as the source for materials such as a photo that is clearly from a newspaper, or the photo of a statue. The Albert Sachsen jpg clearly indicates in the license that it's from the NY public library digital archive before it was altered, so I would have to say yes, there's proof. MSJapan (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Fry1989 has reverted this map a total of five times today. He has recolored the map despite a clear lack of consensus. In early July it was determined at the talk page [[4]] that there is no consensus for this change, then last week makes the change anyways, only for me to notice it today. I fixed the map, and so did one other user and he has been consistently reverting it. Some disciplinary action needs to be taken against this user. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This user is trying to exert control over a file for reasons he doesn't understand. This sign marks a one-way street, and it's designation from the Dutch Government is "C4". We only had the one file pointing rightwards. Naturally, as one-way streets can go either way, I renamed the sign to include "right" and then uploaded it's leftwards counterpart. Bouwe Brouwer doesn't like this and is insisting that I rename it back to just "Nederlands verkeersbord C4.svg". I have rightfully refused, have tried to explain to him why I won't, and have even offered to rename them so "right" and "left" is in Dutch instead of English, but he won't accept that. He has now tried to get an unsuspecting admin to rename it back. Billinghurst rightfully denied it, however I do not believe Bouwe Brouwer will stop at that.
The two files can not both be named "C4", they need a way to differentiate them and the most natural way is by adding which direction they point. I need some fellow users, preferably admins, to reinforce this fact with Bouwe Brouwer that two files can not share the same name on Commons, and make him stop his attempts at control. Fry1989eh?19:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I told him in his native language at his user talk page that a new attempt may lead to a block. I think this resolves it for now, unless he doesn't understand the message. Jcb (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Playing devil's advocate: I could imagine it to be useful for templates and the like to have a common naming scheme for such files - i.e. one named "C4" and one "C4 (left)" so that a template to include sign C4 will still work. One of them is probably the default version that's in the traffic law, and that one can very logically be named just "C4". So I don't see an actual user problem here, just a content dispute where different views can legitimately be taken. darkweasel9420:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The law at the government site only depicts a 'right' version, although the 'left' version does exist (at least in the village where I live) and has the same meaning. As for the usage in a template, the (currently present) redirect will do that job. Jcb (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not a problem that Fry1989 uploaded a left version of road sign C4. That he gave it a half Dutch, half English name isn't a problem as well. The problem is that Fry1989 changed the logical name of the existing file "Nederland verkeersbord C4" into the illogical half Dutch, half English name "Nederlands verkeersbord C4 (right)". The numbers of the road signs of the Netherlands follow the official numbering of the RVV, the Netherlands law that rules the traffic signs. The traffic signs and their numbers can be found in appendix 1 of this law: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0004825/Bijlage1/geldigheidsdatum_29-07-2013 In my opinion renaming should be used with caution. Fry1989 had no reason to rename the file "Nederlands verkeersbord C4". There is no need to rename the original file when one uploads a variant of a file. That is the reason why I asked Fry1989 to rename the file back to its original and official name. Fry1989 was unwilling or unable to undo the renaming of the file. I now understand that file movers aren't able to undo renames. That's why I asked to undo the renaming of the file by a rename request. By the way: the Dutch words for "right" and "left" are "rechts" and "links". --Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This file has now had two rename requests, but I'm not to sure what to do about it as the discussion here isn't clear. For this reason I've removed the second remove request. Bouwe Brouwer and User:Fry1989 would you be happy if it were to be renamed "File:Nederlands verkeersbord C4 (rechts).svg" if not, what name would be preferable? Liamdavies (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have already offered to have them renamed so that "right" and "left" are in Dutch instead of English, I have no objection whatsoever. The only reason I used English is because I don't speak Dutch. However, Bouwe Brouwer has to understand two simple facts, which are
1: One-way streets can go either way, so we do need a sign pointing right and a sign pointing left
2: Two files on Commons can not share the same name-space. It is impossible to name them both "C4"
Based on those two facts, I was within every right to rename C4 to "C4 (right)" while uploading a leftwards counterpart. Bouwe Brouwer is just being a whiney troll because he doesn't understand the truth and he doesn't like people touching any of his Dutch signs for whatever reason. He's edit warred on dozed of them against other users' sources and acts like he owns them. Bouwe Brouwer is the problem here, not me and not the fact I used English instead of Dutch in my renaming. He has no ability to assume good faith or understand explanations, all he cares about is controlling the Dutch road signs at any cost and accusing those who "meddle" with them of bad intentions. I deserve an apology and an acknowledgement that my intentions were for the best, but I highly doubt I will get either from Bouwe Brouwer. Fry1989eh?18:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that Fry1989 agrees with me that the file name "Nederlands verkeersbord C4 (links)" is a good name for the version with the arrow to the left. ("links" is dutch for "left"). The version with the arrow to the left is not pictured in the law.
The difference between me and Fry1989 is that we want different names for the version with the arrow to the right. I prefer the name "Nederlands verkeersbord C4" for the version with the arrow to the right. The version with the arrow to the right is the only version of road sign C4 which is pictured in the law: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0004825/Bijlage1/geldigheidsdatum_01-08-2013 The pictures from the law follow on Commons the naming schema "Nederlands verkeersbord " Fry1989 wants a different name for the version with the arrow to the right. He wants "right" or "rechts" ("rechts" is dutch for "right") in the name. So he wants the name "Nederlands verkeersbord C4 (rechts)" for the version with the arrow to the right. --Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I know Fry1989 would accept the name "File:Nederlands verkeersbord C4 (rechts).svg", but would you also accept that as a name Bouwe Brouwer? I can't move the file back to "Nederlands verkeersbord C4.svg", that would require an admin, but I would happily move it to "File:Nederlands verkeersbord C4 (rechts).svg", I just don't want to do any move while this discussion continues. I would add that if we move the image to "File:Nederlands verkeersbord C4 (rechts).svg" the old name of "File:Nederlands verkeersbord C4.svg" would be a redirect to it. Liamdavies (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I now know that it's not simple to undo a renaming action. If it's impossible or too much work, I have to accept that road sign C4 has a name which is outside the naming scheme of the road signs of the Netherlands. I can live with a name "Nederlands verkeersbord C4 (rechts)". --Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
@Bouwe Brouwer: First of all, those restrictions are on Wikipedia, they have nothing to do with Commons and they're actually close to expiration. Second, "I wondered why Fry1989 is accusing everyone.." what are you talking about????? I haven't accused anybody of anything except you, and everything I have accused you of of is true! You has a nasty ownership problem with these Dutch road sign files. You edit wars to control them, ignore other users' sources, and immediately assume bad faith in the actions of others ignoring any explanation no matter how reasonable.
I have been noting but reasonable in this matter. I explained to you right away why I renamed the file, and why I would not rename it back. It is not my fault that you are unable to understand that two files on Commons can not share the same name. As there is a need for the sign pointing both ways, the only way that is possible is if they both have a directional additive to their name. I have offered to rename them so it's in Dutch, or any other language of your choice for that matter, but they can not both be named "C4".
This has nothing to do with my inability to undo my own renames, or the difficulty of such an action. All that needs to be done is to ask an admin, and they could do it in a snap. The problem is that two files can't share the same name. The Commons servers will not allow it. If you can't understand that, there's really no hope for you ever understanding what this dispute was ever about. Even if I kept "Nederlands verkeersbord C4 (rechts)" as "Nederlands verkeersbord C4", the other sign would have to have a different name because it can't have the same name. It makes more sense to have them both include "left" and "right" in their name, then for only one to. That is why I renamed it. I deserve an apology for the mess you caused by your utter lack of faith and refusal to understand any of the underlying issues regarding this, but I'll never get one. You simply refuse to understand, and that's your problem. Fry1989eh?17:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Fry1989, I think you may have mistaken someone else's comments for mine. I have only made three posts to this thread (here, here, and here), all of which were trying to find and amiable outcome, which I feel has now been achieved. I see that this is a resolved issue, the file now has a name that you both are (somewhat) happy with, and the tension seems to have abated a little. Liamdavies (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It appears I have, I didn't see Bouwe Brouwer's signature because it's < small > and confused the whole thing for yours. I have corrected who my comments are addressed towards. I thank you for your assistance, however I am still extremely frustrated with Bouwe Brouwer's behaviour. The issue itself is resolved, but the actions, accusations, and bad faith by Bouwe Brouwer remain. Fry1989eh?23:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
please block the user SCHUYLER1. he is keep uploading selftaking pictures to cross-wiki articles about an hoax/not notable teen actor (himself, the articles name is Cesar Yedra, havy been deleted many times at nearly all wikis). --80.161.143.23917:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a problem. This person has only ever made 2 edits to Commons, and they were back in June. Looks like you, or somebody, has already taken care of the problem. Why do you think further action is needed? Often, a user who starts off by making a mistake or misunderstanding the purpose of Commons goes on to become a productive contributor. A block would interfere with that possibility. -Pete F (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo, entschuldigt bitte, dass ich mein Anliegen auf Deutsch stelle, da es ansonsten wohl zu Missverständnissen kommen könnte:
User:Russavia hat als 'Administrator' den Sperrschutz für meine Benutzterseiten 22:07, 6. Aug. 2013 aus meiner Sicht in höchst eigenem Interesse aufgehoben, nachdem ich ihn einige Minuten zuvor einmal mehr auf das Problem seiner Uploads {21:42, 6. Aug. 2013}bezüglich Kategorisierung und das Nichtbeachten von {personality rights} hingewiesen habe. Die nötigen Re-Kategorisierungen habe ich seit Monaten vorgenommen, und sie scheinen von User:Russavia mehrheitlich wohl 'goutiert' worden sein, notabene schätzungsweise mindestens 1'000 diesbezügliche Eits 'seiner' Flickr-Evans-etc-transfers.
Die Sperrung meiner Benutzerseite auf eigenen Wunsch hin wurde am von mehreren AdministratorInnen [5] diskutiert und gutgeheissen, siehe auch User talk:Túrelio und User talk:Foroa.
Ich weise höflich auf die diesbezüglichen threads hin und ersuche um neuerliche Sperrung meiner respective Benutzerseite wie von Administatoren-Seite in einer öffentlichen Diskussion beschlossen;
eine Beurteilung ob User:Russavia hiermit seine Administratoren-Rechte willkürlich und in ureigenem Interesse 'missbraucht' hat.
In diesem Fall bitte ich um entsprechende Sanktionen,
@Roland, warum hast du Russavia nicht direkt darauf angesprochen statt gleich hier auf dem Dramabrett zu posten? Auch dass du Russavia gleich böse Absichten unterstellst ist völlig unnötig und wird es nicht erleichtern, die Kuh wieder vom Eis zu bekommen. Und nein, das ist m.E. kein Rechtemißbrauch. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Túrelio, zu Deiner Frage, die ich versuche so unmissverständlich als möglich zu beantworten:
Russavia hatte ich aus meiner Sicht wenige Minuten zuvor kontaktiert und aus meiner sehr persönlichen Sicht nicht zum ersten Mal keine sachliche Diskussionsbasis, siehe Kommentare der drei o.e. Löschdiskussionen, voraussetzen können.
Die Entsperrung erfolgte ohne Ankündigung, innerhalb weniger Minuten im geschilderten Kontext, und zudem ohne Diskussion mit Euch die Sperre gutgeheissenen Admins,
dh zusammen mit dem Kontext 'Überkategorisierungen–Persönlichkeitsrechte–KontaktmitRussavia–drei-Löschanträge–Aufhebung_Sperrschutz' habe ich von einer zumindest 'Willkürlichkeit' seines Vorgehens ausgehen können.
Wie aus der 'Versionsgeschichte' von Benutzerseiten (meiner vor der Sperre und auch auf Deiner nach der Sperre) und Löschdiskussionen hervorgeht, scheinen aus meiner Sicht zudem gewisse 'Vorbehalte' seitens Russava nicht ausgeschlossen.
Abgesehen von den zahlreichen erfolgten Rekategorisierungen der flickr-evans-transfers seit Frühjahr 2013 habe ich Russavia direkt und indirekt immer wieder und bis gestern ohne jegliche Reaktion auch auf die Problematik der {personality rights} insbesondere bei Kindern hingewiesen, und die drei erwähnten und vorangegangene Löschanträge stehen mehrheitlich in diesem Zusammenhang.
Auf Deiner Benutzerseite habe ich kurz auf eine aus meiner Sicht 'persönliche Komponente' hingewiesen und versucht anzudeuten, dass der Wunsch auf einer Sperrung meiner Diskussionsseite auch mit Russavia zusammenhängen könnte.
All dies zusammengenommen, hat einer 'sachlichen Diskussion' direkt mit Russavia aus meiner Sicht jede Grundlage genommen.
Zumindest das Vorgehen von Russavia scheint mir im übertragenen Sinn 'willkürlich', 'bösartig' habe ich weder andeuten wollen noch gemeint.
Dir und Euch allen an der Diskussion Beteiligten, vielen Dank für Euer Engagement, lg Roland zh 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe Roland's issue is that I have unprotected his user talk page. Someone who is active on this project, and engages with other editors via their talk pages should be contactable on this project by way of a user talk page. It is apparent that Roland is not fluent in English, and instead wishes for people to use his de.wp user talk page, so that confusion is not possible. It doesn't really matter whether one contacts him here or on de.wp, if it is done in English, then the same issue will occur. His talk page is not subject to vandalism or trolling or any other such thing, so to have a fully protected talk page which prevents editors from contacting him is neither conducive to encouraging discussion, nor should it be the done thing. russavia (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
As was already discussed in this earlier thread, this is a special case as - for personal reasons - this user has a problem with posts on his talkpage. He does not refuse communication in general, but has a problem with posts on his talkpage. As this is critical for him (otherwise might leave) and as he is a productive editor, IMO such an exception from our general procedures is acceptable as a courtesy and as long as it does not seriously disrupt Commons.
