Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/06/26

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

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive June 26th, 2013
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Horrible 2013-06-25 19-05.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, and probably a copyvio Bawolff (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: A rather obvious case, closing. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 08:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

User talk:I-pon

[edit]

迷惑行為と個人の尊厳踏みにじる行為 I-pon (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily kept as user talk pages will not be deleted. You are, however, free to archive them either manually or with the help of a bot (see, for example, at User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup or en:User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo to learn how to configure a talk page for automatic archival). --AFBorchert (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg

[edit]

(Redacted) Not even remotely educational, except possibly in the art of how to troll Jimbo Wales. Also nominated for deletion are the related files:

Adding this too:

Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Telling me "fuck you" as you just did is not the way to make for a nice collegial discussion. That may be acceptable for other projects, but it certainly isn't for Commons. russavia (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you see no problem with uploading these images and movie, yet you take offense at my personal attacks? (Redacted) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see absolutely NO problem with either the painting or the video, given that they have been done by a notable artist, and they are freely licenced. The video is especially interesting, given that the artist themself notes in several interviews that they make the videos because often people don't believe they are made how they are made. If anything, we should be thanking Tim Patch (Pricasso) for making these works available to us under a free licence; that is something rare in today's art world. russavia (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Pricasso :) --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against the artist giving you permission to upload some of his works of art and educational videos of him producing it. You may not believe me, but I actually intend on watching the video when I get home because I am interested in how he works. However, YOU got a well-meaning artist to create a picture knowing full well that Jimmy Wales would be thoroughly pissed off rather than appreciative of such a portrait. That is what pisses me off at you. (Redacted) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
/ignore Reaper Eternal due to continued personal attacks. Do it again, and I will take the issue to COM:AN/U. russavia (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my personal attacks...I'm somewhat stressed off-wiki.... However, the meat of my argument still remains—that these images are trollish. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pricasso paints portraits of famous people - that's what he does. If he were going to contribute something to Commons, what would you think he would contribute? I don't see this as a personal affront to Mr. Wales, I really don't - I just see him as one of a long list of celebrities depicted by this person. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I have to admit, this is one of the best trolls I have ever seen. Russavia, were you involved in the creation of the picture and video, or did you just happen to find both and ask for both to be published under a free license? :) --Conti|✉ 15:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Because it is awesome. Optimom (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Pricasso is a notable artist[1] and we should be pleased to accept his contributions. I should emphasize that the morality crusaders here have gone beyond nibbling away at dubiously useful COM:PENIS content and are now directly attacking Commons' art holdings. There is no particular reason why someone would vote to delete this but vote to keep Piss Christ or that one with the Virgin Mary in elephant dung or the one where people stand on an American flag or countless other "trollings" that artists routinely do in their desperate efforts to get attention/money in a society which uses a hopelessly flawed copyright mechanism to reward artistic endeavor. Either you have to accept that the Fuehrer has the right to walk down the aisles here and put his foot through whatever displeases him, so we end up with all Valkyries and Aryan Heroes, or else we show these miscreants out of our art gallery! Wnt (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - However unusual the method, it's just a painting of Jimbo and there's nothing inherently mocking or unflattering about it. How these are used on other projects is a separate issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep For once we have something involving penises on Commons that is actually educational and interesting to those outside the more puerile circles Russavia frequents. Don't deny him this much. I say this as someone with a deep appreciation for the arts and who respects the depths of commitment an artist can have for his or her craft.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. I understand and sympathise with the motivation of the Delete voters, and there are legitimate questions one might ask about how these images and the video came to be made and ended up here. But Pricasso happens to be a genuinely notable (and genuinely talented) artist, using a unique technique. As such, the material has educational value, and deserves a Keep per Commons policy. On a more philosophical note, let me add that I am aware that Wikimedia Commons also hosts material such as File:Santorum_spelled_with_santorum.jpg (Santorum's name written in excrement, by a non-notable artist, along with many similar images housed in Category:Santorum_neologism-related_images, uploaded during Santorum's presidential campaign). The Santorum images strike me as far more gratuitous attack images, where the educational value seems significantly more marginal than with Pricasso's work and the video of its creation, which have many redeeming qualities (humour, and undeniable artistic merit). It would be hypocritical to delete Pricasso's work, while keeping other more borderline material about people who are not on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The Wikimedia Foundation made this bed. If occasionally one of them has to lie in it, that seems like poetic justice. Andreas JN466 18:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep 'editorial hysteria' is not yet written in policy as a reason for deletion. Too much 'crying wolf' that every picture of Jimmy is an attack image. Bullshit. Notable artist, and NO BELLYBUTTON showing. This DR is the troll, no policy whatsoever, just 'I don't like it'.
I went looking on google to see if the artist was notable, and I didn't even need to look in the archives, he's in the news twice just today. who is more notable, the artist or the subject ? ;) Penyulap ☏ 20:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep  Delete Both arguments can exist at once, just as commons often decides that two files are better than one long argument. I accept that the picture does indeed define notable (and more educational than all our number-plates combined), as it seems there may be doubt about Jimbos feelings, we should delete the image. Commons is not, or should not be, an uncomfortable place to work. The image is notable, and may well be uploaded in good faith, however, one policy clearly over-rides the other, or it damn well should. Penyulap ☏ 10:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Appears to serve no purpose whatsoever. Similar to some of the scatological stunts of the performance artist Divine, so hard to evaluate. However, the creation of this file seems to be a way of dirsupting commons to make a POINT. Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT doesn't apply here on Commons, Mathsci, and it isn't even a valid deletion rationale on the English Wikipedia. The question is COM:SCOPE and it is hard to argue that this does not fall within scope as this is an educational representation of the specific artistic style of a notable artist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The artist has an article on wikipedia here. Penyulap ☏ 06:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And he will soon have an article on enwp, once en:User:Russavia/Pricasso is unprotected after it was protected due to so-called BLP concerns. And I have arranged for it to be translated into multiple other languages too. russavia (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-stub on the Italian wikipedia has very little to do with the merits of this particular image. This specific image serves no educational purpose at all. It was presumably created as a stunt. It could be argued that a nude self-portrait of Tim Patch would be relevant. Here it is unclear whether the subject's permission was obtained for such an image to be made public or for the painting to be created in the first place. If it were a portrait of Elizabeth II, would it be OK in Australia or the United Kingdom? I doubt it. At the moment, I cannot see any circumstances where this portrait could be used legitimately, without causing offence. My comments anyway just echo what Future Perfect at Sunrise has written, particularly his last phrase. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be ok, so long as the underlying image is freely licenced. Also, these images WILL be used in other language versions of the article. If English Wikipedia wants to play the censorship game, so be it, but thankfully other projects don't censor their content like that. russavia (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well rather than me bending over and talking out my ass by saying that Jimbo is not amused, may I ask, is he not amused ? Now THAT would simply move the discussion from SCOPE, to attack image and there is no more to discuss, the image goes. If he can't be bothered to comment anywhere then that's a fair indication that he can't be bothered to comment anywhere.
Do we have a decree ? a note ? a word, a diff, a mis-spelt reply to a mention of the topic indicating stress ? I know I would like one about this, and about the belly-button issue, because no-talkies simply creates un-necessary drama and contentious discussions like this one, where a simple word would kill off all the dramaz, all the discussion, and the ill-feelings that go with them. Commons doesn't host attack images, if Jimbo, who is an editor here has no problem with it, then let's please not all get out our crystal balls to make predictions ok ? The only voice that matters here is Jimmy's, otherwise, it defines the scope of commons, like it or not. If the guy doesn't care less to comment, then the guy doesn't care less to comment. We don't need to turn into Christians arguing about passages of the bible saying they mean the exact opposite to what they mean. We can all find some other lame argument to have, or like, pray to Jimmy, either one is good depending on your faith. Penyulap ☏ 09:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He commented here. I think it is clear that he feels attacked. But per Commons:Attack page, a page has to exist primarily to "disparage, threaten, harass, or otherwise attack another person, organization or user". Independently of the uploader's motivation, would you say these media meet this definition? This seems to me to be a less clear-cut case than the Santorum media (Category:Santorum_neologism), given that the artist in this case is notable. How would you assess the relative merits of the two? Andreas JN466 09:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well,that is room for doubt, and I strike my vote. I have also asked Jimmy his opinion earlier on his talkpage here, so I guess it is possible to clarify what he was talking about exactly.
