Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jayen466

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Withdrawn by candidate. ++Lar: t/c 10:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466

Vote

Jayen466 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 02:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We still have large amounts of explicit pornographic images that are not linked to, or only linked to Commons user pages, e.g. in Category:BDSM. Some of these have been nominated for weeks, e.g. [1], which has received several delete votes and no keeps, yet is still caught in the backlog. I would like to help in the clean-up that's currently underway, concentrating on explicit pornographic photographs of recent date that no page outside Commons links to. JN466 02:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fire Jimbo's clean-up initiative has come under over the past couple of days, I think it may help if I spell out my position with regard to sexual content on Commons. I am in favour of three things:

  1. I am in favour of Commons installing technical support for content rating/filter/access control systems that enable parents, schools and libraries to regulate minors' access to adult content on Commons sites, if they wish – or are legally required in their country – to regulate such access. Support by educators around the world is a vital component of this project's educational mission. We should not let educators' concerns over the amount and popularity of explicit material hosted here leave them with the single choice of blocking Commons access for minors altogether. (The issue is well articulated here by Derk-Jan Hartman.)
  2. I am in favour of the presence of adult material, including sexually explicit material that serves an educational purpose, on Commons, to the full extent of what is permissible by US law.
  3. As long as we don't have (1), I am personally in favour of restricting the content of categories and galleries featuring explicit material to files that are actually used as educational content in some Wikimedia project. This excludes explicit files that are only used as user page adornment.

However, I am aware that these are my personal opinions which other editors may have no reason to share. I intend to fully respect the principle that admin decisions must reflect policy and community consensus, in this as in any other content area.

One more thing: I have had a lot of posts on my talk pages in various projects the last couple of days from editors who are clearly under the impression that I must somehow be a particularly prudish person afraid of nudity. They are sadly mistaken. I am an Amanda Palmer fan, and any well-meant advice that I should stay away from pages that might upset me because of their nudity content is really misplaced. ;)

Other info: I speak German, French and Spanish and can read basic Dutch, Portuguese and Italian. My home wiki user page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466 Thanks. --JN466 02:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to withdraw this request; the situation has changed, and it no longer seems useful or appropriate. Thanks for your comments. --JN466 10:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Over the last years it has proven difficult to find high quality images on this subject. The featured articles in the Spanish and German projects and their related articles, show very clearly the need for rich ressource of different images related to the subject.
Please act very carefull in this field if you don't intent to inflict longlasting damages.
From my point of view this request is part of Jayen466 focused effort to get rid of the entire spectrum of sexual images. [2], [3], [4]. His idea of "indecent material" can be seen here, here and here Nemissimo (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have said that I would focus on materials that are not in use by any project. But you are correct in that I believe we should not gratuitously host large amounts of sexually explicit material, including bondage images, while we have no content rating system in place that allows parents, schools and libraries to opt out of providing minors with access to these images. If we ever get it together to have such a content rating system, my objection to sexually explicit material would instantly evaporate. --JN466 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bondage is not per se Pornography. Your permanent POV pushing during the last 2 days in several projects is embarrassing.Nemissimo (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a school teacher or librarian would want to give minors access to our BDSM galleries? I don't. And I don't see why we have to have large galleries of BDSM and other sexually explicit stuff that no project uses. Nor do I see how it serves this project, or increases the chances of this project being available in schools, which after all is an important part of our mission here. --JN466 02:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"no project uses" - except an crap article (aka "exzellent") of this unnotable low quality wikipedia: de:BDSM. Have a look at the "Weblinks" section. That's the reason we need "large galleries of BDSM and other sexually explicit stuff".
"being available in schools" - Did I get something wrong? Is it Wikischoolbook for elementary schools? --Saibo (Δ) 02:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dozen images or so that I nominated for deletion are not presently linked to by any Wikimedia project, except for this Commons user page. I checked for any projects using the images in each case before I nominated. What you wrote would make sense if I had nominated one of the images used in the German BDSM article for deletion. I didn't, nor did I have any intention to do so. Okay? --JN466 03:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware Commons provides the resources for writing new articles in the worldwide projects? As long as images are in the project's scope and not pornographic they should be keept. It might btw be helpfull for you to read the articles on pornography on en and de before using a term you don't seem to understand.Nemissimo (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Nemissimo above: "used in the German BDSM article" - they may not be in use directly in the article. But they are in use indirectly: as mentioned before, we have the commons category linked in Weblinks. --Saibo (Δ) 18:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Simply on grounds that the extra strain of dealing with these "issues" is not anything more then the existing active admins can handle. There is simply no need to add admins specifically to deal with this, and it would be a bad idea to give someone who WANTS to purge these images admin rights. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Thanks for the offer but for now I think we are better sticking with folk who are experienced in Commons work. --Herby talk thyme 17:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In case anybody wonders about the sudden appearance of some less- or even unknown voters here, there has been a notification about this rfa by de:Benutzer:Asthma at the German Wikipedia:Redaktion Sexualität, by its wording clearly inviting for opposition. However, as of yet this (negative) canvassing may not be relevant for the total vote count. --Túrelio (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. In case you didn't know: You've noticed a mechanism supporting the self organization of social community/network. Welcome to this community. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing, Túrelio. :) --JN466 01:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrats tend to discount the input of people who have little or no contribution record here. That said, while I appreciate Jayen's offer, the time may not be right for it. Admins should have a good feel for how things are done here. ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. There is a difference between "people who have little or no contribution record here" and Túrelio's "less- or even unknown voters". --Saibo (Δ) 11:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I followed Jayen466's POV Pushing during the last few days after he started his campaign on Jimbos' userpage and the German admin discussion page. Giving this user higher privilege while he continues his announced crusade might be a pretty bad idea. This is especially true since he has shown very poor judgement in the field of sexual connotated images in the past (see links above and his other DRs).Nemissimo (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC) German Userpage, German Portal Sexuality[reply]
Nemissimo, you said above, Bondage is not pornography, and have in various other places pointed out that I seem to lack a correct understanding of how pornography is defined. Now, which definition are you referring to? German law, US law, or scholarly assessments?
As far as I am aware, in the US, where Commons servers are located, the Miller test provides the current legal definition of pornography. Would you say that using the Miller test criteria, it would be unreasonable to describe the image discussed here as pornographical? And if so, why? --JN466 00:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3 of the miller test is the crux of it, if deemed to have reasonable encyclopedic value to illustrate bondage, then sure it would "fail" the miller test. But legally speaking the miller test is a flawed test anyway, even though the SCOTUS keeps reaffirming it, even though the servers and organization is based in the united states, this is an internationally used resource, what is clearly NOT obscene in one society could result in the death penalty for possession in another. For Wikimedia's position on obscene they'd of course have to abide by US law, which only in extreme cases does federal prosecutors actually take interest in. Since "porn" on Commons is only a microscopic fraction and the images that we keep (that usually go through at least one deletion processes if it's potentially porn) have a strong argument for failing clause #3 of the miller test. As for the picture in question, thats up to our community to decide if it fails #3 or not. If it can reasonably be used to illustrate an article, then we're likely to keep it. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jayen466&oldid=61635604"