Needless to say, I don't view Russavia's admin-action as any kind of abuse, but would be glad if the talkpage could be protected again. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protection would be OK for me, but I strongly oppose full protection (to any talk page of an active user). If the main problem are automated notifications of deletion requests and similar, there might be a possibility to disable them. --Leyo08:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Deutsch: Schon einmal überlegt, dass "ihr müsst auf meiner de.wikipedia-Diskussionsseite schreiben" dazu führt, dass Leute, die dort gesperrt sind, ausgeschlossen werden? Ich bin auch stark der Meinung, dass Benutzerdiskussionsseiten auf Commons nicht vollgesperrt gehören.
English: Ever thought of the fact that a rule of "you need to post on my de.wikipedia talk page" means that users banned there are excluded? I agree that user talk pages on Commons shouldn't be fully protected.
English: Perhaps we should consider an opt-out feature for automated postings of templates, i.e. those generated by various gadgets and bots.
Deutsch: Vielleicht sollten wir über eine Möglichkeit nachdenken, die es erlaubt, gegen die automatisierte Hinzufügung von Vorlagentexten zu votieren, also solche, die von diversen Werkzeugen und Bots erzeugt werden.
Support Excellent idea. I suggest the simple step of mapping those dirty great notices (some of which rather aggressively threaten blocks) could be mapped to either a link to the related discussion or a template link. Having the equivalent to {{Bots}} would be a great process. --Fæ (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Fæ, I think you misunderstood the problem here. The problem are not automatically created templates on user talk pages but the complete protection of talk pages. --High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment The fact that two people have started sections on Roland zh's talk page in the 16 hours that it's been unlocked should be enough of a reason to leave it unlocked. I wished to leave a message for Roland zh the other day, and found it far more difficult to use wiki in a language of which I have virtually no knowledge of, and then have to actively check to see if there is a response. I would also like to bring up the issue of Roland zh's signature, surely it should be linked to his user page at the very least. Liamdavies (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Russavia suggested to use this portrait of Jimmy Walesas a base to work on for this artistfrom which Pricasso created this new portrait using his penis, scrotum and buttocks. Is that the right thing to do as a 'crat on Commons?It is with regret that I bring a concern to this notice board. My concern relates to the community role of Russavia in his position as a Bureaucrat, which according to the bureaucrat policy includes
Bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues.
The creation and upload of these two media files by the Australian artist has (not surprisingly) attracted much attention and caused much drama. On June 15, Jimmy wrote on his user talk page on EN:WP
I encourage people to go to commons and work to explain to the community there some of the concepts behind Hostile environment sexual harassment. I encourage everyone to seriously consider whether it is appropriate behavior to upload a clearly non-notable film of someone using his penis to paint a picture of a Wikipedia volunteer. It is harassment, it is trolling, and I am deeply disappointed to have to point this out to some people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC).
Following this there was some confusion about what the role of Russavia had been in this, news stories were made about the incidence in various - mostly biased and Wikimedia critical media. In response to one of these articles, Russavia published some details of his role in the creation of the portrait. Among the details given is the statement
I did make a suggestion that Jimmy's photo be used as a base to work from.
Further to this a deletion request was opened with a lot of activity. The DR was closed as keep, and furthermore an out-of-process de-admin and de-bureaucracy request was opened and speedy closed as it did not follow the process, where one first tries to gauge the community opnion. Furthermore no evidence of admin abuse.
For me that meant that the Pricasso incident had become a "major community issue" due to all the bad publicity. And Russavia has not been capable of leading where necessary and of guiding as stated in the 'crat policy. Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation has approved a set of resolutions, among these Images of identifiable people, which was approved unanimously 10-0, where it is stated
Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.
Jimmy has clearly "complained about an image of themselves", but in my opinion the complaint has not been treated with "patience, kindness, and respect". To better understand Russavias view on this and his role in this incident I asked him a couple of questions in User talk:Russavia/Archive 13#Resolution:Images of identifiable persons. With some delay I have gotten a little response, but in my opinion, they are evading the questions. It has been very disappointing. It is now also clear that Russavia does not want to discuss the matter further with me. I had really hoped he would acknowledge that his role in the incident was unfortunate given his role as a bureaucrat, but he appears to have no regrets at all. In fact he quotes an article about the portrait published in the major French newspaper Liberation
Comme l'explique l'un des contributeurs dans une longue discussion à ce sujet sur Wikimedia Commons, «il n'y a pas dans les critères de retrait, "le cofondateur n'aime pas"» et c'est sans doute l'un des plus grands mérites de ce site.
stating that it "covers it succinctly".
which basically says that one of the best things about Commons is that "Co-founder does not like it" is not part of the deletion criteria - in complete neglect of the fact that the portrait is perceived as sexual harassment by the portrayed co-founder and in complete neglect of the WMF resolution regarding images of identifiable persons. For me this is a blatant display of incredibly poor personal judgement. Imagine what would happen in any organization, where a high ranking member suggest to an artist to portray a member of the board of directors using his penis without first getting his explicit consent of the portrayed? In all organizations I know of, he would be kicked out immediately.
Russavia has argued that I should let it go, as the incident is almost forgotten by now. I agree, that memory is fading fast, and I would not have been so concerned if I had confidence that such a thing would not happen again. But Russavia has shown absolutely no signs of regret concerning the incidence. Apparently, he thinks he has done the right thing (brought three new media files to Commons) and that this media contributions outweighs all the negative side effects of the bad publicity.
But I cannot let go of it. I feel ashamed to be part of a community, which has a crat, which can even think to suggest such an inapproprioate thing. The article in Liberation is one big embarassement for our project , Jimmy Wales and the WMF. I can only hold Russavia responsible for its existence. I cannot possibly image that any other crat on Commons could have orchestrated such an bad media show. As a crat you are a role model for the rest of the community and I feel Russavia does not represent my values at all in this case. A crat should build bridges and work for better integrity between WMF project, not dig trenches.
I would now like to hear what the rest of the community thinks about the community role of Russavia as a 'crat?
--Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
Just for the record, though this is not a vote and canvassing might formally not play a role, this discussion has been advertised on Jimbos talkpage[6]. --Túrelio (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What Denniss said, but with a side-portion of "we host caricatures of famous people, this is really no different". -mattbuck (Talk) 22:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
No there are two important differences: The portrayed is part of the same organization. That makes the community look like a disorganized bunch of idiots from the outside, who has no common mission and values. It shows a lack of integrity with the project to orchestrate such a thing as well as poor personal judgement. In addition, the portrayed person has complained, cf. the WNF resolution. Most of the famous people we have caricatures of, have not complained. --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
If we can caricature Obama, why not Jimmy Wales? As for complaints, I'm sure if any caricature of any public figure were brought to their immediate attention, they probably wouldn't enjoy seeing it, whether they chose to complain or not. No one should be given special treatment. As for Russavia's performance as a 'crat, he does a very good job; he's one of our most active contributors, with 300000+ edits, and 50000+ log actions. INeverCry22:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Would we listen if they did? If say Alan Dershowitz told us he'd like us to remove a cartoon of him? A cartoon is within our scope, is by a notable artist and is freely licensed? I'd like to think we'd say "I'm sorry, but while we understand you do not like this, things like this are rather the price you pay for being a public figure." I really see no significant difference between the actual and the hypothetical, beyond Mr Wales being a member of the "Community". Really, which is more insulting, using genitals to paint what is actually a remarkably good portrait, or using pens to paint a picture of you masturbating to war crimes? I don't doubt there is antipathy between Russavia and Mr Wales, but I doubt that the idea of using him as a subject for a donated painting was done with malice. There's a long tradition of artists donating items with wikimedian themes, or of pictures reflecting the metatheme (a label-printer printing "Wikipedia" for instance). This is really no different. The guy paints portraits - he had to have someone to paint, and this way it is based on a suitably free image of a public figure sitting within the metatheme. It all makes perfect sense. It does sadden me that Mr Wales finds this offensive, but I think it's all very much overblown. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflict) IMHO, nothing you are pointing out shows anything that would make russavia a bad bureaucrat, administrator, or contributor. When I first saw the video, I would never have thought that it could reasonably be considered inappropriate, except by people who generally have objections to nudity on Commons. In retrospect, it may have been better to choose a different subject (though, IMHO, choosing Jimbo as a subject for a painting is similar to choosing Wikipedia for web browser screenshots - simply a little self-reference), but in my opinion the educational value and replaceability of any file needs to be weighed against third party interests, and I think the closing admin did so very competently. It was not russavia who closed that DR, so I don't know why you are accusing russavia of not treating Jimbo's "complaint" as you'd have liked it to be treated. Also, "treating with patience, kindness and respect" does not necessarily imply deletion. darkweasel9422:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record: Imagine what would happen in any organization, where a high ranking member suggest to an artist to portray a member of the board of directors using his penis without first getting his explicit consent of the portrayed? In all organizations I know of, he would be kicked out immediately - well, for my part, being a very active Commoner, I'm not feeling myself as a part of an organization, though, and even much less of one with Jimbo as the "Big Boss" or so. I'm just one of many enthusiasts of Free knowledge who spents lots of time for contributing same to some WMF projects, that's all. --A.Savin22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I am confident that the only reason Jimmy Wales has complained, while the others have not, is because he has some expectation of special treatment by the project he helped to establish. I do not believe he is intentionally trying to abuse his influence; I am fully aware that I have no direct experience of the kind of discomfort that something like this would bring on, or how I might respond; but I believe Jimmy Wales' complaints, while given in good faith, are not something we can give much weight, given his clear, and clearly embraced, role as a prominent public figure.
It isn't helpful to make distinctions between who is or is not a member of our community; our community is intended to be open. We should not be treating people differently based on their status as a founder, or a member, of our community. But we absolutely should be treating them differently (and in general, we do) based on whether or not they are a en:public figure. If there is any lesson in all of this, it's that the board resolution referenced above should be updated or expanded upon (either by the board or by the community) to make reference to this important distinction, that is already actively used to inform numerous decisions on the various projects.
I concur wholeheartedly with Matt Buck's statement above. Russavia hasn't done anything to warrant sanctions or changes in his privileges. -Pete F (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You'll need to ask that question to the users who left that project. I don't know if they are reading this page. darkweasel9422:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
All the comments about offensiveness and caricatures are distracting from the real issues. I believe that a bureaucrat has the right to upload and share these media. For me, the issue is with trust / confidence and integrity. Russavia didn't readily state his role in the creation of the video when questioned. I'm not fond of dishonesty. I've dealt with several dishonest individuals, including sockpuppeteers (Fluttershy, Cupco) and even sysops (I've leave them unnamed), on enwiki and elsewhere. Sure, they do some good work, but they'll lie and cheat in order to have their way. I don't believe that Russavia is a trustworthy individual, and I've said as much and more at the desyopping discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a reasonable opinion, and I do agree with you that russavia could have acted in a more open and more de-escalating way in the discussions about these files. However, I don't think it is a sufficient reason to remove any status from him, especially because nothing here involved any use of bureaucrat or administrator tools. His use of these tools has been consistent with all policies as far as I'm aware, and removal of those tools should be to prevent their continued misuse, not to "punish" any actions as a normal contributor. darkweasel9423:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I disagree, at least regarding bureaucrat status. Bureaucrats do have extra tools, and misuse of the tools would be one reason for removing bureaucrat status, but it isn't the only possible reason. As Slaunger points out, leadership is also an important part of a bureaucrat's role, and I believe Russavia's actions in this case do not constitute good leadership.
If this was only due to poor judgment, and he seemed contrite and focussed on doing better in the future, perhaps that could be forgiven. But his reticence about his role in this case and his history with Jimmy leave me doubting that he was acting in good faith, and I no longer trust that he puts the good of our project and the broader Wikimedia movement above other motives. For me, that is the key issue here. I know Russavia does a lot of useful work here, but I no longer have confidence in his leadership. --Avenue (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the lynch-mob which appears whenever anything tangentially related to sex is discussed, I think we can understand why someone would want to not answer questions. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Russavia isn't shy. Russavia doesn't lack confidence in himself. If he were shy or lacked confidence, he wouldn't had become a bureaucrat or create fusses on enwiki. I don't see any reason to assume that Russavia was fearing for his life during those discussions, especially since the crowd of defenders is always larger in those sorts of discussions. Please stop making excuses. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not at all a matter related to sex. I had commented it somewhere. I’ve no known hate to sexual contents; as far as they don’t neglect the subjects’ personal rights. JKadavoorJee12:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
"As for Russavia's performance as a 'crat, he does a very good job; he's one of our most active contributors, with 300000+ edits, and 50000+ log actions. – IneverCry" : Sorry, INeverCry; I don’t think his number of contributions add anything to his qualifications for a good crat.
Note Kat Walsh’s comment too that she posted on her talk page.: "As an attorney for Creative Commons I think it is absolutely correct that the licenses minimize the effect of moral rights as much as possible (the drafts for the new version are public, and make that clearer; our public wiki has more on the topic). But what Commons does as a matter of policy should not rely on any effect or non-effect of the copyright law definition of "moral rights"—Commons should do the "right thing". I do think that as a community Commons should take much more care with being sure that subjects of photos are fully consenting (and I say that despite the fact that my opinion diverges from Jimmy's on the proper scope of Commons; I am fully in favor of having educationally-relevant images of the full range of topics covered, where subjects have given their informed consent, though I also think that this only works if we are not stupid about exercising editorial judgment--that we aim to inform readers as fully as they wish to be informed, but avoid being gratuituously shocking)."
This is not a matter regarding the appropriateness of nudity in Commons; it is regarding the appropriateness of neglecting the refusal of consent and neglecting the voice that Commons should do the "right thing"
"'well, for my part, being a very active Commoner, I'm not feeling myself as a part of an organization, though, and even much less of one with Jimbo as the "Big Boss" or so. I'm just one of many enthusiasts of Free knowledge who spents lots of time for contributing same to some WMF projects, that's all. - A.Savin" : Nobody asked to consider Jimbo as the "Big Boss”; but please consider him as a poor Original Author, Copyright Holder, and a contributor to Commons.