As to comparisons, given the subject matter, I don't care to look and we don't generally keep one thing based upon another. While Jimmy may feel attacked, even by the making of the image, that is grounds for removal based upon the effect of the image, not the intention of the uploader, as it is clear from the discussion that it falls into both categories. I would delete it if Jimmy does feel threatened, even though it would otherwise be a useful image. Penyulap ☏ 10:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@JN466: Commons:Attack_page is an essay, not a policy. Rd232 forgot to restore the "essay" tag that he removed. The DR ended months later, so I don't blame him or her for forgetting. I restored the template to the page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ah yes, that's the simpering, spineless stand on bullying that the WMF takes, we've all come to know. Penyulap ☏ 12:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pricasso has indeed painted Queen Elizabeth II. [2] I am not aware that she has invoked lèse-majesté, Mathsci. He has also painted George Bush, Tony Blair, and many others. Andreas JN466 02:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia has in the meantime been topic banned by Newyorkbrad on en.wikipedia from all matters related to Jimmy Wales (per BLP). [3] Newyorkbrad has described his conduct as "outrageous". He also comments, "I urge the administrators and community on other affected Wikipedia projects to consider taking parallel actions regarding this situation." Mathsci (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, procedurally. While the image is distasteful, we have no "just because the co-founder dislikes it" deletion criteria. Until there are mechanisms in place where any BLP subject can object to these sorts of things, then they will have to remain. Whether the image can be used in other WMF projects is up to those projects to decide; thankfully, en.wiki has standards higher than Commons. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete changing vote to delete, per NYB's observation here, that "Jimmy Wales is not entitled to greater protection under the BLP policy—but he is not entitled to lesser protection, either". Good enough an explanation ofr me that all this isn't founder-oriented protection. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rolf was well remembered for playing with his long woody instrument, but I don't think the Queen of England was amongst his many works. Penyulap ☏ 09:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rolf Harris unveiled his portrait of Queen Elizabeth II in 2005.[4] No didgeridoos were used in its creation.Ianmacm (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Jake the peg painted with his erm, "extra leg". Have we got to ten puns yet ? I think ten puns is the usual limit before the section gets collapsed. After that everyone is welcome to my talkpage, you know, to let me know if at least one of the ten puns made you laugh, or you know, if no pun in ten did. Penyulap ☏ 11:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is a *very* tolerant place. A Russian who had used this technique to paint Vladimir Putin would probably be on holiday in Siberia by now. Anyway, I vote  Keep. despite the concern that obvious troll is obvious.--Ianmacm (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't follow logic, unless the entire project is precisely meant to be a tool for tools to troll with. It can't be both a troll and acceptable to keep it, it is either perfectly acceptable, or not. Unless of course it was the WMF, ZOMG, the whole idea there is to entirely and comprehensively support cyber-bullying by providing legal backing (finance, lawyers, for those doing the bullying). I'm not suggesting that this is deliberate with this image, I'm saying there is enough doubt and one policy should over-ride another. This isn't rocket science. Penyulap ☏ 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the videos of a Pricasso portrait that could have been uploaded to Commons, what a coincidence that Russavia found one of Jimmy Wales. I think that the video is clever and well made, but would change the vote to delete if Jimbo objected personally.--Ianmacm (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he has now made it very clear that indeed he does object very much [5]. He regards it as essentially an act of sexual harassment (and, personally, I can very much sympathize with that view.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I for one, am glad he has finally made this clear. Now the question is does the extra interest turn into support for an anti-harassment policy proposal with discussion at the VP, or just some generic blood-sport drama-fest with no improvement to the project through new policy. You know, with the usual cries of "we can harass half the planet's population just so long as we have a double-standard." Penyulap ☏ 15:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it's both a perfectly welcome, funny, notable image from some guy in a pink hat that the media loves, as well as a brilliant critique of what is totally fucked up about the project in general, is that what you mean ? This would be the moment where the martial arts master slaps the apprentices face to impress the lesson that the project is fucked and that is the point of the project. Nice going WMF. It's like helping someone to put their foot in their mouth, but better. Penyulap ☏ 12:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo has made no comment on this video, and may choose not to do so. It is reasonably well made, and I am not going to speculate on Russavia's motives either. See also the thread at User_talk:Russavia#Trolling.3F, in which he issues a non-denial denial when asked whether the portrait and video existed before he contacted Pricasso.--Ianmacm (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo did comment on the video, actually: ":Russavia, it is clear that I'm being trolled, yes. But not by the person alerting me to your latest viciousness towards me, but by you". --Conti|✉ 12:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I don't consider it a troll either, I think if anything at all, it's just 'feeding the trolls' at best, by uploading welcome and wanted works. Stick it in featured images or whatever. Now, if Russavia had got WMF approved funding to pay for a fancy hotel and jet-aircraft tickets and the purchase of a camera, that would be trolling :D
@Conti That's the reason I push for deletion, however, as en.wiki is a trollfest to rival 4chan and commons has no policy to over-ride the scope policy in special cases, AND we have no leadership for complex issues and no I don't mean a fuck up arbcom, what a disaster, the image is a slam dunk keep, splashing mud onto the faces of those who promote cyber-bullying by doing NOTHING AT ALL about it. (pictures of Mohammed are here, so I can't see this getting deleted for any great length of time) Penyulap ☏ 12:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, bearing in mind Jimbo's comments below. If this were an image of an average Wikipedian, most people would have smelled a rat straight away. While Pricasso may be a reasonably well known spoof artist, there are too many unanswered questions about how this image just happened to come about.--Ianmacm (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. If we object to this, the policies will have to be changed here first, Jimbo's talk place is not the right venue. The more discussions on Jimbo's talk page, the more polarized the situation becomes and you'll get a lot more such videos/pictures that are over the pale according to many on Wikipedia, but which are allowed here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete and issue a block for harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Per Jimbo [7] this is an instance of hostile environment sexual harassment of a Wikipedia volunteer just as it would be for any Wikipedia volunteer.Note :Jimbo has given up his blocking authority.Further the image has no encyclopedic value and serves no educational purpose and does little to enhance the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This was Pharaoh of the Wizards's first ever edit on Wikimedia Commons. odder (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And he has 53k global edits; he isn't some random newbie. He likely came here via Jimbo's enwp user talk page (that's how I'm here too). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not exactly: they have 53k edits on the English Wikipedia, and have never edited any other Wikimedia project. The simple statement that voting here was this user's first edit on Commons still stands true. odder (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • A fair point that they're mostly on enwp, but they do have 38 edits to Meta (all Steward votes, going back to 2009). My statement that they aren't a random newbie still stands true as well (which was my only objection to your callout). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) It might be technically true but your note was an insinuation that this was a newbie or a sock. The 53k edits on other projects + "first edit ever on Commons" is actually a good thing. I'll take the vote of someone who has been active elsewhere but hasn't been tainted by participation here, way before that of Commons regulars like odder or russavia. Hell, it's what Jimbo suggested common sense people from other projects do - come here and try to clean up your mess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I, on the other hand, would take a vote from a Commons regular way before that of an active contributor to Wikipediocracy, a project so discredited by outing and harassing Wikimedia editors that its members shouldn't really even be talking about common sense. odder (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Damn, you really go crazy with the ad hominen attacks in this desperate attempt to discredit votes you don't like. One user has 54k edits on en wiki but you insinuate he's a sock/newbie. Other users are in good standing on en wiki and here but they post on an external forum which has been critical of Commons (precisely for reasons like this) so omg! Bad people everywhere odder. You feeling paranoid or something? Bottom line is that you don't get to decide which votes are valid and which are not based solely on your own widzimisie (that's "I just don't like it"). Lay off and stop badgering people (here and on their talk pages).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Prior local participation on Commons is irrelevant anyway. There is no prerequisite of prior local activity levels in order to become an established Commons user. Commons is called "Commons" because it is precisely that: a common service hub serving the other wikimedia communities. Any editor who is established and in good standing on any of the other projects automatically becomes a fully established Commons user with his very first edit, and has the exact same right to have their voice heard and taken seriously as everybody else. Tagging such votes in an attempt to disparage them, as if they were somehow of less validity than others, is extremely inappropriate and offensive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is just your interpretation of the situation, Fut. Perf. It is quite common to point out new users whose first edits on Commons are to deletion requests pages, for various reasons (to mention possible canvassing at the very least). Frankly, I'm actually surprised to see you mentioning inappropriateness at all, seeing how you act elsewhere. odder (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odder, did you notice that Optimom, who voted keep above, had only 5 edits on commons? Two of which were to an image uploaded by Russavia? Should that be noted, too? --Conti|✉ 18:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, yes, I didn't notice that this user had only 5 edits here. odder (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your long involvement with Jimbo, which led to your being blocked, means that you have a conflict of interest here and are involved. The ignoring of problems on a side opposed to you also suggests that you need to back off this page immediately. Your actions are incivil and violate multiple policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think you should teach anyone anything about civility, Ottava. Plus, I would appreciate if you could point me to any policies I have violated by posting to this page. odder (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you think violating policy and abusing admin authority when you have a clear conflict is funny, why are you even here? Is this all just some kind of game? You made it clear in your edit summaries that you were trolling en.wikipedia. Is the above to be taken as trolling too? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I repeat: please point me to any policies I have violated by posting to this page. I also urge you to stop personal attacks against me. odder (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is clear that there are no personal attacks in the above, so that means that you are being incivil once again. And are you actually trying to suggest that admin do not have an involvement/conflict of interest policy here even though community consensus has always made it clear that such exists? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I repeat once again: please point me to any policies that I have violated by posting to this page, or else stop your campaign against me. Now. odder (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You are abusing your authority once again. You do not have the right to threaten anyone here. If you block, it will just hasten your being removed from this project and from WMF projects as a whole. This page deals with a topic of clear, real life harassment, and your actions have been utterly unbecoming. You have violated BLP. You have violated civility. You have violated admin policies. You need to back off immediately because you have no right even coming near something regarding Jimbo. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Again, Ottava: if you think I have violated any policies, please name them. I would also suggest that you show me exactly which parts of admin policies I have violated by posting to this page; I also urge you to stop telling me what I can or cannot do. odder (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • "if you think I have violated any policies, please name them. " I already did above, multiple times. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • This is yet another flat lie that you posted today, Ottava. You haven't mentioned any policies before your post from 19:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC); moreover, you mentioned a policy which does not apply to Commons (BLP). odder (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • You call me a liar, yet you posted one example of where I mentioned a policy violation before your 19:26 post. At 19:13 I pointed out you were being incivil and that you are violating admin standards, at 19:03 I said you were being incivil, etc. etc. Incivility is underneath the blocking policy, and blocks for being incivil have happened quite often ([8] allows for such blocks, which makes said actions against policy). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Ottava: Calm down and do not threat other users for nothing. This is not a warning, just a reminder. --Denniss (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Denniss, I am extremely calm and rationale, and there is nothing in my language or syntax to suggest otherwise. However, Odder's constant threats throughout the page and on other user's pages suggests otherwise. I have not "threatened" odder. I have pointed out that he clearly crossed the line and is heavily involved. His emotional and angry disagreement with Jimbo has tainted his judgment on Commons, which is obvious for all to see. His meltdown and banishment from en.wiki should have every admin here concerned that he is not of sound mind regarding this topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            I don't see any threats, but would ask you both take a deep breath. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            I don't see any threats either. And your past history regarding these kind of images makes you as much involved as you think Odder is. Garion96 (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFAIK, DR are not mere votes. The !vote above differs from others in that it's just a copy and paste of a previous comment, hence it carries no value. --Nemo 11:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This is ridiculous. It definitely comes across as trolling, especially since the subject of the painting feels attacked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I'm ignoring every single rule of Commons deletion rationale. These series of files exist solely to insult the person of the subject. Its existence is hazardous to the whole Wikimedia community: this encourages user to retaliate anyone they are unhappy with by uploading disruptive portrait under Commons' umbrella. This must be regulated before everyone thinks such agressiveness is acquiesced. --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
maybe you'd consider adding anything to a discussion at the commons:VP, so that policy doesn't require us to fuck with everyone else in the world except for Jimmy. Penyulap ☏ 18:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Everyone should view the world with a bit of humor. I would actually be pleased if such a "special" artist devotes time into creating a portrait of me. It's also visible from the comments above this DR is not about the portrait or the video, it's about the methods of creating them. Both are no problem license-wise. If someone doesn't like them it's his problem. No need for drama here. --Denniss (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Everyone should view the world with a bit of humor"? Denniss, would you also give this advice to a female co-worker if she complained about how another colleague was keeping pictures of his dick superimposed on photographs of her face around on his desk in the office? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I would actually be pleased if such a "special" artist devotes time into creating a portrait of me." - Denniss, you obviously have a right to make such a decision for yourself, but you have no such right to decide for others. If Jimbo is pleased (hint: he ain't) he can come here and vote keep himself. This is fairly elementary - it's basic respect for others. On that note: "If someone doesn't like them it's his problem." - this kind of idiotic attitude is exactly the problem here. And " it's about the methods of creating them." - no, it's about using Commons for revenge editing and harassment. That's not its scope. Is it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Is the female co-worker's last name Wales ? apparently that makes all the difference. I give up. Penyulap ☏ 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As said, no need for drama here, this kind of drama is best kept at the english Wikipedia. We have to decide on facts and there's no factual reason to delete the files. What Russavia and possible others may do with them is their responsibility. --Denniss (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that Jimbo is a living person, that he has personality rights, that he has BLP rights across the Wiki (Foundation policy), and that harassment is not allowed in any form be it image or language. Denniss, admin are required to know and uphold these rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This artist reminds me of w:Rick Gibson and w:Andres Serrano. Their work is found to be offensive by many but still considered art by others. If we decide to not host offensive art then that may reflect badly on the community. w:Evelyn Beatrice Hall had a famous quote we may wish to consider. I can only assume that the media will hear about this DR from that 'other site' and whether it creates a huge w:Streisand Effect we have no control over. The artist will have articles in other projects if he doesn't already. Those projects would need to decide which images to include in them. If we deny images then that goes against our policy. Whether the subjects are offended or not is a sticky issue. If the works are created in an offensive way but are not offensive themselves then that is open to interpretation of http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people .