"For me, the issue is with trust / confidence and integrity. Russavia didn't readily state his role in the creation of the video when questioned. I'm not fond of dishonesty. I've dealt with several dishonest individuals, including sockpuppeteers (Fluttershy, Cupco) and even sysops (I've leave them unnamed), on enwiki and elsewhere. Sure, they do some good work, but they'll lie and cheat in order to have their way. I don't believe that Russavia is a trustworthy individual, and I've said as much and more at the desyopping discussion. -- Michaeldsuarez": Exactly; this is the point.
"As Slaunger points out, leadership is also an important part of a bureaucrat's role, and I believe Russavia's actions in this case do not constitute good leadership. If this was only due to poor judgment, and he seemed contrite and focussed on doing better in the future, perhaps that could be forgiven. But his reticence about his role in this case and his history with Jimmy leave me doubting that he was acting in good faith, and I no longer trust that he puts the good of our project and the broader Wikimedia movement above other motives. For me, that is the key issue here. I know Russavia does a lot of useful work here, but I no longer have confidence in his leadership. - --Avenue": Exactly; again.
Notice: I already brought this matter (along with my generic complaint on neglecting our personal and moral rights) to every member on the WMF board, and two of them already responded. One is Kat Walsh on Chair; other is Bishakha Datta, a notable human rights activist. JKadavoorJee04:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Samuel Klein commented on his talk page: "I agree that we should take these rights seriously, and second Kat's comments on the matter. As Jimbo says, a clear community position is needed - even if it is a minority position - to articulate the problem and potential solution." JKadavoorJee06:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No confidence at all in Russavia. For the good of the project I've been tolerant of Russavia's antics in the past, but chaining yourself up like a string of mountain-climbers is just plain stupid Russ. Russavia, Bidgee, anyone else who can't see what the hell is wrong with their actions, we don't need. Penyulap☏04:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
My experience of Russavia and his henchmen here at Commons has disgusted me. As a result of my perception of a certain corruption among some Commons admins, and as you'll see from my en.WP talk page, I will now never upload files to Commons, and I discourage other editors from doing so. Tony(talk) 06:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If you don't want to upload things here, then don't. If you don't want to come here, then don't. If you don't want to eat your broccoli, then don't. You're (presumably) an adult, you can make your own choices, and no collection of random idiots on the internet can make you do any differently. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, there's the polite matt I know, I recall fondly when I was trying to fix something at the village pump, and matt helpfully told me
But then I thought, here's a better idea, why don't we fix the place instead ! yes. I think that's a much better idea myself. Penyulap☏07:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that when the little smurfs all band together and threaten to pull the rug out from under the big bad admins all of a sudden the bad admins start getting worried that their little slaves shall overthrow them. Last week of course, you're calling me a god damn troll because SOMEONE ELSE is forging MY signature ? I should go vote keep for bidgee, keep for Russ, because those two combined are not as bad as you. Then again, rather than keep, I think us little slave smurfs can clean up the lot of you and make things all smurfy again. Then little people can tinker away in some corner of the project on svg's safe in the knowledge that some giant with a hammer is not going to crush them and revert their work. Maybe the village pump will be a place for suggesting 101 ideas to fix things, even if 99 of those ideas are no good. Hmm, I like blue skies. Penyulap☏07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we are all missing a few points here.
Since Pricasso had already painted the Queen then Mr. Wales would be the next logical choice as a work for the projects. If anyone else, including admins, had approached him about using Mr. Wales as the subject then there wouldn't be such a huge issue about it. Russavia may be a 'crat but acting to create a new article and have free media provided for it should not reflect on his duties and abilities. The way he responded to the uproar is very understandable considering the way he was harassed, including the lame block at en:wp, about the media and article.
It is a good work of art and I fail to see how it is considered 'sexual harassment'. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel probably offended many in its day because of the nude portrayal of Adam and others. Commons may have a majority of conservatives with high values but in no way should we cater with them with every image they are offended by.
If others decide to leave the project or distance themselves from Russavia then that is their choice and shouldn't be a reflection on Russavia's role. They should be just treated like whining children that didn't get their way at the lame DRs of creations that are easily within scope. Commons may have a majority of conservatives with high values but in no way should we cater to them at every image they are offended by.
This issue has been blown way out of proportion starting with the trollish mentions of it at Mr. Wales' talk page and various other forums both on and off the projects. Get over the fact the media will remain on commons unless there are drastic changes to our policies. Commons may have a majority of conservatives with high values but in no way should we cater to them with every image they are offended by.
Art is art in all of its forms including ones that some may find offensive and commons' duty is to not be selective. We have many offensive images at commons that seem to be treated the same way as Pricasso's. Many are taken to DR and most are kept if within scope. Commons may have a majority of conservatives with high values but in no way should we cater to them with every image they are offended by.
The only point that applies from your link is: "Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same." I have yet to see Mr. Wales request commons or the WMF to remove the images if he is offended by them. I don't know why he is not over here to chime in. He may feel that his input would seem like 'power-tripping' but I don't think we should judge it as so. He is the subject and has the full right to complain here as any other subject would. Until that happens we are just second guessing Mr. Wales' opinion on whether we should continue to host any images of him that others may find offensive.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No author is compelled to come here and make a formal complaint. He can make his complaint in his user page, personal website or blog. He need not to be user here too. He already complained on his talk page. Do you think EN:WIKI is not part of this project? But not everybody think so. See this and this.
He could easily email WMF and formally complain then. His absence in all these discussions may be curious to some. I have yet to see diffs that Mr. Wales and Russiva don't get along. I think we can ignore any complaints over at en:wp as it seems they wish to cut us out of the loop and host their own images. Mr. Wales does indicate that he thinks commons needs work but I have never seen him point fingers. All I have seen is others over there defending the link to commons in the article and blocking Russiva unjustly. If Mr. Wales had handled it himself then this wouldn't be an issue. Others acting in his interest by second guessing him is not the proper route that should have been taken. I have also never seen Russiva complain about Mr. Wales. Unless someone provides links then I will assume they are buddies and ignore that motivation in these discussions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That is a link to another project. What does "latest viciousness" refer to? A minor edit war they had over there? It seems to me like they are two kids with affiliated clubhouses and the en:wp is trying to have this one removed by proxy. We at commons should decide on our 'crats. These decisions shouldn't happen because of squabbles at en:wp. I recently emailed an artist to see if she wishes to provide images for her articles. Would I be blocked for asking her to do a portrait of Mr. Wales? I admit that Pricasso's art it a little weird but to consider it sexual harassment is an extreme stretch. I still don't see why Mr. Wales doesn't just laugh it off as most notables probably do. I think he is blowing it way out of proportion just to kick Russiva out of the sandbox. This is a very wrong reason to question his 'crat status. Two kids have a spat so you evict one from the house because the other one has more friends? Very wrong indeed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding that resolution and other existing policies: Kat Walsh already told us "But what Commons does as a matter of policy should not rely on any effect or non-effect of the copyright law definition of "moral rights"--Commons should do the "right thing". I do think that as a community Commons should take much more care with being sure that subjects of photos are fully consenting." Do we need resolutions? I think they are probably happy to deliver much more. JKadavoorJee10:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Kat's statement reminds me of when I worked for Mennonites and they always wanted me to vote 'the right way.' Could she point out which policy defines 'the right thing' or is it in a bible somewhere?--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I think she was referring to protection of a person's privacy, reputation and dignity. Certainly you don't need policy to understand those concepts? Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That would go against our policy then. We would need to delete all of the caricature and other files that any notable doesn't like. If we hosted the Pricasso image that he did of the Queen would we remove that at a request on her blog or the request of any cronies she sends to commons? I think Mr. Wales is doomed to have the image hosted here. Deleting Russavia is not going to change that or any future images uploaded by 'crats that don't get along with the subject. Would we delete Russavia if he and Obama got into a tiff and a Pricasso image was the result? Would Obama need to join the WMF board first to get his way? A spat between Mr. Wales and Russivia on en:wp should not affect his status here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No we would not need to delete all the other files. I guess you missed the part where she mentioned editorial judgement. Regardless, the spat is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is the judgement of a 'crat to expose someone to ridicule and embarrassment without their consent when other options were available, such as Russavia using his own likeness for the portrait. The furore this has cause and negative impact on Commons (not Wales) should have been predicted and avoided. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I only see the 'furore' from a few editors. Any 'negative impact on Commons' was here far before this minor issue between Mr. Wales and Russivia. The only offwiki mention of it was by someone Mr. Wales claims 'isn't a real journalist' and other popular trolling blogs. We are just feeding the trolls more material with this DR.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
May I recommend you to the Board so that you can advise them? My last advice to you is to leave the projects if you can’t Please respect the words of the members on Board; and especially of the person on Chair. JKadavoorJee14:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I would advise them that it is not their job to dictate our policy with there high morals. We would end up with nothing but butterfly images if that were the case. As for leaving the project I thought you had already? Why are you still here beating the same dead horse with the same lame arguments? We remove people by policy decisions not spats between editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between defending principles and trying to change our policies with his morals. That will still end up filling commons with nothing but butterfly images. IMHO I see nothing wrong with Commons. Of course we host images that offend some, but no one has to go looking for them. We actually have very few compared to the PG ones. If a person is offended by someone then just avoid them. If Russivia were to lose his 'crat status the two would still be on the same project with the same offensive images so what is the point? The point is that one editor doesn't like another so removing their tools will solve all, or is there another point? I am not impressed with being told to 'get the fuck off the projects' by Jkadavoor. Can I make a point by asking for the whiner to be blocked? Attacking me because he doesn't like my arguments doesn't seem the correct way to act here. Attacking Russivia because Mr. Wales doesn't like him is the same wrong action.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Canoe, for my insulting comment. I was disturbed by the fact (IMO) that it is not good to humiliate a honourable person by position (Chair) here. See, her comment was seconded by another member on Board too. So it can be considered as the official opinion of the Board, unless challenged/ corrected by the Board itself. I was disturbed by the vulgar words used by an admin below to defend himself and his fellow too. I wish if a 'crat use his Community role to advice us, what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly on wiki. See, this is a discussion carefully watched by many. JKadavoorJee01:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not offended by the JPG portrait -- it is crap imo, by that's beside the point -- but the video and Russavia's actions in commissioning and uploading the work shame Commons and this community of users. I do wonder if we'd all be so comfortable if a Commons bureaucrat had asked someone to film themselves rubbing their penis on a picture of Sue Gardner's face, and then upload the video to Commons. Either Russavia's actions display remarkable social ignorance of the consequences of his actions (how the subject, or the community, or the outside world might regard or interpret this), or they show someone scoring points against Jimbo by literally rubbing his face in it. His subsequent evasiveness on the issue of commissioning, and is inability to see what he did wrong when pointed out, just compound things. This is not someone who should be a bureaucrat, expected to "lead", to "guide", to "be sensitive", to "make judgements" about making things public, to be regarded as having a higher "standing in the community" and a "highly respected user" -- all policy requirements for Commons:Bureaucrats. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The portrait itself does not offend me, but even if it did I don't see any policy-based reason for deleting or suppressing it. However, I do believe that Russavia's intent in arranging for the portrait's creation, and his uploading it here, was at least partly to offend, harass, and publically humiliate a fellow editor. This is hardly conduct becoming a contributor here, let alone someone whom the community has put in a special position of trust. Any other user who uploaded media with the intention of personally attacking or disparaging another user, regardless of whether that media was arguably in scope here, would probably find themselves blocked for harassment. It is regrettable that Russavia has thus far escaped such a sanction; it's high time to remove the insulation from the presumption of wrongdoing that bureaucratship and adminship affords him, and start thinking about whether he ought to remain welcome as a fellow editor of any sort at all. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyone that believes this work was not specifically commissioned to embarrass the subject is being disingenuous or daft. The fact that so many people are so dismissive of a person's feelings about how their image was used is appalling and brings much shame to Commons. If Russavia had the strength of his convictions he would have sat for the portrait himself. At least then we could of said we were respecting WMF policy with respect to media with identifiable persons and the issue of consent. Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because you call people who disagree with your blatant assumptions of bad faith "disingenuous or daft", that doesn't make them more right. Try to find a valid argument why you are assuming bad faith, because I've yet to see one. Poor judgement - perhaps, in retrospect, though I wouldn't have guessed either that this would cause such an uproar. darkweasel9409:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
darkweasel94, in this forum we are entitled to judge Russavia's motives, and don't need a signed confession to make this assumption -- especially given the history between the two. Russavia's own explanation (in that he has given any) is subject to the rationalisation that naturally occurs when one's own behaviour is questioned. Even if Russavia's motives were as innocent as Mattbuck would like us to believe, anyone with an ounce of social awareness would appreciate it would not be perceived as such by the subject, the community and the rest of the world. Russavia doesn't look good regardless of whether we apply Hanlon's razor. He either did a stupid thing or a bad thing, and quite possibly both. Colin (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I respect the aesthetic and philosophical Russavia choice, but I do not approve. Russavia voluntarily put our community at risk. If he's a gentleman, he should resign himself to his duties as Bureaucrat.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I respect both the article and Pricasso's work. However, if I were to create an article of such a provocative nature I would as a matter of common decency make sure the author of the original work consented to attribution and the subject of the work also consented. Russavia could have saved Commons much negative publicity and questions of his integrity by simply getting consent. He has never explained why he did not do that to any degree of clarity, which leads to people questioning his motives and judgement. Even if you were to enumerate a long list of reasons for going about things the way he did it is hard for me to find one that does not highlight perfectly what Colin so eloquently wrote above. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
My views are well reflected in the introduction to this section by Slaunger and in this comment, above, by Avenue. Not everybody may know Slaunger and Avenue (as they tend to keep away from the drama pages), but I consider them to be two of the most mellow, sensible, thoughtful and considerate users that we are privileged to have on this site. Neither would, I think, ever dream of criticising another editor simply to make a point, and if they feel the need to speak out to protect Commons' reputation I for one feel that their comments should be accorded significant respect and weight.