--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This isn't just obvious trolling, it's harassment. Russavia should be desysopped for this; utterly disgraceful. — Scott • talk 19:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - of dubious encyclopedic use FWIW, and the subject has declared it 'harassing'. The latter, on its own, is good enough for me. I see the clear humorous aspect, and can nod reluctantly towards an epic trolling by Russavia, but at the end of the day it's just POINTy and crass and a cheap shot at Der Jimbo, like him or not - Alison ❤ 19:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - The subject doesn't want it, per BLP that's a good enough reason to delete this video. Upload a Charley Murphy one who, according to the draft article, had no objection. Garion96 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General questions for the deletion voters: does your objection extend only to the video, or does it extend to the headline photo, which is merely a portrait of Jimbo's face, based solely on the means by which it was painted? Also, if these images of Jimbo are unacceptable, is there any Pricasso picture and/or "making of" you would accept, of any living person in the world including Obama, Queen of England, etc. (assuming she's still alive?) Wnt (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both, but mainly the video. Yes, as I said before, a Charley Murphy one would be good. Garion96 (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - I think it's a pretty good painting, and it amuses me, but I do feel we should apply some caution here. While I appreciate that Pricasso has been generous in donating these images, the subject does consider them to be attack images, or at least insulting. I think it's common knowledge I have no love for Jimbo, but I think we tend to delete stuff like this when people ask us to. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the Santorum crap? Non-notable artist, no artistic merit comparable to Pricasso. Now, I loathe pretty much everything Santorum stands for, but don't you think Wikimedia should respect basic human dignity? Or does that only apply to WMF people? I'd be prepared to join you in voting Delete here if I get an impression that rules and concerns over attack images are applied consistently in this project. --Andreas JN466 20:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - I don't want to cause grief for Jimbo, but this is actual art we're talking about. If we make this exception for him, then if President Obama (or one of his minor officials) writes to us asking that w:File:Obama Joker Poster.jpg be deleted, do we say yessir, thank you sir, it's gone already? Yeah, I know - that's politics - but even if this were intended as harassment, which I personally am not convinced of, this would be too. Jimmy Wales is a public figure, who comes with a whole lot of respect, but with those advantages also comes some degree of trouble, and this is the trouble. Wnt (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Art can still violate our other policies - this is a living person, so BLP (WMF wide policy) and personality rights apply. Attack images in the past have been deleted with extreme prejudice. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Obama Joker Poster.jpg has encyclopedic value (as evidenced by w:Barack Obama "Joker" poster) in that it has garnered significant press (there are 38 references for that article); if there wasn't an article for the image, the image itself wouldn't be on Wikipedia (or Commons, for that matter, given that it has not been released in a Commons-compatible license). I fail to see any commonality between that image and the one being discussed here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image was being used in a nearly completed draft version of an article for Pricasso in en.wp, so it also has significance there as a demonstration of his technique. Wnt (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other in this debate, and have seen things said above on both sides that are persuasive. But in terms of the precedent we set, there's an important concept that has not been discussed: Jimmy Wales' status (at least, I would think) as a public figure. This term is of course most strongly associated with U.S. law, but I think the concept is useful outside a legal context -- as a consideration in ethical decisions. So -- even if this media is kept, I think it is important to state clearly that it would not be acceptable to host media like this that depicts someone who is not a public figure. (Unless, of course, they explicitly consent.) -Pete F (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite that simple. It might not matter if the subject were a public figure if it were a nobody doing the drawing and people decided it was a simple COM:PENIS issue. It also wouldn't matter if Picasso, the one who painted with uriner, the famous one, had decided to make a painting of anyone, however obscure, based on even the most petty personal feud, we'd still keep that if offered. It only matters when we have a not very notable artist posting something to Commons and people aren't quite sure whether to make it out as a means of personal harassment or a work of art to add to our voluminous archives. In that situation, the relative harm to a famous person is much less, and the likelihood of the motive being legitimate is greater, so it skews the probabilities very significantly. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intent to get into a detailed evaluation of hypothetical situations, but merely to assert that a person's status as a public figure (or not) is a consideration germane to decisions like this one. Do you agree with that much WNT? -Pete F (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - in fact, I commented about the role of the public-figure status at Jimbo's en.wiki talk page before your comment here, and my response was based in part on my worry that you had taken it more expansively than I meant it. Wnt (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think we're in full agreement then. I'm un-watchlisting this page, this is all starting to feel like a tempest in a teapot. -Pete F (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, please link to the image of an Obama painting with someone's penis being rubbed against it. Otherwise, there is no actual comparison that can be made. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there is no comparison - portraying Obama as the Batman serial killer and a "socialist" is vastly more offensive than rubbing a penis against a painting, as far as I'm ocncerned. But I still don't want it censored. Wnt (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean portraying Batman as a much beloved comic book character that has a huge fan base and with many cosplay individuals. That is a very big difference between a real person rubbing their real penis on an image's face. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete As Jimbo rightly points out on his enwiki talk page, employees of American companies have a right to work in an environment that is free of sexual harassment. Jimbo is a volunteer, not an employee, and it is doubtful that these laws apply to online communities. However, I feel that we should hold ourselves to the same standards as any American voluntary organization: members of our community should not be subject to derogatory jokes of a sexual nature. I think that uploading a picture of someone painted with the artist's penis qualifies as such. Regarding other examples of controversial artwork, I would argue that Rick Santorum is not a member of our community and that Jesus and the Virgin Mary are not living people. If we want people to contribute to our community, we have to treat them with a modicum of respect and civility. GabrielF (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see Jimbo's efforts to promote this idea that it applies to him in the last few days, I don't see shit at the Village pump by comparison suggesting that the same rules should apply to anyone else. Richard Farmbrough‎ put in 5 million edits, where are his rights not to be harassed and bullied ? Penyulap ☏ 21:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<in response to Gabriel> I strongly object to the idea that any living person, Rick Santorum included, is treated differently for being considered a non-member of our community. Wikimedia aims to serve everyone -- it's an essential part of the vision. -Pete F (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would echo that. Either this project lives up to its claim of neutrality, or it does not. Wales and Santorum are both public figures. Whether they have an account on a Wikimedia project, or are on the Wikimedia board, should not matter one jot (just like we would not and do not give Jimbo a break in his Wikipedia biography, or on Wikinews, or wherever). Andreas JN466 01:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is this - uploading this content should be considered a violation of our community's standards of behavior and content that is uploaded as a means of harassing or trolling other editors should be deleted. I would likely support a policy that forbids any material that denigrates a living person (I see no reason why we need these Santorum images) but in this specific case, my argument is that uploading this was an act of harassment and should be deleted as the fruits of a violation of our community's norms of behavior. GabrielF (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related photo issue. I note that this video is based directly on the image File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG. I don't see any warning about personality rights on that photo, though warnings exist on derivative works made from it. Wnt (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean that 'Jimmy Wales by Pricasso' is based upon 'Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal' that part of the sordid affair is ok. The component is a trivial amount of the overall work, called de minimus so it's ok. The transformed work is also not fit for the original image's purpose. Penyulap ☏ 22:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, no, that's not how copyright works. If the painting is based on a particular image, it is a derivative work of that image, end of. De minimis is about "small things", for instance an advert in the background of a photo. The advert might not be free, but it's ok if it's incidental. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:De minimis is a F.A.Q. for people with a camera.
For copyright protection to extend to a derivative work, “the additional matter injected in a prior work, or the manner of rearranging or otherwise transforming a prior work, must constitute more than a minimal contribution.”. Penyulap ☏ 23:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the source is CC-by-SA, so it is legitimate to use it; indeed, it is an illustration of just what "for any purpose" can mean... that said, the same degree of personality rights apply to either - whatever those are. Wnt (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that both should be labelled with PR. I think the amount of derivative used would let it slip from SA to DM on the source, so it no longer needs one IMO, but you are correct about the source and PR, it's a high profile slip. Penyulap ☏ 03:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Jimbo's status has nothing to do with the argument here. When a user insults another by whatever mean, there is always a trace of on-wiki disagreement between the 2. Right now the painting along with the making of video do nothing but escalating that hatred toward the subject. Just as someone verbally abusing on-wiki, we delete (hide) the revision history, using a penile painting for the similar purpose should be treated in the same spirit. I am not against the method of the painting, but its nature is likely to cause sentiment to the subject of depiction. Commons may host these paintings if and only if the model approves it and the art itself has any educational value. It's clear though the uploader is aware that Jimbo's status could unavoidably drag the process of deletion discussion. I do not care if it ends up a Streisand effect, it does not change the fact that the uploader harbors ill will while manipulating this whole drama. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has anyone asked Santorum if he's happy for Commons to host this and the rest of the images in that category? I don't think so. Commons should not make a special rule for Jimbo that no one else gets the benefit of. So please, either delete all dubious attack media, or keep all of them. What should not happen is that Commons deletes the media in Jimbo's case, and then everybody goes back to business as usual, with the attack media about everyone else kept. (Of course, my prediction is that this is exactly what will happen, but I am always willing to be surprised.) Andreas JN466 01:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't beat around the bush. That Santorum image can be deleted under the rationale of 'poorly made art impression with intent of using Wikimedia as ground to humiliate the subject and dubious usefulness'. Bear in mind that I'm not suggesting a privilege exclusive to Jimbo. No one in our community should be treated by such aggressiveness if the same harassment befall them. The art is the result of the long standing disagreement between the uploader and Jimbo, so there is evidence that this is intentionally causing disruption against the person the uploader is at odd with. Disruptive behavior is something we must not tolerate in any Wikimedia project. If this file survives the trial, it just gives me one more reason to plea WMF to reform Commons from its root. It's unbearable to see Commons becomes the ground to house media only for harassing specific person. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You say it can be deleted, but it isn't, and hasn't been deleted, has it? It's been sitting on Commons for how long? The fact is that people are free to upload images here with quite similar motivations to the one you say drove this upload, as long as they're images of someone else. I don't see anyone asking for their deletion. And given that Commons:Attack page is an essay only, under which Commons policy would you delete them? Andreas JN466 02:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely an disruptive art about an unnoticeable subject is not attracting much discussion about it. The uploader of Pricasso's portrait of Jimbo is clearly using Jimbo's status to generate noise, this is part of the scheme the uploader has in mind all along, possibly for gaining media coverage eventually. I'm using common sense here: since it's OK to upload disruptive portrait of one's enemy, users start to upload such images to Commons. Attacked/harassed users are driven away because Commons refuses to delete the said images as there's no such policy to deal with it. Is such consequence OK for our community to take? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimbo is no more being "harassed" than George Bush was harassed by the countless protestors who burned him in effigy in front of national news cameras. He can blather on all he likes about how he is a "volunteer", but we all know it's just evasive bullshit, and that he is very much a public figure who was one of the founders of our sacred mission. All we are doing here is giving ole' Jimmy special treatment that we don't offer to people who lack a privileged position on this site.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Break1
  •  Delete I can see the argument for a video being useful for illustrating the process of making penile art. However, I can also see why Jimbo is offended and I do think the creation of this file raises plenty of questions. The solution, however, is simple: Delete the Jimbo files and ask Pricasso to do a video of painting a self portrait, which avoids the personality issues, allows Russavia to complete the en-wiki bio without possible trolling and in a manner respectful of policy, and allows Pricasso to showcase his art. EdChem (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's just delete the artist's work, tell him to go back and paint what we want him to paint. Seriously? I should point out that right now, the front page of Commons is showing a famous Vermeer, probably because the Rijksmuseum agreed to provide high quality free access to all their works rather than trying to obstruct the public. This is great news for open access, we should all celebrate, but keep in mind it means that WMF is only "this" close from being written off permanently by the artists of the world as a pointless exercise in public censorship with nothing positive going for it, when they can go to progressive museums and galleries to make their work public on their terms (which may nonetheless be more restrictive than Commons, preventing Commons from simply copying to catch up. Don't take contributors for granted. Wnt (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt very much that this will have a significant impact. If anything, I would suspect that the bad press that commons has gotten over explicit material would lead traditional institutions to think twice about working with Commons. GabrielF (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Libraries have long been on the receiving end of similar attacks and yet they persist with broad support from traditional institutions in the vast majority of the Western world.   — C M B J   07:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I favor deleting all images of people who make a credible argument that the purpose of the image is harassment or trolling. This applies to any living person in my view, whether or not affiliated with Wikimedia projects. The ethical and moral clauses of COM:BLP influence my thinking, even though this is a painting instead of a photograph. Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep the still image of the painting,  Delete the video. If the image weren't labeled that it was painted with someone's penis, would we ever know it was, just from looking at it? Surely not. So it, in itself, can't be offensive. It's just a painting by an artist that we have an article about, which makes it encyclopedic. The video, however, clearly can be considered to offend every time it's viewed. --GRuban (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - I've found myself on polar opposite sides of this debate three times now in the past 24 hours, and in fact made two policy proposals to protect related personality rights of anyone including public figures, but the case being made for deletion here is essentially one of courtesy since the disputed content consists of artistic depiction as opposed to real photographs or videos. The distinction is very important because retaining an actual snapshot of someone's life that distresses them in some way infringes upon privacy while eradicating someone's artistic depiction—especially of a public figure—infringes upon expression.   — C M B J   07:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no inherent right, only privilege grants us permission to behave in a private community. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, we aren't legally obligated to uphold either of those rights in this context, but our standards typically aim to meet or exceed those of the international community. The restrictions we place on free expression are also much more chilling than those of a proprietor who doesn't want to tolerate a raving lunatic at their private establishment, because in the present day and age, our project serves to facilitate a significant proportion of genuine human expression.   — C M B J   08:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) (to Sameboat) Amen brother, agree with that, Hallelujah (waves arms in the air). Let's follow it up with something that is not a permission granted to us, but an irrevocable, not-negotiable, god given right that just can't be denied... "the right to say 'screw you guys, I'm a-goin home' ". It's become the fashion, it's the new thing, the latest thing, the only thing. Two sides to that story. Penyulap ☏ 08:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: I am not sure about the notability of the artist but I do not see the main problem in this point. While we surely most happily accept at Commons free artworks and even a making of movie, this alone is not a guarantee that we can keep it. In this particular case we have a portrait of a living person that was painted with a technique (as documented in the making of) which is considered by the depicted person to be sexual harassment. A sexual harassment does not require a physical contact to the victim. Anything that contributes to a intimidating, hostile, or abusive work environment will do it, even a text message or an image. This does not have to be intentional, it can also be accidental. But at least as soon as we learn that the victim feels harassed for understandable reasons, we should act.
The offense in this case is apparently taken in the painting technique which involves the use of penis, scrotum and buttocks by the painter as described here and also demonstrated in the movie). Following the text we learn that the painter paints portraits for attendees in 20 minutes on exhibitions or paints portraits of celebrities which can safely ignore him in the unlikely case that they learn of his existence. This case is different as the depicted person while notable is not a celebrity and this portrait is taken without consent. And then it is not just uploaded but presented right under the nose of the depicted in an article under development at en-wp where it didn't take long until the depicted was made aware of this (this should not surprise anyone).