Some of the discussion above appears to be an attempt to re-hash issues that are already decided (eg whether Commons should host the Jimbo image and video), or are continuations of personal animosities. In my view, those should be ignored as they are not at all relevant to the sole issue that is being discussed here, namely whether Russavia has "done the right thing" and whether his actions are incompatible with his role as a bureaucrat. Nobody has alleged any misuse of either the admin or the bureaucrat technical tools, and there is therefore no need to discuss that. However, according to our bureaucrat policy the community has higher exceptions of 'crats than simply that they do not misuse the technical tools. In particular, 'crats have community responsibilities that include guiding and leading. According to policy they are supposed to be "experienced and trusted administrators", and we need to ask ourselves as a community whether Russavia's actions have resulted in a loss of trust.
The issues that primarily concern me are the explicit commission (in the sense of "I did make a suggestion that Jimmy's photo be used as a base to work from") of a portrait of a person with whom Russavia was not the best of friends and who, he must have known, would not have been happy; and also the lack of any straightforward and open response when questioned about his role by editors who were simply worried about the reputation of Commons and who had no personal axe to grind. It is not without a lot of soul-searching that I have concluded that Russavia's actions have indeed resulted in the loss of my trust to act in a leadership role. He does a lot of excellent work on Commons, there is no dispute about that, and does many commendable things as an admin, but in the circumstances I think it right that he should offer voluntarily to resign his 'crat position. Should the issue come to a vote, I fear that I would not now be able to support his retaining the 'crat bit. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Michael already touched the important points in his commentary above, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Its entirely possible to wikilawyer for the standpoint that Russavia has done nothing wrong, technically. Russavia solicited free content. Great. If you are of the opinion that any piece of free content, that abides by the letter of our numerous policies is a gain for commons, you are right. The other viewpoint is that commons is a bit more than that, it is a bit more than just the letter of every written policy, it is a bit more than just a dump for freely licensed content. Commons is also a community of real living people. I know that is hard to realize if you are only ever communicating through bits of written text on a screen. Beyond all technicalities about free content there is, in my opinion, a second layer of rules that should apply. And it would be very sad if we'd have to spell them all out. Those are the rules of common sense and dash of empathy towards you collaborators. I purposefully did not mention decency - we all know what can of worms that opens up. So, again, Russavia abided by the letter of the written policies, as far as I can see. But this particular episode was not really a shining example of leadership in the community building aspect. It was unnecessary, divisive, and unprofessional. --Dschwen (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with MichaelMaggs and Dschwen assessment of the situation. I also found our decision to keep the files disturbing: a deletion request by unwilling subject of offensive artwork would carry a lot of weight, especially since there is little use for the image other than illustrating articles on harassment. But I guess the topic was discussed to death (28k words) and is already closed. --Jarekt (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
After reading MichaelMaggs’ and Dschwen’s comments I just re-read https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values: "Our community is our biggest asset. We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission." Here it is clear that how important the community is for WMF and how much it cares each member.
And to whom it appoints to lead and guide the community? "Bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues… Any influence they may have is derived from their standing in the community. It is not that they gain special status by virtue of being a bureaucrat; rather, it is because bureaucrats are chosen from a pool of highly respected users, and highly respected users typically have some influence in the community anyway." Do Russavia have it? No; in my opinion too. JKadavoorJee16:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Much as I feel all the allegations against Russavia are bollocks, I cannot deny that he does not appear to have the community's trust. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Where do you see a lack of community trust? All I see is a few of Mr. Wales' moral friends doing his complaining for him. They are acting like children when two others are in a tiff. They pick the side they like a dis the other kid in any way they can. This community has far more people than a few vocal and repetitive whiners. More posts repeating the same lame points doesn't create more people and better arguments.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Some newspapers are telling us that one or another bureaucrat of http://commons.wikimedia.org would have declared:
When I masturbate in public, I don't really feel any different that when I do it in private. Can you possibly tell us why when you masturbate in public, it hurts?
It would be great if the various bureaucrats of the http://commons.wikimedia.org release their opinion about this interresting topic. You know, in the donate page, Jimmy Wales is pretending that:
Wikimedia is something special, its a library or a public park.
That block was on the grounds of actual and threatened vandalism, as well as not being able to trust the user with upload tools. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope we can agree that when Jimbo criticizes russavia, it is stupid to use that as evidence that russavia is "vicious" towards Jimbo. And I also think we should be judging russavia's behavior on Commons, or in direct relation to Commons, here, not on one local project such as English-language Wikipedia. darkweasel9416:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is using Jimbo's criticisms as evidence that russavia is "vicious" towards Jimbo. There is plenty evidence that Jimbo does not like russavia, as linked above. Perhaps this portrait was a misunderstood gift from Russavia to his best buddy Jimbo to express his undying love? Perhaps not. I agree we should focus on Russavia's actions on Commons, though since Jimbo doesn't really use his Common's talk page, most of the Commons-relevant issues get posted on Jimbo's Wikipedia talk page. So that page is certainly relevant. Colin (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Some have questioned why Jimbo is not here. It seems fairly obvious: He believed he was being trolled by Russavia and has no intention of feeding him. His closing comments on his talk-page were "I encourage people to go to commons and work to explain to the community there some of the concepts behind Hostile environment sexual harassment. I encourage everyone to seriously consider whether it is appropriate behavior to upload a clearly non-notable film of someone using his penis to paint a picture of a Wikipedia volunteer. It is harassment, it is trolling, and I am deeply disappointed to have to point this out to some people." This is Jimbo's comment on Russavia's behaviour, not on whether the portrait should be deleted. I think he's said all he needs to say on the issue of whether Russavia's behaviour is appropriate. And with his wikilink he is implicating the entire Commons community if we do nothing about it. -- Colin (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Note that his premise ("clearly non-notable") is meanwhile pretty clearly false. As for "implicating the entire Commons community", I think we should do what we consider the best thing for Commons, not what Jimbo won't criticize us for. darkweasel9418:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
And Russavia knew that Jimbo would not like the video. Otherwise why would he has triedto removethe discussion about this video from Jimbo's talk?
On the other hand maybe Jimbo got what he has deserved. I mean his statement about inappropriateness of uploading "a clearly non-notable film of someone using his penis to paint a picture of a Wikipedia volunteer" (my bolding). This statement is absurd, Mr. Wales, Wikipedia volunteers should have no special treatment. You've created the community dominated by russavias,and allowed this community to govern Wikipedia, and now you've gotten your own penis's painted portrait. What goes around comes around.198.199.87.21418:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Catering to Mr. Wales' en:wp opinion on this issue is not the way to go about it. If we accept that as our only argument then we would have a double standard all with the other images of notable people hosted here. We don't respond to the Queen's or Obama's blog requests about their images so this one should receive no special treatment. This is between Russiavia and Mr. Wales. They are the ones that have escalated a minor issue into drama forums, media, the bathroom wall at Grand Central Station, The Hague, The Vatican, and notes under my fridge magnets. As I have said before, the tiff between these two children should not be wasting all of our time as well. Those two should grow up and move on with the projects. Name calling by proxy is total BS. There is no good guy/bad guy here, just two kids that don't get along in two sandboxes that are attached at their hips.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, removing that comment from that talk page shows to me quite the opposite of trolling: if his intention were to troll somebody, why would he want to ensure that the trolled person does not see it? You can't troll somebody if they don't see it darkweasel9419:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
About the neutrality of that DR closer: Usually an "uninvolved/neutral admin" closes a controversial discussion. The "uninvolved" part can be easily bypassed by carefully watching the discussion from the beginning to end without making any comments and jump in when the ending time approaches. The "neutral" part is difficult to define. Here I’m wondered by visiting the talk page of the closing admin. Both pages look similar, starting with the word; "Sh*t". May be quite accidental! JKadavoorJee13:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary edit point
A couple of comments to events of the last 24 hours
@INeverCry.
We certainly can have caricatures of both Obama and Jimmy Wales here. It is our right. But when Russavia orchestrates the creation of this particular caricature by Jimmy using this unusual technique is that Russavia is being uncollegial as they are both prominent members of Wikimedia projects. He fails to do the right thing. As a consequence Jimmy expressed that he feels he has been harassed and trolled - this should come as no surprise to Russavia - media cathes the drama - first some insignificant minor biased ones - later in the notable French newspaper Libération founded in 1973 by among others the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (circulation of printed edition is above 120000 daily copies). The title of the article is Jimmy Wales, la face refaite à coups de pénis It is hard to translate directly (for me), but the title is far from flattering and the entire article is one total embarassement for the Commons community, the WMF and Jimmy Wales. This has harmed the reputation of the Wikimedia foundation and our community. If Russavia had orchestrated a portrait of Obama instead it would not have triggered this chain reaction. That is the difference, and that is a display of poor editorial judgement and a failure to lead and guide. And...Russavia does not see this as a problem at all. --Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Russavia is a very valuable and hard working contributor, especially within aviation, but the 300000+ edits and 50000+ logs you mention has very little to do with his 'crat role. If Russavia is an admin it will not be a hindrance to his productivity (if he so wishes). Notice that I have not raised any concerns about his admin role, nor have I claimed that he has abused any admin tools. --Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
@mattbuck, you wrote: "Really, which is more insulting, using genitals to paint what is actually a remarkably good portrait, or using pens to paint a picture of you masturbating to war crimes?"
I think that depends on who you are, what your world view and cultural background is. Personally, I do not care much about the techniques of using a penis as a brush. As I have pointed out to Russavia, this is really old news for me as a Dane, as we had Jens Jørgen Thorsen who did basically the same thing back in the 1970s, when I was a kid. Amongst others, he painted Jesus in a manner which was perceived as pornographic by many. So my own skin is pretty thick. But how I or you feel about it is not the point. It is how the identifiable person feels about it - in this case Jimmy Wales. If you have the ability to show empathy, you can learn to respect that other people have other thresholds for what they see as harassment as yourself. And I expect a 'crat to have that kind of maturity and judgement. And like it or not, the WMF resolution does not differentiate regarding your notability when you are being depicted. A complaint should always be handled with patience, kindness and respect. Mind you, that does not necessarily mean deletion as it should be considered if the complaint is reasonable. --Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
@Canoe1967
You write a few times "Commons may have a majority of conservatives with high values but in no way should we cater to them with every image they are offended by." Shall I interprete this such that you believe that anyone being concerned about Russavias role in the Pricasso incident are "conservatives"? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Personally, I do not perceive myself as a conservative, I watch far too many episodes of The Daily Show to match the archtypical conservative. Maybe it is my age. I am hopelessly old, more than 40 years, in fact. Does that make me appear conservative. Nor am I personally offended by the images, but I certainly understand if the portrayed is! --Slaunger (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You ask if it is some minor edit conflict, which causes Jimmy to accuse Russavia of trolling. From the diff Jkadavoor provided it is clear from the context that it is Russavias role in the creation of the video, which Jimmy refers to as trolling. --Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You state: "The only offwiki mention of it was by someone Mr. Wales claims 'isn't a real journalist' and other popular trolling blogs." Not true. This article is not from a "popular trolling blog". See also my reply to INeverCry above. Several others are though. I have not cared to mention them in order not to feed the trolls. --Slaunger (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
@Slaunger: Do you believe we should invite presidents, popes, international celebrities, etc. to let us know when they feel harassed by an image or other content relating to them, and then do whatever they ask? If so, how are we supposed to build a credible encyclopedia, and other credible projects? If not, on what grounds should we treat Jimmy Wales differently? -Pete F (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I do not believe we should invite them, but if they come here by their own will and file a complaint (which should be easier) about a particular image where they are identifiable, then that complaint should be met with patience, kindness and respect. That will not necessarily result in a deletion, but a consideration for the feelings of the depicted, possibly a good explanation for why it maybe shall be kept, and hopefully leaving the complainant with a feeling of having being treated properly and been listened to. I have already stated in my reply to INeverCry why Russavia should not orchestrate a portrait of Jimmy. It is because he should have foreseen the consequential bad media show leading to embarassement of all parties. Because it is not collegial and not appropriate as both are Wikimedia members. As a 'crat Russavia should strive to build bridges, not dig trenches. --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This debate is constantly being dragged towards another DR, whereas it should be about the judgements that led to the creation of the image and its impacts on the community. The image was neither caricature (as it is a simple portrait) nor does it convey satire. So what is its purpose? Its purpose of the image was to accompany an article and as such did not need to be of someone that would object to it. Satire or caricature of public figures is not in jeopardy here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It may be worth reiterating that this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Commons should or should not comply with the wishes of Jimmy Wales: the community has already decided that it will not delete either the image or the video, and that is not being challenged here. This section is solely about whether Russavia's public actions were compatible with his community role as a bureaucrat. Nothing else. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
@Slaunger, I differ from you in a few places.
For the most part, I do not think the Liberation article reflects badly on Commons. It concludes with a sentence that reads more or less: "As one of the participants in a long discussion on Wikimedia Commons explained, "there is no criterion for deletion, 'co-founder does not like it.'" And this is probably the one of the greatest merits of the site." I think that is a positive reflection, and one that helps the public understand how we operate.
I think the outcomes of having uploaded the file are on balance positive for the project (though it's unfortunate that it hasn't been a positive experience for everyone). This upload and the ensuing discussion have provided a pretty clear illustration of some of the issues that should be addressed as we refine the way we make decisions about what does and doesn't belong on Commons.