I do not participate in any speculation about the motives for uploading these files and integrating them into this article which, from an encylopedic viewpoint, would not require this particular portrait and making of movie (any other portrait of someone who consents would do it as well). Given this, it is not surprising that the depicted person claims to be trolled by these uploads and their use. At the end the actual motivation for the upload does not count. The depicted considers this as sexual harassment and given the long history between Jimbo Wales and Commons this should not be surprising. Per the resolution about biographies of living people and our terms of use we are asked to treat living people with dignity and avoid harassment. Even if this was not the intent, it is now obvious that it is understood this way and for comprehensible reasons. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have doubts the artist will ever be arrested, or even sued. I would like to see some support in the right venue. I would like to see a proposal that applies to everyone. Please consider commenting at the village pump. link to section Penyulap ☏ 13:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓[OK]
The argument that an artist's work can inadvertently constitute sexual harassment does not resonate well with me, even after making very similar points here. Wales also is very much a public figure in the same sense as many if not most celebrities, so I do not see how we can rationalize removal of his relatively innocent artistic depiction while a similar nomination of an artistic work like File:Lenk Ludwigs Erbe detail 07.jpg presumably would (and should) result in a decisive keep. Double standards like this don't particularly advance any social or labor cause and can actually do considerable harm.   — C M B J   14:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lenk Ludwigs Erbe detail 07.jpg has received media coverage which literally segregating it to the safety zone. I don't admit this is a good reason to keep such media, but this is how the justification applied universally today. I won't be surprised if there is tabloid reporting this art and the making of video within this month, effectively protecting the whole painting Jimbo with dick works from deletion, regardless of his complaint of HESH. And this is the other major reason why Jimbo is picked. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean we have your support to include the image on Commons when a story about it hits Salon? (With no basis for knowledge, I'll guess... 4.5 days. With some embarrassment if it's out already) The problem though with saying that's a "safe harbor" is that hell, I thought paintings by notable artists were a safe harbor. These pro-censorship interests may seem like a monolithic group now, but there's no honor among thieves - the moment they start to get power their new order will be one long sordid series of "second revolutions" until WMF ends up being run like one of those completely fraudulent but completely legal U.S. charities a Tampa newspaper profiled two days ago. There will be nothing left but the spam and viruses. Wnt (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓[OK]
Except that "Pricasso" is not notable as a painter, and doesn't characterize himself as such. He describes himself as a performance artist. The coverage cited in the draft article related to the files pretty much casts him as a sideshow freak. That he may be notable as either does not mean that the props he manipulates in his act, like the "portrait" involved here, themselves have notability or artistic merit. "Pricasso" is about as notable as a painter, in terms of the concrete visual art he produces, as Karen Finley was as a chocolatier. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sideshow freak? Well there goes any moral high ground you may have had (which you didn't) in which you have just characterised a living person in such a derogatory way. Enough said. russavia (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're being deliberately deceptive here. I said that the news/media coverage you cited in your draft article generally treated him as a sideshow freak, not as a creator of substantial artistic work. You clearly are capable of understanding that distinction, which was relevant to the point under discussion; the only reasonable inference is that you're more interested in smearing editors who disagree than with engaging in reasoned discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Public figures can still be sexually harassed. It is not the existing of a painting that is at issue. It is the existing of a painting with a video that has a man's penis rubbing against Jimbo's face and uploaded by someone with a long standing dispute with Jimbo that is the problem. Restraining orders can be taken out for less. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A penis is not rubbing against Jimbo's face. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think if one was to ask activists, counsellors, and the like who work with victims of harassment what their opinion is regarding this case in comparison to say, any other case that crosses their desk any day of the week, their response may not be flattering. It is a serious issue, so let's not lose a sense of perspective about it. Penyulap ☏ 15:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you what my opinion is from the point of view of someone who has actually written sexual harassment policy professionally. It does not meet any of litmus test under a reasonable sexual harassment policy; but given that he has made this public accusation against myself, it is indeed a libellous accusation to make. But we also need to remember; 1) this is not a workplace and 2) Jimmy is not just an "unpaid volunteer" but is a notable, public person. He needs to stop playing the victim by lying about myself[9][10], and start directing his anger at those who have actually trolled him! russavia (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓[OK]
If you are actually "someone who has actually written sexual harassment policy professionally," you almost certainly know, and certainly can be expected to know, that not meeting a "litmus test" is hardly proof that an action is not sexual harassment, but would show, at most, that the action was not crude and overt; that sexual harassment outside of a workplace is hardly acceptable behavior; and that being a "notable, public person" does not make one "fair game" for what would otherwise be treated as sexually harassing behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can I ask at this point here in which countries "being a "notable, public person" does not make one "fair game"" or would I sound too much like a smartarse ? Penyulap ☏ 16:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand things, the "public person" standard applies to defamation cases (under American law), not sexual harassment matters, and isn't protection for someone who commits a deliberate libel. I'm unaware of any country which treats sexual harassment as a serious offense and makes such an exemption. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can still legally sexually harass notable people. Notability has nothing to do with harassment. It also does not have anything to do with defamation. The only standard of "notable" is used by Wikipedia for allowing "private details" and the such to be included, but has no actual legal bearing. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary "jimmy is playing the victim card by lying" suggests that you are treating this whole thing as a battleground, and your actions and words on en.wikipedia reinforce that. Commons is not for waging war against others no matter how much you may dislike them. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to speculate on whether Jimbo feels hurt by this work, but I disagree, given the nature of the objection, that it is unreasonable for a party accused of wrongdoing to contest the basis of such allegations.   — C M B J   23:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about the artist or about the legal status of this artwork. We are talking here about this upload at Wikimedia Commons. And uploading this movie and putting it under Jimbos nose at en-wp (indirectly but still close enough) can be seen as a harassment. It is unlikely that we can stop this from further distribution (it has already happened) but it is a huge difference whether this image and the associated movie are present at a project he is working for as a volunteer or somewhere else. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you stated that the artist's technique constituted a form of sexual harassment, which implies that there is a problem with the work that exists independently of friction between the subject and uploader. Nevertheless, if the nature of the offense is limited to one of user-user conduct, then there still exists the issue of what happens if or when this image becomes the subject of critical commentary, which would inevitably lead to a disinterested party re-uploading it for the purposes of illustration. Do we then persist in censoring it as a thoughtful gesture to one of our contributors?   — C M B J   23:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this picture were made and kept private, it wouldn't have been a harassment as the victim wouldn't have been aware of that. The act of uploading it and putting it right under the victim's nose could be considered as harassment. The removal of files that are used for harassment is not censorship. There is no justification to keep anything here at Commons whose effective purpose appears to be harassment. This would be in conflict to the terms of use and the WMF resolution I have refered to above. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This depiction of Jimbo is used to illustrate it:umorismo and nl:humor.
Suppose we create a hypothetical scenario. A fictional user creates and uploads a drawing of File:Wikimedia Foundation Sue Gardner Sept 2010.jpg with modifications to the appearance of her bosom. The user then pays User:Sue Gardner a visit on her talk page, posting the picture along with inappropriate innuendos and other suggestive remarks. Gardner then states that she feels uncomfortable being harassed in such a way by a colleague while volunteering in what is supposed to be a safe place. In this scenario—or even in an equivalent male version—I would agree that the uploader's behavior constituted an act of user-user misconduct, that the file associated should be expeditiously removed on that basis, and that the actor should be admonished for engaging in sexual harassment. However, in the case at hand, Russavia at least appears to have been attempting to create a new Wikipedia article about an unusual but noteworthy portraitist. Russavia contacted said artist and, in order to illustrate his bizarre painting technique, arranged for him to create a work based on the best available image of Wikipedia's spokesperson. This selection was aligned with a longstanding tradition in which Wiki-culture is utilized for the purposes of illustrating novel concepts, and the case of Wales' likeness specifically, I was able to find several such examples just from a cursory review: File:Fair use icon - Movie poster.png for templates, File:Cisco Cius (Wales).jpg for Cisco Cius, and File:Creation of jimbo.jpg for Umorismo and Humor. Russavia may or may not have inwardly delighted in doing so at Wales' expense because of the inherent details involved, but even if he did, I sincerely doubt that sexual intimidation was ever a factor. Again, I respect our obligations as stewards of this project and we are in agreement that no one should ever feel that they are being subjected to threatening conditions in the course of their time spent contributing.   — C M B J   08:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Plainly intended as personal harassment of another member of the community. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Falls outside what Commons' scope is/should be. The image appears to have been uploaded with the clear purpose of harassing a living person, who has objected to the content being hosted. Whilst the artist might be notable, this particular artwork is not. Articles about the artist and his work could be aptly illustrated with other media. WJBscribe (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv; very weak and conditional  Keep File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg and File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (cropped).jpg if and only if someone can overcome the appearance that this art was coordinated with or otherwise involving anyone with a habit of problems with Jimbo (see last point below). (And "bias towards Jimbo" claim would be absolutely crazy: This would have been instant deletion for everything, and possibly a block, if the painting was of any unconsenting wiki user other than Jimbo.) By issue:
    • The difference between being generally offensive and personally, directly offensive: The portrait does not appear to be particularly offensive unless you know the history of it; I didn't even realize what the fuss was about until I looked at the related images and found out how the painting was made. The video of the art being painted is a problem, however, regardless of any speculation about its intent. We need to consider where the line is between a user coming across uncomfortable sexual images in general (which is obviously allowed as Commons:Not censored), and a user coming across uncomfortable sexual images of himself (or herself!) without consent or participation, which — as Jimbo pointed out at en:User talk:Jimbo Wales#NSFW - Wikimedia Commons video — could be reasonably interpreted as at least a hostile work environment for a wiki user. If this were any other kind of a library, would you make a librarian have to deal with the possibility of coming across people wiping their penises on the image of his/her own face in a video, and treating that as if it were any other erotic art that librarian should put up with? It's one thing to expect a librarian to deal with lots of really explicit sexual images, maybe of people rubbing themselves on someone's face. But we usually don't say to people in a workplace, even an art gallery, "If you don't like that guy standing over there rubbing himself on a picture of your face once in a while, just don't look, or don't work here. We believe in artistic expression!" There are jurisdictions where workplace harassment laws protect even unpaid volunteers, even temporary volunteers. Even strip clubs sometimes attract unpleasant government labor inspections if they make the "dancers" put up with sexual behavior outside of their job description.
    • Jimbo Wales' alleged notoriety: Jimbo isn't so famous, that his image is a icon in itself to the general public. He and his face are well-known to experienced Wikimedia project users, and possibly well-known to people who pay attention further than the top layer of "famous names" on the Internet. Maybe someone, who is familiar with Internet personalities, put his face on a shirt somewhere once. But he didn't ascend to a throne; he didn't run for public office; he didn't particularly go out in the rest of the world and stir up drama in public to get himself famous, like so-called "celebrities" do these days. He's not Che Guevara, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, or the Queen of England. Second: Any noteriety he has is just a side effect result of his being the first/founding Wikipedia user: His primary relationship with Wikimedia projects is and always has been internal (a user), not an outside subject; he has the same right as any other wiki user to be able to fully participate on wiki and all the content thereon without being presented with ones own face being rubbed upon whenever some other user thinks that's clever.
    • Art as criticism or public commentary: One might have argued that the art is an editorial or criticism of Jimbo's public persona, not directed at him as a wiki user. But there is no facet of Jimbo's notoriety or other public behavior that involves what is happening in this video; even if Jimbo were considered famous generally, the video of this art does not address anything known about Jimbo's behavior; it's just a sexual provocation against a specific person who has done nothing related to it. To put this in perspective, let's say that Bill Clinton were a wiki user. If there is published sexual art involving Bill Clinton and a cigar, then yes, Clinton may have to put up with that as being within COM:SCOPE, even if he's a wiki user, because that subject is a well-known event that attracts public comment. But, if Clinton were a wiki user and there were published sexual art involving Clinton and a dog or something dirty like that, with no apparent purpose, then no, Clinton shouldn't have to put up with the possibility of coming across images of himself like that in order to use wiki.
    • COM:SCOPE: Uniqueness does not always mean education. There is a well-known English Wikipedia essay called en:Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability (WP:EXISTS). The same is true for Commons: Something's existence does not make examples of itself automatically useful for an educational purpose. A video like this, of a person's image, would be interpreted by a normal person as a specific personal attack, so we should be especially strict about proving that this image meets COM:SCOPE. Is this realistically going to be used on any project in any way that will not immediately violate the project's policies? I can see aspects both ways. But: There is this corruption in the last year or two, among some Commons users, that basically amounts to a belief that "realistic educational use" doesn't mean anything even though it's the core phrase in the core policy of Commons. There are two or three excuses people use for having that attitude; but in any case, now is not the time to be using those excuses. For this, we need a realistic evaluation of realistic use, not a campaign to see who can artificially contrive circumstances in which ordinarily unused files might get a little closer to being kept.
    • The possibility of intentional hostility here: According to en:User talk:Jimbo Wales#NSFW - Wikimedia Commons video, there is the possibility that this art itself is a part of a coordinated attempt to sexually abuse the specific wiki user depicted in the art. Jimbo himself thinks sexual harassment and trolling is involved somehow, and Jimbo has pretty thick skin. (Most normal people on Earth would interpret this, appearing in a place where they frequent, to be intentional, personally-directed sexual harassment.) When asked directly whether Russavia instigated this painting (User talk:Russavia#Trolling?), Russavia replied a bunch of non-answers (as far as I can tell) followed by "Everything else is irrelevant". I don't know if he believes that, but he appears to have left out the answer to the question, and he's wrong about it being irrelevant. I hope it isn't the case that this was done on purpose. But, if it appears likely that this art was the result of anyone's idea of using it on a wiki project where Jimbo Wales is a user, then the art itself, and all examples of it, are explicitly eligible for deletion on on Commons, and are probably against policy on all other Wikimedia projects as well: Commons:Deletion policy#Self-promotion or vandalism/attack is specifically listed as a reason for deletion, separately from whether a file has a realistic educational purpose. And a not-for-profit foundation's Internet servers are not a government or a court: "you can't prove it" (or any of the other day-to-day lame wikilawyering noise) is not actually the standard, as one will learn very quickly once the community finally snaps and has had enough of this sort of thing. --Closeapple (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closeapple, to begin discussion on the points you raised above, you state that Jimmy isn't so famous and his image isn't all that well known. I disagree entirely. He is a public figure, and he himself has capitalised on that fame and his being a public figure with his "celebrity endorsement campaign for the Swiss watch maker Maurice Lacroix."; a campaign which ironically saw his face plastered all over a street in Shanghai; in addition to magazine advertisements for the luxury Swiss brand. Can you please amend that part of your comment, because whilst it is well-thought out it is not the reality. russavia (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, he might be famous enough that he can appear in niche ads for Maurice Lacroix; and he might be more famous than before in some countries, because (from what I understand) they did push that campaign pretty hard in a few places. But that still derives from his core role on wikis as a user; Jimbo might be special in some ways, but, in principle, neither he nor most wiki users would get to the point where their contributions led to a contract from Maurice Lacroix, if such a user fled the project early because they were faced with this particular nature of non-consensual image of themselves being inserted on the projects. Even a famous person — even one who might be open to this conceptually — would, if they were being forced to encounter it in their everyday venue without consent, interpret it as someone's openly hostile attempt to intimidate them in that venue. --Closeapple (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we do prohibit artistic depiction of all Wikipedians who explicitly take offense, then what happens if someone in Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles doesn't like a controversial caricature of themselves? Further to that point, what happens if press agencies realize that they can exploit such a privilege?   — C M B J   09:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. To be sure, I have gone along allowing subjects of photographs taken in a private place to request their removal. That is based on the idea that if the photographer says he had consent, and the subject says he didn't, there is reasonable suspicion the photo violates COM:IDENT; further extended by the point that there is no sense making a policy which encourages subjects to lie and say they never gave permission when they have simply changed their mind - we can't assess that, and it would look bad for our volunteers, so we might as well let them. However, when we have a CC-licensed photo from Wikipedia that the art is clearly based on, or any other intermediate source positioned between Commons and first publication, then we can rely on that to say that the image passes COM:IDENT and don't have to worry. Wnt (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I had assumed this would be deleted almost immediately, as have all the other images intended to insult people. Soap (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Educational, artistic, funny and, I'd be flattered if he did a portrait of me. (Keep all files) Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete obviously an attempt to insult someone. --Rschen7754 04:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Can't the requests be splitted? I think many would be fine with just the pics. --Elitre (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Both picture and video. Why? Both picture and video are can be used on Wikipedia to illustrate an article (right now under development) about a notable artist Tim Patch (Pricasso). The portrait of Jimbo Wales is not offending him, in fact it is IMHO a very nice picture. The video is also free from obscene sexual gestures, the artist is acting humorously but professionally. The choice to portrait Jimbo, and not me or any other wikipedian, is obvious to me, because Jimmy Wales is "the face" of Wikipedia and WMF, used to acquire funds, both on pages on our project and outside. He represents Wikipedia and wikipedians. He is a public person. The way he is painted, is bizarre, but it is what made the artist famous for. Using penis to paint can be seen disgusting/shocking for some people and I can understand that, but encyclopaedia just describes the facts/our reality, also controversial facts. All other rules and regulations (copyright, permissions and so on) are correct to host both picture and video on Commons. We should still ask Jimbo what he thinks about it, but I am quite sure he has already got used to that kind of "interest" to his person, interest which is not always pleasant, but unfortunately quite common in case of famous people like actors, politicians, sportsmen. --Seleucidis (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He responded briefly here.   — C M B J   09:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sexual harassment argument is pure BS, also the note on tope is to be considered vote canvassing (with effects seen here). --Denniss (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are being used on Wikipedia, so your justification is wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Made a correction. Remember please, a picture is worth a thousand words. --Seleucidis (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"can be used on" is not enough for educational. Furthermore, the page was sandboxed and would not count as being used. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it is not my style of art. I admire old Dutch painters, but this video is educational, because it shows how a penile art picture is done, just like this file shows how blue pottery from Delft is made. You can compare the video with educational films on Discovery How do they do it? How it's made?. It is surely interesting for artists and art students to watch it, but not only. Penil artists can be compared to artists painting with mouth or feet. --Seleucidis (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, educational requires use. You cannot say it could demonstrate something. You have to actually use it. en.wiki made it clear that such cannot be used. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, en.wp is not the be all and end all of determining scope for this project. For example, I've been advised that this video and photo of the painting would be totally ok for use on French Wikipedia; for when an article on that project appears. So please don't use the WRONG application of en:WP:BLP on that project to mean that "it's not in use, so it's teh bad". russavia (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As an Equal Opportunity Board member of the w:University of Milan (first research university of Italy, staff of a few thousands) for several years, I personally consider the subject's claim that this is sexual harassment not only laughable, but also distasteful and insulting to the victims of sexual harassment.