I also do not think that a public figure stating that he believes he was harrassed or treated unfairly, in itself, is a cause for great alarm. It's a charge that is raised by public figures about Wikimedia projects all the time, and we don't typically remove bureaucrat rights or sanction users as a result. -Pete F (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
For the record, the french article of Liberation was sourced here. As it is in English, I guess it is easier to understand for most of the debaters here.--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I can only agree with the many voices above. Regardless of whether we should host the files in question, and regardless of whether a public figure should or should not endure mockery.. Russavia acted in a manner unbecoming to a bureaucrat, and to this day I do not understand why he outright refused to answer questions and de-escalate the situation, which he had all the power to do at the time. This is not about whether what he did was technically within policy or not. This is about how a bureaucrat acted in a controversial situation. And in my opinion he did not at all act how I expect a bureaucrat to act, and as a direct result of his actions has (almost) driven off multiple content contributors from the project. --Conti|✉22:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
An arbitrary break ? that's crushing. Why is there a thread this big at AN/U that is NOT about me ? has the world turned upside-down ? I'm feeling neglected here. I could really use a complaint against me right about now. Penyulap☏23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I find this rather an interesting discussion but what I find really intriguing is for all the "official" concerns being raised about Russavia's competence as a representative with authority within Commons this isnt being backup by the action of WMF. The reason being is that if there is such official concern over Russavia actions and representations of the community does he continue in a position of trust with OTRS having access to personal information and answer emails sent to the Foundation. Gnangarra00:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I assume WMF is silently watching whether or not the community can resolve this matter within its periphery. I don’t see the necessarily of a WMF action, immediately.JKadavoorJee 03:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC) On a second thought, I think your concern is very important. We should pressure the foundation to do the necessary actions. JKadavoorJee13:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
There are times when trolling is a good thing, and if Russavia was trolling, this was one of those times. The fact is, many of us believe in having a Commons wide open to a range of content, including material that may be taken as derogatory toward a public figure. Others don't, and an unfocused debate was ongoing. By making his upload, Russavia brought the matter to a head, and made us hash it out. That's a leader's role. I deeply hope that the current ethos of Commons prevails, but the point is, one way or another, we had to make a decision and know what decision we had made. Next time Commons is criticized for having something nasty about some politician, Jimbo can say, "look - crowdsourcing is hell, but we all have to put up with it. People are free to create what they want on the Internet and make it available for free, and Commons vacuums up anything that can be copied for free". I hope eventually he'll come to see the video for what I think it is, fundamentally, a friendly tribute to his celebrity status. Wnt (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
From Kat’s comment ("I am fully in favor of having educationally-relevant images of the full range of topics covered, where subjects have given their informed consent."), it can be assumed that she has no problem even if "Commons wide open to a range of content, ...". But she think "that as a community Commons should take much more care with being sure that subjects of photos are fully consenting." She also "think that this only works if we are not stupid about exercising editorial judgment--that we aim to inform readers as fully as they wish to be informed, but avoid being gratuitously shocking". JKadavoorJee03:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Wnt says "People are free to create what they want on the Internet and make it available for free, and Commons vacuums up anything that can be copied for free" (as though Jimbo might say this in future). This is very much not the Commons I participate in, nor wish to participate in. Last time I checked Commons:Project scope and Commons:Photographs of identifiable people were still present. Colin (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
On a personal level, I quite like Russavia, and I certainly have no dispute with him. Thus, it is not without sadness that I have to say I agree with Michael Maggs and others, that Russavia's conduct on the Jimmy Wales/"Pricasso" issue (as well as in other, less significant incidents, and concerning Jimmy Wales in general) fell below what is expected of a bureaucrat. The animosity between Wales and Russavia is far from a secret, and instead of disengaging and de-escalating the conflict, Russavia appears to revel in it, actively provoking Wales. That's not what I consider to be the conduct of an upstanding, trustworthy member of the community, and I don't think it's what the community expects. Let's imagine for a moment Wales was any other contributor—would Russavia's actions as concerned that any other contributor (uploading an image he knows that contributor will take offence at be considered acceptable? Not in a million years. The threshold is of course higher for Wales because he is, to some extent, a public figure; but he is also a contributor to this project and to the wider movement of which it is part, and Russavia's actions do nothing to make Wikimedia projects feel like welcoming place to be.
I think that alone demonstrates that Russavia does not have the appropriate temperament or judgement to be a bureaucrat. That said, Russavia's contributions to other areas of Commons, not least the vast quantity of images he has uploaded, are amazing, and my opinion on his status as a bureaucrat should in no way detract from that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
A few users said that Russavia's contributions to other areas of Commons are amazing. Really? First Russavia runs a bot written by someone else to upload images from Flickr. Of course some uploads (hundreds of them) are getting listed at Commons:Deletion requests and get deleted (please scroll down too), but the servers' space is gone for good, this very servers' space that is bought for the money donated to the WMF. Then Russavia runs Cat-a-lot moving his uploads from Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup) to Category:Files uploaded by Russavia". What an intelligent task D: It almost seems that this penis's painted portrait is the only upload done by a user not by a bot. 199.241.30.23922:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, no. While I'm not tossing the word "amazing" around, this is just silly. Sure, many of Russavia's contributions seem to be automated, but he is an extremely active contributor, working through deletion decisions, and making an enormous number of substantive contributions to the project. If you're having difficulty seeing that, it's probably just because the MediaWiki software doesn't offer an easy way to look past the many automated edits. But it doesn't make it especially hard, either. Just look at Russavia's contributions in User Talk, Commons Talk, and Commons namespaces to get an idea. -Pete F (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If it was just the painting, there never would have been a problem because people would not know how it was created. But the video obliterated any chance that editors could have a neutral opinion about that photo. If had been of any other person, I think that there would be no question that it violated a person's privacy and should be removed. If a Wikipedia/Commons editor/Admin/Crat is responsible for this, I think they should face consequences for the ludicrous position this puts WMF in. By the way, there was hardly a consensus in the discussion over whether to delete or keep these files. It was pretty evenly split and I think the Admin should have erred on the side of caution. Again, WMF should not be pushing the envelope or "being the news". We are building an encyclopedia, not championing a movement. 69.125.134.8601:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It violates a person's (presumably Jimbo's) privacy? What private details about Jimbo are known as a result of this video being available that weren't known before, given that the original photo has long been here? I don't think "privacy" means what you think it means. As there was no copyright issue (in which case COM:PRP would have applied), no, the closing admin should not have "erred on the side of caution": usually you need consensus to delete something, not to keep it. On a side note, Commons is not an encyclopedia, though it can provide files to one. darkweasel9404:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The IP user may have been referring to publicity rights, which are considered an offshoot or special case of privacy rights in many jurisdictions, including the United States. These rights protect one's privacy insofar as they prevent others from using one's name and likeness for certain intrusive or exploitative purposes. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary edit point 2
I have worked with Russavia over the last 2 years on a number of projects, as well as quietly discussing and helping with a fair number of difficult and contentious issues (using off-wiki channels to avoid pointless drama). I hope that everyone reading here recognizes that he cares deeply for the aims of this project and commits huge amounts of his volunteer time to help sensitively resolve problems in his role as bureaucrat, both small and large. He is highly successful at helping with problems in our global context, where often we find misunderstandings of language and culture at the heart of the most disruptive disagreements. Though Russavia has had his personal life derided off-wiki and been subject to disturbing cyberbullying, he is competent at shaking it off and tends to knuckle down to getting on with solving Commons problems as a positive response.
I would love Pricasso to paint my portrait and my friends and family would just be amused at the story, so from my point of view though Russavia may not have handled this well, the resulting dramafest has way, way, overblown. For those thinking of leveraging the Streisand Effect by finding yet more gasoline to throw on the embers of this bonfire, give over, it's been over-cooked.
I feel it would be damaging for Commons to dismiss Russavia's talents as a sensitive and engaged bureaucrat, and we would lose a lot of the colour and energy that he provides to that role (please, let's not just have a grey goo of bureaucrats who behave like humourless Tory martinets, who can only spout a party line). However, considering the drama that this portrait and video has created, I recognize that a clear statement from Russavia on what has been learned and how he plans to ensure the wider community sees Commons as a mellow environment, would be a useful step. --Fæ (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I would love Pricasso to paint my portrait […]. Would you love for that portrait to be uploaded onto Commons and then spread from there? We're not talking about a portrait that's only meant to be viewed by friends and family. I'm surprised that you of all people don't understand Jimbo's feelings, although I don't believe that Commons should make concessions based on Jimbo's feelings. Publishing a blog entry that exposes the truth and reveals facts (is this what you were speaking of?) isn't "cyberbullying". I don't believe that Russavia can be described as "sensitive". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
+1. Glad to know we will be blessed by receiving "portrait + video" of another editor here. Then we can delete Jimbo’s one as a matter of redundancy as one keep voter commented on that DR.
"I hope that everyone reading here recognizes that he cares deeply for the aims of this project and commits huge amounts of his volunteer time to help sensitively resolve problems in his role as bureaucrat, both small and large." Then why he is neglecting the voice of two crat colleagues (commented above) and a Steward ([7], [8], [9])? JKadavoorJee12:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Jkadavoor, Russavia is not ignoring these comments, he has already said he is working on a response (diff). I am sure you will appreciate a considered reply might take a few days and may need some off-wiki clarifications to make sure the different points of view are properly understood. --Fæ (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the section created by Pldx1 which was deleted by Slaunger with the comment "rm section. Pldx1, I think this section is largely irrelevant in relation to the discussion we are having here - at least I do not see a clear link. No need to increase drama further.". Russavia restored it with the comment "i am re-adding this section -- people obviously hold me personally responsible for sexual images on this site, as did one media outlet, so let's explore this, and see just how responsible i am". Please do not edit war over this. And diverting the discussion towards whether Russavia is "personally responsible for sexual images on this site" would not be helpful. Please stay focused on this one issue of the portrait creation. If people want to discuss sexual images in general or Russavia's role wrt them, create another discussion. Colin (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The present discussion is not about deleting the files involved in the Pink Parrot Incident. And this is a great thing, since these files are strongly educative. They provide an unique and irreplaceable view from inside of http://commons.wikimedia.org. Indeed, they are so educative that a copy of them should be prominently placed in the deliberation room of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, as a kind of reminder of duties.
But the present discussion seems to be about the fact that consent is the boundary between sexuality and greed for power. There exists here a faction that considers that consent doesn't really matter and this results into using clearly non-free pictures as flagships "for http://commons.wikimedia.org is not censured" (as in the Toothbrush Incident). In this context, the very use of the Fundraising Appeal picture as basis material for the Pink Parrot Incident appears as an attempt to silent donators/contributors with a "shut your mouth, or get also your own face refaite a coups de penis".
On the other hand, I must say that the "don't speak of model Titti, but only of Jimmy Wales" attitude doesn't not appears either to be the expected attitude of someone that pretends to exert a "guiding and leading" role. Is [User:Colin] this
sure that Jimmy Wales is not ashamed to be presented as someone whose value and moral rights are greater than the value and the moral rights of some rank and file model of a stolen picture ?Pldx1 (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm surely the last person to disagree with you on the whole Commons-and-porn issue, but I think you are in the wrong thread. This is about Russavia's behavior as a bureaucrat and trusted community member, not about whether (and why, and how) we have too much porn and too little respect for our photographed subjects. They are absolutely legitimate issues, but that's not what this thread is for. --Conti|✉10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I am uncomfortable with the Pricasso image, in general and because Jimbo has voiced being hurt – though the latter might have happened mainly because he was sort-of teased to it by others on his :en-talkpage. And, yes, I would grant Jimbo a bit of preferential treatment, but that’s my personal opinion.
So, while I consider the upload of this image an error of judgement by Russavia in regard to the reactions that were to be expected, I fail to see evidence that he acted out of spite against Jimbo (the same doubt has been voiced earlier by The Devil's Advocate[10] who isn’t considered a special friend of Russavia).
However, in view of the overall situation, as outlined in the statements of MichaelMaggs, Slaunger, Avenue, Dschwen, and HJ Mitchell, and of the obvious loss of confidence by a number of other users, I think that Russavia should think about a voluntary resignment from his ‘crat tools, which also might take him (and Commons) out of the line of fire. --Túrelio (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Instead of responding adequately to the concerns of the Commons community, Russavia is playing WP:POINTy games on enwiki. Russavia cares more about poking enwiki sysops than about addressing our concerns in a timely fashion. Russavia has time for enwiki games but no time for us. The lack of an adequate response within the last few weeks is a response, and this silence probably says more about Russavia than whatever he plans on saying on Saturday. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
while agree with Darweasel that all editors should be given opportunity to respond, given that Russavia has made over 1,000 edits in 8 hours since this edit [11] about the same time as 99of9 posted here, plus 1,000s of others edits while this discussion has been taking place its not like he hasnt had sufficient time to respond already. When 99of9 is ready to close this it should be done irregardless. Gnangarra13:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This isn't a question of "all editors", it's a thing of "the very editor this discussion is about". Let's leave it open until it's Sunday in Australia. darkweasel9413:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems that darkweasel94 is betting that russavia will answer, while Michaeldsuarez and Gnangarra are betting that he will not. For myself, I am rather betting he will answer. The best way to know is waiting. Pldx1 (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not betting that Russavia won't answer. I was just saying that it's wrong for Russavia to squander the opportunities he had to respond. The problem here isn't "Will Russavia response?"; the problem here is "Should we have a bureaucrat who takes weeks to respond to community concerns?" --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand we have Mr. Wales as a main subject as well. I have yet to see him comment on the issue at all here at commons. He has had far more time than Russavia. If I were Russavia, I would just not respond due to the fact that there is no true complaint at commons from the subject in question. I still think this is a childish tiff between two children in two linked sandboxes. One can't enter the other sandbox because of the block and the other won't come to this one to discuss it. All we have is users here second guessing a few vague statements made there. If it were within my power I would give them two hours each to start a dialogue with each other or us. If not just close it. We have all wasted far too much time taking sides when we are not the ones involved. This is between those two not a huge mess of drama fest for the community. There is no discussion over there as to whether the block was done correctly. So why is there discussion over here about the same tools. Commons runs commons not quotes and actions at en:wp.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales has voiced his opinion on the matter multiple times. It should not matter where he has made those comments. None of this would have happened if Jimbo would not have strongly objected to the files in question. --Conti|✉22:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I keep seeing the same two diffs to the same two vague statements on his talk page. I think one is just name calling. Could you provide more diffs that I may have missed? I have yet to see any diffs showing who through the first punch as well. That may go back to that huge unilateral image deletion even. I don't know why we all need to choose sides in the tiff between these two. I respect them both but they are talking to everybody about it except each other. We may just have to live with the fact that they will stay in each others' sandboxes until they decide to bury the hatchet and move on with the projects as the rest of us are trying to do with the new commons policy reviews. Those reviews would probably have prevented this whole fiasco if done far sooner when they should have been. Up until now we can host any legal image that is in scope. We are now discussing the moral issues vs the barely legal ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what anything of what you say has to do with whether we should close this discussion without a comment from Russavia or not. Russavia has said he plans to comment here soon. Therefore we should not close this discussion until Russavia has done so. It's as simple as that. --Conti|✉23:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
He may just state something like: "Since there is no complaint from the subject of the issue here I don't feel any response by myself is warranted. This is the main reason I have not responded. I was waiting for input from the other party; which has not been forthcoming." Or he may shorten it to: "What Canoe said."--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate Canoe1967’s attempt to take it light. But as MichaelMaggs commented earlier, " this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Commons should or should not comply with the wishes of Jimmy Wales. This section is solely about whether Russavia's public actions were compatible with his community role as a bureaucrat. Nothing else."
See Jimmy’s comment too: "I am just one board member on this issue. I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff, but I need help from the community to illustrate that this is a problem that concerns many of us."
Here the concerns is (for me) whether an editor should respect another member in this community and whether he should make every effort to protect his/her dignity per https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values: "Our community is our biggest asset. We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission."
Further, whether a misbehaviour from a member in an uppermost position like a crat is negligible per Commons:Bureaucrats#Community_role: "Bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues… Any influence they may have is derived from their standing in the community. It is not that they gain special status by virtue of being a bureaucrat; rather, it is because bureaucrats are chosen from a pool of highly respected users, and highly respected users typically have some influence in the community anyway."
I believe Russavia is an utter failure as a crat and even merely as a community member in giving confidence to a fellow member.
Discussion closed. I have re-read the entire thread, and I see numerous significant concerns about the community's trust of Russavia in his community role as a Bureaucrat and the judgement he displayed in suggesting the image and video of Jimbo. It is essential that those entrusted with special responsibilities amongst us be trusted and accountable to the community, and as such, we need to have a Bureaucrat removal vote to determine the majority opinion. However there is no consensus that Russavia has abused his tools, and indeed there were many compliments for his actions as an administrator and contributor, so this should not be a de-Admin vote. Russavia has thus far not spoken in his defence, and he is of course encouraged to do so in the vote. --99of906:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Wrong version protected on Category:Islamophobia
For almost 6 years, User:Liftarn has persisted in an ill-considered and semi-peculiar effort to add "Category:Racism" to Islamophobia-related images (at first), and then, after Category:Islamophobia was created, to the category page itself. This matter has been discussed at exceedingly great length at File and also at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_4#User:Liftarn etc., and Liftarn has received no significant support from other users (except from the guy who thought that hatred of chess-players could be described as "racism"). It seems that Liftarn will never be content until he is able to tar views that he personally disagrees with using the broad brush slur of "racism" (which some might find hypocritical given Liftarn's role in the Carlos Latuff matter). Unfortunately, when User:Jarekt protected Category:Islamophobia, he seems to have paid a lot of attention to the descriptive wording on the category page, but not much to the categories. However, the dispute is not really about the wording, it's about "Category:Racism", so that the wrong version has ended up getting protected... AnonMoos (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You should discuss it at w:Islamophobia where the first sentence is "Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear of, or racism towards Muslims."--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I support !blocking Canoe1967, telling someone to go and read an article is second only to the suggestion they should read a dictionary or in some other way improve or enlighten themselves. this is not what commons or wikipedia discussions are for ;) Penyulap☏08:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Commons is for un-sourced and un-educated drama-fests. We should never read articles, dictionaries, nor policies and guidelines to enforce our arguments here. I will not redact my statement because it should remain to make me look foolish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Wait a minute, I re-read that and it said "You should discuss it at..." not "You should go and read..." Sorry about that, my mistake, I take back the support of !blocking you. Yes, a 'typical' wiki discussion should be engaged in on the discussion page on en.wiki, where thanks be to god I'm blocked and can't 'participate' or "engage in" that kind of discussion. But I'll support this pic for our picture of the year though, it's perfect. Penyulap☏08:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967 -- I'm sure you're well intentioned, but 1) Commons is not en.Wikipedia; and 2) User:Liftarn has had significant influence over the en:Islamophobia article (which creates a certain circularity)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It is true I have edited in that article, but Wikipedia is based on the use of reliable sources so my own personal views has nothing to do with it. // Liftarn (talk)
Unfortunately for you, your notion of "reliable source" is whatever supports your preconceived position, and for you an unreliable source is whatever does not support your preconceived position... AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
well a reliable source that supports his position is a lot better than no source at all which is what you have. After reading the conversations here and on the category talkpage, the only source I have seen mentioned in relation to this image is a source which apparently mentions this exact concept and indicates it is racist. I don't think 'No source' trumps that. I mean go to Vegas, sit at a card table and when someone puts down three of a kind shout "HA! three of a kind is NOTHING pal, look at this! <open hands in front of you, palms up, then spread hands to either side> I have NOTHING ! that beats your three of a kind !!!!' Penyulap☏05:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have the vast majority of dictionaries of the English language on my side, to start with, so the burden is really on Liftarn. During the conversations on File, Liftarn was not able to come up with anything that convinced anybody of much of anything (always excepting the "hatred of chess players is racism" guy). On Category_talk:Islamophobia, Liftarn gave such free reign to indulging in some of his more annoying and irritating rhetorical maneuvers and argumentation tricks at length, that in the end I didn't care too much what he came up with. Given his long-standing pattern (over the seven years I've seen him in operation) of cavalierly dismissing any source that disagrees with him and elevating to gospel any source that agrees with him, I doubt that I missed too much... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that is the argument. Since it is a religion and not a race. w:Racism says the definition is controversial. I see no harm in including Islamophobia in the racism category as many would expect to find it there depending on whose definition they go by. If someone doesn't like a Jews from China that would make him an anti-Semite which is still racism even though Chinese Jews are not Jewish by race. I doubt I would bother discussing it in an RfC though, just not worth the time and drama for me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967 -- An analogy between Judaism and Islam is really not too useful in this particular area, for reasons that have been discussed at length at File ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Turelio -- we have Category:Anti-Christianity, and no-one has added "Category:Racism" to it, and if anyone did add "Category:Racism" to it, this would be regarded as nonsense by many (probably malicious nonsense if the person adding the category acted in the manner of Liftarn)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Good point. It may have to go to some sort of RfC then. Remind me not to show up there. I am just wondering if we should treat our categories different than en:wp. Ours are to make it easier to find images and not to group articles by strict associations like they do there. I remember many discussions about 'ethno-taggers' at en:wp. I think that the consensus was that subjects of BLPs needed to identify to be included in categories. We should do the same with people here but do we need to be so strict with other images? It may just make searches that much harder. --Canoe1967 (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
keep it simple. If Islamophobia is like arachnophobia, stick it in the psyche categories where people are going to look for it. If it's a form of, or related to, something people searching for racism are looking for, then that's where it goes. Just trying to war to make an image impossible for people to find, or trying to redefine it as something that the rest of the English speaking world doesn't agree on is not commons job.
All meaningless for AN. The file has been protected in the "wrong version" as per tradition and any changes are to be worked out on the category talkpage before further changes are made. The sooner you start talking there, the sooner it becomes 'the right version'. Penyulap☏13:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Islamophobia is neither racism nor (despite the silly name) a psychological phobia. It is merely a strong religious belief, i.e. that Islam is a false religion. Many religions are largely defined by their dislike for other religious beliefs - Satanism, Eckanckar, Seventh Day Adventists etc. (I would count atheism, which is in my broad definition a religion with an unprovable belief in the lack of omnipotent beings) If you can think of a category for them go for it; I'm thinking "criticism of religion".
I should also note that ordinarily, Commons wants to avoid senselessly giving offense to photographic subjects, and calling people racists can be offensive - therefore I think it is a very bad idea indeed to dump pictures of identifiable people into "Category: Racism" by default, as the operation of some mindless categorization software, without having a human editor think about whether racism is that person's intent. Wnt (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Err, so you're saying we should respect the privacy of people who are obviously doing everything they can to get public attention ? I think you're making the assumption that everyone thinks racism or satanism or whatever is a bad thing. Lisa Simpson 'went bad' and when Principle Skinner cornered her and demanded to know 'Just what is it you are rebelling against' she answered 'Whadda ya got ?'
White supremacists are white supremacists because they want to be white supremacists and if they are pro-active and out there demanding public attention and protesting, or like this guy who is not sitting quietly at home minding his own business, then of course he gets the obvious least controversial categorization and if you go ask him "Are you racist ?" then you'd probably get the same answer as you would get if you asked him "Are you Islamophobic ?". This guy isn't afraid of being labeled, he's doing it himself and is proud of it. He uses the placard to say so because the sound in that picture is turned down and he's yelling at you saying "Penyulap is right, I'm racist and proud of it" see ? he's making the OW sound in 'Proud'. The only reason he says 'I'm Islamophobiac' instead of 'I'm racist' is because unlike me, he's a 'racist racist' whereas I'm a non-racist racist the same as Fry, we hate everyone EQUALLY. Although I'm not a militant non-racist racist, I just can't be bothered and it's like everything else I do, I'm really really lame at it. But I am non-racist racist, it's just that when you divide up the small amount of hate that I have the effort to generate, and divide that amongst all the races, religions, cultures, and farm animals of the world, there is such a small amount that people barely notice, if at all. I think I'm so lame at it everyone thinks I like everyone. I don't, I'm just lazy at hating. Not like this guy though, he's professional, I mean he's gone out and spent money on a flag for crying out loud and made a placard. Plus it's very noticeable, and that's because he's a racist specialist, specializing for the day in one particular form of racism, which he proudly names. I guess when it's protest against some other minority day maybe he's into hating that minority, who knows.
I reject the idea that this person is an educated theologian and heretic, I have serious doubt that he's read the Koran and is objecting to it on a doctrinal basis. Look at those glasses. They aren't reading glasses, they're standing outside yelling at a horrible volume while people cross the street to avoid you glasses. The common conversational use and the everyday meaning of the message he is getting out there to get out is clear and obvious. If I walked up to this person on the street and wanted to make friends, I wouldn't be talking theology with him. That would be an obvious fail. If I started talking about the Koran, he'd get instantly confused, and then wanting to NOT be confused, and recognizing me as the source of confusion because I'm discussing theology, he'd want to drive me away. He'd want help with that, so he'd no doubt tell his friends I'm either Muslim, or if I tell him I'm not, he'd say Muslim 'lover'. Obvious. No, if you wanted to make friends with this guy, you'd start a conversation about every different race, religion and culture he comes across in his day to day life and then you can tell you just what he thinks of each and every last one of them, and thoroughly enjoy your company because there aren't too many people who listen to his shit, not intelligent people anyhow.
The idea that labeling this proud person a racist is not about "Commons wants to avoid senselessly giving offense to photographic subjects,", it's very sensible indeed. Trying to hide the image in categories that nobody is going to type into the search bar is trying to cover up educational images to be apologetic or partisan. Placing them in all of the most obvious categories helps people find the image. Choosing just one and leaving out the rest is not appropriate. Penyulap☏23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not speaking of censoring these photos, nor am I saying we shouldn't categorize photos to illustrate concepts like Islamophobia and racism. I simply don't want us to take a photo someone contributes to Commons and automatically tag it as showing "racism" when we ought to know that the deductive process involved (that Islamophobia is "really" motivated by anti-Arab/African/Eastern European/Polynesian bias) is approximate and doubtful at best. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. In this case, Liftarn has put a lot of effort into his reasoning, explained it on the talkpage, given references, and I've reviewed those sources and references and done my own research as well. I have found it to be quite sound. On the other hand, there have been no references given to dispute the idea, and even if there were, it's never commons place to be choosing sides. We just put it in both. Anyhow, it seems moot, as Anonmoos has, on the talkpage, resorted to plain name-calling rather than reasoned discussion. If that ever changes, I guess we can discuss it further, but I'm not holding out much hope for it.
I wouldn't say that this image has been 'automatically tagged' as racism, there has been a great deal more research, discussion, and references, than most disputed images we have. Penyulap☏16:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Depends where you live and who you talk to as to what meanings people will assign to different words. I have no idea about homophobia and racism blending, with the discussions I come across they don't, but other people may have good examples of it. I would say the primary vector for including hatred based on religion into racism is that for many people, other classifications of the idea in one word don't come to mind as easily as racism does. Tell me, what does everyone here call hatred based on religion ? You see ? that's the thing. If you pause for a moment and think of the first thing that comes into your head, that will be the first thing someone types into the search bar.
For definitions of Racism, religion is sometimes included, for example, www.newworldencyclopedia.org does this, Racial discrimination is different treatment of people on the basis of characteristics which may be classified as racial—including skin color, cultural heritage, and religion.
What people define it as, or type it into the search bar as, or what the everyday usage of the word is, varies a bit. I'd say it's not controversial. I'd lean towards bigotry for both Islamophobia and homophobia, but for Islamophobia, given the overwhelming media bias and stereotyping that points the concept of Islam towards Arabs and beards and so on, I'd say it's Racism in English is a good choice for the manner in which it is used through the US and UK.
Across Asia, I've never come across a single word for it, you'd always use a phrase. I don't even know if there is a word for it in Indonesian. Racism would be an easier word to 'find' than bigotry. As for the Arab = Islam concept, it doesn't exist, that's a western media creation. People in Indonesia are into Islam, but not into beards ;) Has about the same population as the US, but everyone in Indonesia has a religion, and the majority by far are Muslim. Penyulap☏10:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
So we might consider Methodists a race? Or maybe if that absurdity is too much to choke down, we could broaden it out a little and suggest Christians in general are a race? I suppose if Muslims can have their own race then Christians can too, right? What we have here is a watering down of the word "race" and the overuse and misuse of the word "racism". – JBarta (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, it may sound 'absurd' to you, but a lot of Jewish people say that their religion IS a race, that gets a lot of people debating. Methodists, I don't hear much about that idea.
The Amish of the United States often refer to anyone around them who is not Amish as 'English' don't they ? It's not the exact meaning of the term according to some people, but it is to others. Amish people are basically a religion, and they label non-Amish people as a race. Maybe the textbooks and dictionaries that the Amish use define Americans as English. The idea that everyone has to look, think and speak the same as you to be 'right' is just bullshit. If you just want to categorize as 'Americans' people of a particular skin tone or religion or decent, which are you going to choose ? you can't. Not commons job to choose who is right or wrong or which is the proper point of view. It varies from project to project. If there is a source to back up a particular view, it has to be included for the proper functioning of the system. Trying to force your own personal ideas of what 'racism' should be defined as, onto everyone else, is pushing a POV. There are sources on the Internet to support the category. Picking which one is right is not our job, just include them all or take it to the village pump for a new proposal. Penyulap☏12:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
As was covered in past discussions, Judaism is a predominantly "ethnic" religion which has a significant genealogical component (i.e. no convert to Judaism can ever become a Levite or a Cohen, etc.), which functioned as an officially-recognized "nationality" parallel to Russian, Ukrainian, Latvian, etc. in the Soviet Union, and which functions as an ethnic group comparable to Irish-American, Italian-American etc. in United States society and politics. Furthermore there are significant numbers of people who are simultaneously proud ethnic Jews (who would never dream for a moment of denying their Jewish heritage) and also militant atheists. Almost none of this applies to Islam -- being Muslim is a quasi-ethnic identity in Bosnia, but that's about it... If you wouldn't add "Category:Racism" to Category:Anti-Christianity or Category:Anti-communism, then don't add it to Category:Islamophobia! AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
We could delete the category and move them all to category:discrimination. We could also rename racism to discrimination against race.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, discrimination against Neanderthals (Sapiens and Neanderthalis are the only two human races) is not that common so it would be a very small category. Why not let the category include various types of racism, including types based on ethno-religious backgrounds like anti-Semitism and islamophobia. // Liftarn (talk)
Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens are different species. This is quite different from race. At one time there were considered three "races"... Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid (or roughly whites, asians and negroes). As time progresses the definition of race expands so that our own Wikipedia article now defines race as divisions by "anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation". Now just about any group of one fashion or another can be considered a race and any dislike of that group can be considered racism. We here at Wikimedia are welcome to parrot any sort of jibberish we wish as long as it's backed up by so-called reliable sources, but the fact remains that the definition of race has been watered down and the term racism has been overused and misused. – JBarta (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
If they was a subspecies or a different race is still not solved (see ). The definition of race has actually narrowed from "the German race", "the English race" to that all humans are so closely related that there is just one single race. Here we are talking about racism, not race so the argument "NNN is not a race" is just as invalid as saying you can't have athlete's foot if you're not an athlete. // Liftarn (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
As was extensively discussed at File, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the word "race" was sometimes used exceedingly vaguely ("the two races of men, the men who borrow and the men who lend" etc.). Terminology such as "the English race" has been pretty much obsolete for 50 years or more, but it contained an idea of Englishness being an ethnic identity -- whereas Islam is an ideological affiliation, not an ethnicity. AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Black is a skin colour, not a race. Judaism is a religion, not a race and so on and so on. It is however racism to say things like "all blacks are rapists" or "the Jews are out to control the world". You are trying to blur the issue by bringing up irrelevant subjects. // Liftarn (talk)
Just to clarify, are you saying that "racism" has nothing to do with "race"? That the word "race" is irrelevant when appling the term "racism"? – JBarta (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Popular notions of race certainly have shaky scientific foundations in some respects (see, however, Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy), but that doesn't mean that you can post-modernly define the word "race" to mean whatever you want it to mean ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!" -- Humpty Dumpty), and your invocation of Neanderthals (which are not even the same species) is another bizarre and irrelevant tangent... AnonMoos (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
He gave you proper references including one for the exact image, but where is your reference ? There aren't any. You're just making personal attacks against Liftarn crying wolf that he's attacking you when you're the one attacking him. scroll up a little from here.
Liftarn has been as mature and sensible as he/she can be in the face of your consistent refusal to address the crux of the issue. I personally wouldn't have the patience, after all, the consensus is against you, name-calling is hardly going to sway people to your point of view. Heck I'd just need to come up with references of high quality like these because you're not giving any references at all, at least Liftarn's put in a great deal of effort to listen, be polite, and provide a rational reasoned discussion. I can't say other people would go that extra mile when all they get is insults.
Whatever -- you seem to be continuing in your habitual tendency to make every discussion revolve around you and your personal dramas, rather than what the ostensible topic of discussion is. As for Liftarn, he makes completely absurd and preposterous statements such as "Black is a skin colour, not a race", and the only real racism is "discrimination against Neanderthals", and freely hurls accusations of "racism" at other editors ([12], [13]), and at this point you seem to be choosing to egg him on, perhaps because you imagine that this will lead to an entertaining spectacle...
Liftarn is sometimes able to make out a superficially plausible-sounding case that whatever he wants to do is supported by Wikipedia policies, but if you've seen him in action as long as I have, you would have become painfully aware that the object of most of his editing is to promulgate and present to advantage things he personally agrees with and cover with contumely things he personally disagrees with, and that his attitude to sources is to treat as gospel whatever fits his preconceived opinions while dismissing out of hand anything that doesn't support his preconceived opinions. Liftarn will never change any of his positions because of new evidence that he wasn't previously aware of, or because he was convinced by anyone's arguments, so if you expect me to treat him as if there was any possibility that any combination of facts, evidence, or arguments could change any of his views, then you're bound to be disappointed. AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
you whitewashed the word racism from the category page on the preceding edits of both of those diffs. here is the diff to the first time you did it, and here is the diff to the second time you did it, you censor the word and the explanation as well.
You anonmoos are making the personal attacks, and you're the only one who is doing it scroll up a little. Liftarn and I were waiting patiently for you to address the actual issue, but so far all we have to show that Islamophobia is not racism is one I provided. Oh it's convincing all right, but not convincing enough. Works better the other way around.
The problem I see is that Liftarn is far removed from your reality, and I 'get' where you're coming from I really do. Thing is, Liftarn is so far removed that he's in a galaxy far, far away, on another planet called Earth with everyone else. I occasionally visit there, I find it decidedly lack-luster but I do recommend that you come with me and visit there sometime to meet Liftarn and the other editors who so want to chat with you about references. In the meantime I guess you're bags aren't packed and those editors will have to work things out on their own. {sigh}. Penyulap☏08:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If there's anything that anybody agrees is a "race", it's the macro-divisions or quasi-continental divisions of humanity into white, black etc., so your statement "Black is a skin colour, not a race" unfortunately borders on the idiotic or the disingenuous. And Judaism is not a race, but it has a strong ethnic-genealogical component, and as an empirical matter of observed historical fact, many antisemites hate converts from Judaism and descendants of converts of Judaism just as much as they hate actual Jews themselves (see Disraeli, Marx, Mendelssohn, etc.). For these and other reasons, attempts to draw parallels between Judaism and Islam are not useful in this particular area, as has been explained several times before... AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Yet many draw parallels between 1930s antisemitism and modern day islamophobia (see for some examples). Also many islamophobes also hate unborn children with one or more Muslim parents so there is obviously also an ethnic component there. // Liftarn (talk)
That's nice -- no reasonable person ever denied that some particular Islam-haters were racists (and morons), but that's not the issue. The issue is whether racism is an essential or defining characteristic of dislike of Islam. And Islam still fails the ethnicity test by any reasonable and meaningful definition of "ethnicity" (except maybe in Bosnia). Here's a compromise -- I would support including Category:Islamophobia as a subcategory of Category:Racism in Bosnia only... AnonMoos (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There are religious antisemites so I guess antisemitism isn't racism either then? As we can see from multiple reliable sources islamophobia (not the same as valid criticism of Islam just as antisemitism isn't the same thing as valid criticism of Judaism) is described as a form of racism. // Liftarn (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
A pure odium theologicum antisemitism or anti-Judaism would not necessarily be racist -- but many theological antisemites appeal heavily to verse Matthew 27:25, which immediately places the focus back onto hereditary-genealogical matters. And for you, almost anybody who offers any criticism of Islam (or disagrees with any of your political views, for that matter) is thereby 'ipso facto a "racist"[sic], and you will never rest content until you are able to label them as such... AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to practice a bit more on your mind reading skills. // Liftarn (talk)
I've rarely gone wrong in predicting your actions based on the assumption that you have an unshakably stolidly smug belief in your own personal infallibility and unassailable self-righteousness, often accompanied by a desire to label those who you feel fall short of your own ultimate self-ascertained moral purity. By the way, File:Anti Muslim Brotherhood slogan.svg is an image which some might consider Islamophobic, but only a moron would consider racist.... AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should stop for a while and consider that personal attacks may not be a ~idea to post at the administrator's noticeboard. // Liftarn (talk)
Canoe1967 -- if I understand your proposal, it's to fully delete Category:Racism without direct replacement because User:Liftarn might misuse it? I think that a much simpler remedy would be to prevent User:Liftarn from misusing it... AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
See? that's what I mean, you get people who like apples and want to hide all the oranges from people looking for something to eat (or learn) because some applefans want to promote apples and downplay oranges. Obviously it's not our job to choose which fruit is the only fruit that goes in the fruit bowl. Just label it "apples and oranges" or the more obvious 'fruit', or take it to the village for the farmers to decide which is the poison fruit that needs eradication. Penyulap☏11:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967 -- Don't think that this has much to do with linguistic description vs. prescription as those terms are commonly understood. Rather, it has to do with the fact that the term "racism" is not usually extended to cover dislike of ideologies which one may choose to affiliate or disaffiliate oneself with (so that anti-Communism and hatred of the U.S. Republican Party are not normally called "racism") vs. the fact that some less-informed and less intelligent anti-Muslims are not real critics of Islam at all (they know very little about Islam as a belief system and have no real desire to learn), but merely use "Muslim" as a convenient label to attach their hatreds of those who have darker skins, or who are perceived to have "backward cultures" or "hate our way of life". I never denied that some particular individual Islamophobes are flaming flagrant racists, but that doesn't mean that being Muslim is a race (in fact, it's not a race -- it's not even an ethnicity, except in Bosnia). Therefore I see no reason to add Category:Racism to Category:Islamophobia any more than to Category:Anti-Christianity or Category:Anti-communism. And unfortunately, one of Liftarn's strongest motivations in adding Category:Racism to Category:Islamophobia seems to be to slur or smear everybody who may have some informed criticisms of certain aspects of Islamic practices as being a moronic malignant "racist"[sic], so for me that's another important reason why Category:Racism should not be included... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Gee, I would have thought the strongest motivation would have been that it how it's described in reliable sources. See Category talk:Islamophobia#References. Oh, and last time I checked Islam was a religion, not an "ideology". // Liftarn (talk)
Unfortunately, after having seen you in action for about 7 years, I find your personal selective notions of "reliable source" to be almost entirely self-serving. And a religious belief system or theology is one example of an ideology -- and dislike of ideologies which one may choose to affiliate or disaffiliate oneself with (such as anti-Communism and hatred of the U.S. Republican Party) is not normally called "racism"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't help but notice as soon as the original argument you brought was defeated, you redefined the word, and then when that newly invented definition was defeated, you invented a new definition, and then when that was defeated, you invented a new definition.... I think you get the picture. Thing is, I think it's brilliant ! A never say die attitude. Just when the zombie gets re-animated for the 12th or so time and it's just like a monty python-ish head or a hand that can crawl about, it's kind of funny. I like it. Penyulap☏11:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Since Category:Racism has not been on Category:Islamophobia for the majority of the time since the category was in existence, and there were no real supporters of Liftarn's determination to include it prior to this month (other than the "hatred of chess players is racism guy"), maybe it should be kept off until we have consensus to include it. AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
DELETE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA !!! {Penyulap shouts and runs about the room raving and spasming in excitement} There was no real life references to wikipedia in the '80's let's delete the whole thing !!! Majority of last century it didn't exist !! It has so got to die !!! BlaAAAHAhAHHAhaha WAa hahAhHAa {waving arms running about} BANG {Penyulap runs into a wall and hits their head} Owch !! {rubs head} dang, I think I got a bit over excited there. Sorry about that. Penyulap☏12:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I just discovered that according to Wikipedia, Polish joke is in the category "racism". I guess the joke is on me. Some things are beyond hope. I'll go back to more useful endeavors. – JBarta (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
"Polish" is an ethnic identity (unlike "Muslim"), so it makes more sense there than on Category:Islamophobia... AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I think there is some humor in the image, which shows a very serious looking PIG in it. ;) But I have a strange sense of humor which possibly not everyone shares. We have references to show that the image is racist, but nothing so far to say it's a joke image. I certainly support it's inclusion in humor categories though. Reason why I find it funny, I mentioned on Canoe's tp. :D Penyulap☏13:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
admin Denniss' actions against user Jyy889900
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
hello;
please understand that i do not make user complaints lightly; in all my years editing at commons, i can only recall posting 3 complaints to this board, including this one.
HOWEVER
recently, user-admin Denniss chose to unilaterally mass speed delete the ENTIRE (approx 6-10 files) upload catalogue of new user:Jyy889900, WITHOUT any "due process", without discussion, without PROPER NOTIFICATION TO THE USER (notice was sent for one file only), & without providing legitimate rationale for his actions.
the files were all speed deleted as "out of scope" with no further reasons given; de facto the reason was "nopenis". no other reasons existed for the removal; the files were adequately in focus, of acceptable size & quality for screen-viewing, apparently self-made, the subject was clearly an adult (face not shown, so no "personality rights" issues), & no copyvio was alleged.
as it happens, i had previously skimmed this user's uploads, with the intent to find suitable categorization for them in the future, & they did in fact depict things not currently in our catalogue (unless we have a collection of "flowers-inserted-into-male-urethras" images that i am not aware of?). i do not suggest that this is a particularly edifying subject, or "high-art", but they did in fact constitute unique depictions of a human activity, of which we have NO other examples.
AND, regardless of one's opinion of said content, AT THE VERY LEAST, the merits of the image-collection should have been DISCUSSED by the community, rather than unilaterally removed as "speedy" (i.e.: obvious, non-controversial deletion), by this one admin.
it is one thing to argue that a single penis-pic is "low-quality & not of value" & constitutes a "legitimate" speedy, that is merely "stretching" the rules a bit. is it QUITE ANOTHER to MASS-DELETE a user's entire catalogue, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, WITHOUT REVIEW, using this rationale. effectively, it amounts to a sub rosa action, to eliminate another user, without proper discussion or process, all on grounds of "nopenis"; which, i remind you, is NOT a part of commons policy.
THERE IS NO COMMONS POLICY & NO COMMUNITY CONSENSUS TO SUPPORT SUCH ACTIONS. nor should there be; such powers, with no review & no easily-accessible (by the general community) record of action, invite abuse.
further;
denniss is a highly experienced administrator, who has been editing usefully at commons for many years, therefore, THERE IS NO EXCUSE for this action on his part. it clearly ignores/violates commons policy on multiple points, & he should know better.
the action should be reversed & the user should be sanctioned/warned not to repeat it. repeated action should lead to a de-sysop.
follow-up: i left a note on denniss' talkpage, before posting here. the user has now responded [14]; his response is to dismiss commons' policy & state his intention to continue with such unilateral actions. Lx 121 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have taken the pain to look into about a third of the deleted uploads and, honestly, from that I can confirm that all these shots were clearly out of scope: sort "home-porn", a bit artistic (small flower in urethra opening), but clearly unencyclopedic. deviantart or flickr would be the appropriate place, if at all. O.k., the deletion process might not have been optimal. Speedy-tagging or a mass-DR might have been better, but in the end would have led to the same result, IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
with respect; i have also viewed some if the files, & i disagree with your qualification as "clearly out of scope". i would also remind you that THIS IS WIKIMEDIA COMMONS not wikipedia, "unencyclopedic" does not equal "out of scope".
please provide specifics? i.e.: demonstrate how a particular file is claimed to be "out of scope"?
also; re: "SUB-OPTIMAL": shall i take that as an admission that the admin has in fact broken the rules? or does "sub-optimal" mean that the rules are not to be applied to this user?
again, with respect, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME "MIGHT" HAVE BEEN, "if the deleting admin had followed the rules". the admin clearly broke the rules; the deletion was improperly handled. if that goes unpunished & unremarked, it makes the rules WORTHLESS.
I've also looked the pictures (all of them, that's how much I'm dedicated to the cause...), and I agree with Túrelio. Pleclown (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
& again, i politely disagree with you, BUT THAT IS BESIDE THE POINT. the issue is that user:Denniss clearly & obviously BROKE the rules. the user intends to KEEP RIGHT ON BREAKING THE RULES. either "deletion policy" means something, or it does not. if deletion is going to be an admin free-for-all, then that's going to have a negative effect on the rest (i.e.: non-admins) of the community. Lx 121 (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
there is no DR (as of yet, anyway); i'm rather more concerned with the inappropriateness of the admin's action, as regards commons policies. if you have admin powers, you can look the user up & (i assume) scan their deleted files. if you want to start a DR i'm willing to support it, but as a non-admin, i can't even locate the deleted file names anymore (except 2 that i happen to have in my browser history). Lx 121 (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
these are the 2 that i have links for [15] & [16]. i was working on other categorization at the time, & only scanned the user's contributions quickly, using the pop-up preview tool. these were the 2 i actually opened; i have no memory of exactly what these 2 were, or if they were with or without the flower inserted. they appeared to be of adequate quality & i made a note to return later & try to figure out how to classify them; when i did return, the user's contribs page was empty. Lx 121 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This really raises the more general issue of whether "no educational value" deletions should ever be done speedily. IMHO they should only in the rarest cases such as very obvious vandal/attack images. Mere "low quality" cases deserve a deletion request. Unfortunately COM:CSD is merely a proposal, but it doesn't allow for "no educational value" deletions either. darkweasel9418:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
However, commons would certainly be a better place if it was. Some trust in the judgement and common sense of the admins would be nice. "Flowers in the urethra" sounds like a case of COM:NOPENIS. Fair game I'd say. --Dschwen (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Lx, You might not agree with{{Nopenis}} and that such images are out of scope, but to me it is a very clear case of images that we have much more than we need. I agree that Denniss should have explained it better. I would use {{Nopenis}} and list all the files about the be deleted. Also regular DR might have been better, but mass DR's are quite a pain to set up. So I think his action was just speeding up the unavoidable. --Jarekt (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Jarekt, I find DR bundles trivially easy. Here's the process: (1) Using the automated process create a DR for a single image in the group you wish to delete, providing a deletion rationale, (2) in the text of the DR add the list, category or link to a problematic account's uploads, (3) go have a cup of tea. In what way is this too much of a burden for administrators to be bothered to apply, when it is firmly expected of everybody else?
Unfortunately, that procedure seems to be defective, since people who have images on their watchlist other than that one particular image will have no idea that the deletion of those images is under discussion. Furthermore, if other people than the original uploader have edited images other than that one particular image, then they won't receive notifications on their user talk-pages about images which they've uploaded... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Fæ, the painful step is the need to add DR templates to all the files affected and notifying all the uploaders of those files (assuming all files in DR are not from a single user). Lately I spend a lot of time trying to notify authors of the files, which were transferred to Commons by a bot and original uploaders never edited on Commons. I agree that "Commons:Nudity does not give administrators any special powers or authority to act out of process" and that Denniss did not follow the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarekt (talk • contribs)
(Edit conflict)Yes. It is also true that in practice, for the bundles relevant for Denniss' mass deletions of recent new user contributions, in the rare event that anyone is watching the new set of images they would be watching most or all of them. A single user notification and template on one image will indubitably be sufficient to engage them in the discussion. If we need a better semi-automated DR notification routine, we can discuss that on another thread. This does not obviate the requirement for administrators to follow the clear community approved process for deletions, even if slightly inconvenient, rather than having administrators behave as if they are the law, in "Judge Dredd" style. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Fæ -- your "indubitable" procedure would not be adequate or acceptable in general, and I'm not entirely sure why your think it would be adequate or acceptable in this particular case. AnonMoos (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's a successful bundle DR of mine from June for all uploads from a problematic user and here is another created today for a more complicated scenario where I used VFC to add a notice to 164 photographs affected and put them in a category for convenience of review. It seems odd that you are objecting that handling bundle DRs in this way is insufficient, and yet the point here is that Denniss did not follow any process such as issuing standard notices or template the images to be deleted. It seems reasonable for administrators to be required to notify and attempt consultation, even if a bit ad-hoc in format, unless there are good and urgent reasons (such as blatant privacy invasion, user request, apparent defamation) to go 'off-piste'. --Fæ (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion about Denniss, but I thought it was a little odd that you seemed to be insisting that he follow procedures, while simultaneously advocating for quick-and-dirty mass deletion nominations which do not follow the usual required procedures for mass deletion nominations... AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Request for a published analysis of Denniss's out of process deletions
I believe it would be entirely reasonable to analyse Denniss's use of sysop powers to delete images out of process. Rather than creating a special report, is there a simple way of listing his deletion actions over the last couple of months so that everyone can see how frequently he is deleting images out of process, and if there is any significant pattern to these out of process deletions? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Using the deletion log, I have created the following list of deletions where no clear rationale has been given, apart from "out of project scope", presumably based solely on Denniss' personal viewpoint. Having 100 such out of process deletions in a month seems a high rate of the use of powers outside of any policy or guideline. I would welcome independent administrators to take a look at a sample of these and ensure they would agree that these deletions are justified and that there are reasons to ignore our community agreed processes for deletions and speedy deletions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
100 a month should not be a lot. If Denniss deleted 10,000 a day from Category:License plates I doubt anyone would mind. Deleting 100 sexual images shouldn't be a problem because I hear we have 99% porn anyways. There should be lots left to look at.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967, please create a new thread and provide a diff for your 99% porn claim, or go find something productive to do on this project rather than derailing community discussions for apparent sport or anti-sex lobbying; I am sure that I am not the only contributor on this project that does not appreciate having my volunteer time wasted by your hijacking of threads for off topic grandstanding. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have clarified better. I believe commons has very few images that are referred to as porn. According to many it has far too many. I also feel we should be able to trust admin to delete any images that are redundant, out of scope, very low value, etc. This may help clean up our reputation at en:wp and other places. In the proposal linked above I tried to make this point as well. Just going by a count of deletions without mentioning which ones you feel should be kept I don't think is right. Take them to undeletion if you wish to temp view and submit to DRs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Report last month (July/Aug 2013) of out of process deletions for Denniss (talk·contribs)
I did take a look at a sample of these images and in most cases I agree that these deletions are justified but I do not see any reasons to ignore our community agreed processes. They all should have gone through regular DR and uploders should have been notified about deletion. One file: File:Logo IZNEO.jpg is a logo of it is identical to a local copy of a file on french wikipedia which is in use and in scope by definition. --Jarekt (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to make the point that pulling the above analysis together showed me that Denniss has a first class track record on deletions and is one of our most productive administrators in this critical area. I am concerned however that where there is no urgent problem based on a user request, legal or copyright problem or an apparent invasion of privacy (such as a photograph which might unfortunately be misused to defame or embarrass someone), that admins should be seen to be applying the normal deletion processes and I hope that Denniss can take that on-board to avoid future complaints.
I remain sadly disappointed that despite being highly active on Commons for many hours today, Denniss has apparently chosen to not come to this discussion and respond to the issues by explaining their use of the administrator tools. I expect all Administrators and Trusted users to see responding appropriately to complaints about their use of the tools as the minimum level of accountability we require of those that have these privileges; per the policy statements "Users often want to be satisfied that you are an integral member of the Commons community and will look at the way you interact with others, on user talk pages and elsewhere" and "Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate respect community consensus" in Commons:Administrators. --Fæ (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, am I invited into this discussion? I just stumbled onto it by accident but have not really time to go through all this for now. --Denniss (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I had thought that Lx 121 had notified you that they had created this discussion at User_talk:Denniss#User:Jyy889900, apologies if this was not clear. I look forward to understanding your point of view later in the week. --Fæ (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
hello, & i'm sorry; you are absolutely right, i should have sent denniss a notice. as i said, i don't do these complaints very often, & i'm not clear on how notification is meant to be handled. but i honestly didn't expect anything would develop here. i said my piece, rebutted, & moved on. i expected the thread would just die; it didn't seem to be getting anywhere when i last checked in, & i really try not to spend my editing time on "behind the scenes" stuff. i'm sort of gobsmacked just now; if i have anything more to add, i'll do so after i've read it all... Lx 121 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I've looked over some of the deletions by Denniss, and I support his deletions on the scope issue. And so it seems do others; the issue appears to be the process involved.
COM:PORN states "Deletion of such photographs should nevertheless follow ordinary deletion procedures."
At Commons:Deletion_policy#Out_of_scope we advise people that images should normally be taken to DR, but that obvious out-of-scope images can be tagged with {{Speedydelete}} and place a reason why; and an admin will attend to it. In relation to COM:PORN, which is the ordinary deletion procedure? Within this policy we are already giving admins some leeway in determining scope issues. However, it could be said that this is nullified/minimised by Commons:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion and by COM:CSD not being policy.
I feel that our deletion policy is somewhat contradictory in that it places some discretion on the part of our admins, but then takes that discretion away further down by pointing to COM:CSD. We should, as a community, probably work towards getting COM:CSD codified as policy/official guideline at the earliest opportunity, so that instances such as this will not resurface in the future; instances where both parties are correct and both parties are incorrect. This is a failing of our policies which we really should fix ASAP. russavia (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Very good points. On that note we should close this thread pending policy changes since both sides feel they were in the right.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Done Cross wiki hoax. Indef blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Excellent idea. I suggest the simple step of mapping those dirty great notices (some of which rather aggressively threaten blocks) could be mapped to either a link to the related discussion or a template link. Having the equivalent to {{Bots}} would be a great process. --Fæ (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment The fact that two people have started sections on Roland zh's talk page in the 16 hours that it's been unlocked should be enough of a reason to leave it unlocked. I wished to leave a message for Roland zh the other day, and found it far more difficult to use wiki in a language of which I have virtually no knowledge of, and then have to actively check to see if there is a response. I would also like to bring up the issue of Roland zh's signature, surely it should be linked to his user page at the very least. Liamdavies (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 19:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Shade_of_blue_used_to_show_marriage){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penis889944.jpg){kind=link}
_(3600763089).jpg){kind=link}
.svg.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