    The files are, to me, very boring; however above I only see reasons to consider them in scope for Commons, although rather marginal. As Pete F (20:56, 15 June 2013) says, the subject is a public figure; we sadly acknowledge that the subject dislikes the files, but there's nothing else, and we can't suddenly just start unconditionally deleting articles and files based on the subjects' taste.
    That said, if the subject believes the files are against the law, they can write legal@wikimedia.org and the WMF will judge the matter professionally if the claim is considered reasonable. Sexual harassment is a serious matter and it should be handled professionally; I can put the WMF in touch with professors at my university if helpful, but can't do more. --Nemo 11:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Fut. Perf. NathanT 13:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep : For two reasons, the three files are work of art. The video remind me of the videos made by en:Yves Klein like this one. That's a chance that a performing artist allow us to use this material as free licensed. Second reason is the canvassing... I'm not contribuing that much on en.wp but I thought it was forbidden over there... But it seems ok if it is to influence a vote outside en.wp... - Zil (d) 14:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep If this would be a drawing done with the artist's ear there would be no discussion. And there is absolutely no policy demanding that a specific body part is not used in the creation process. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Strong keep indeed ! (1) These files *are* educational. They provide an unique and irreplaceable occasion to discover and understand what is the precise scope of Commons, as actually regulated by its common law and its common way of doing. Hey you, donator: give more pennies and get more penises.
(2) The fact that a not so random guy from the WMF is targetted by these files is yet another reason for a strong keep. In fact, each of the Hon. Members of the Counsel should get their own portrait drawn as a "remember your duties". Pldx1 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Pricasso seems to be a notable artist, so this clearly is educational and does illustrate his work. It may have been better to choose another motive, but Jimbo Wales is a public figure and I do not think he was chosen specifically as a subject to attack ("troll"/"harass") him; it was probably intended to be simply some random well-known person. I might !vote to delete if we had another suitable video of Pricasso producing his art, but as of now this is all we have, and as a project whose goal is to encourage production of free media files, we should be glad that we did now successfully encourage exactly that! As for the "photo with dick superimposed" analogy that came up, if there were a notable artist known for superimposing dicks on pictures, and we could get one of his works, or a video of its production, released under a free license, that would be great! I do hope this is kept, and also not deleted through an office action. darkweasel94 18:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason to delete these files is not because they are inherently out of scope, it's because they were uploaded specifically to personally spite Jimbo Wales. --Conti|✉ 19:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I admit I haven't read each post here. Could you tell me where the uploader has stated or implied anything like that, or what else leads to your assumption of bad faith? In the first messages here he has implied the opposite. darkweasel94 19:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a long, complex and ugly topic to dive in, but the very short, biased version: Russavia doesn't like Jimbo Wales, ever since Jimbo complained about too much porn on Commons, among other things. Jimbo doesn't like Russavia, and has said rather unfriendly things about Russavia on his talk page on the English Wikipedia. At this point it is commonly known that the two do not like each other one bit. Now it's of course entirely possible that Russavia just so happened to pick a picture and video of Jimbo Wales (or was even given said media), and we should give him, like anyone else, the benefit of the doubt. But Russavia has been explicitly asked by me and others, multiple times, whether he specifically asked for the picture of Jimbo, or whether he even asked for the creation of the picture, and so far, Russavia has ignored and/or outright refused to answer that question[11]. I can bury you with diffs about all of this, if you want, but that's the short version. --Conti|✉ 20:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for the additional information. I have actually been following the discussions on Jimbo's enwiki talk page a bit, so I know a bit what this is about (en:WP:OMGNUDEHUMANBODIES, right?). However, even if russavia did suggest or ask Pricasso to use a portrait of Jimbo, does it follow that this was done with malicious intent, as is implied by verbs like "harass", "attack", "troll", "personally spite" which are being used in this discussion? IMHO it does not, and many of the delete !voters are assuming bad faith where there is no evidence for any. Jimbo's face is, due to the fundraiser messages and things like that, probably familiar to many Wikipedia readers and especially editors, so it's not a totally unreasonable motive to use as a sample. darkweasel94 20:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's an argument I could entertain. But then I have to ask why Russavia refuses to talk about this. To me, it looks like Russavia has everything to win and nothing to lose about speaking up, and yet he does not, even going so far as to actively avoid speaking about his intentions for choosing a picture of Jimbo of all people. The benefit of the doubt goes only so far, I'm afraid. --Conti|✉ 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Darkweasel94, it is dark and complex, the utter shit that trolls like Conti just above will dribble in order to attack others. Here's a suggestion Darkweasel94, ask Conti for a diff where I state that I don't like Jimbo since he's complained about too much porn on Commons. The fact is, he won't be able to find one, because he's just lied to you outright. The fact of the matter is, I have deleted and nominated more porn from this project than they would ever know, or admit to, because it doesn't fit in with the discredited meme they are pushing of me being part of a porn cabal. The issue that editors such as Conti have with me, is that I refuse to delete sexuality photos from this project based only upon COM:OMGAPENIS. And because of this, I of course, am their target.
            • In relation to Jimmy hating me, take the time to read this. Jimmy claimed after these images were uploaded that I have been "vicious" with him in the past; it's a lie. Look at Jimmy and my interactions, and you can see that I have always been cordial with him, and have extended him a helping hand if he needs it. I even gave him the filemover right, which registered some degree of "why did you do that" in private messages from other admins; my response being that we want Jimmy on Commons and that he can do such maintenance work himself, and giving him the tools will encourage that.
            • These are not the acts of someone who has it in for Jimmy or anything of the like. Even after the attacks that Jimmy put me under after he was trolled by OTHER editors with these images (by editors from Wikipediocracy, and the wife of an editor who is topic banned from JW's talk page), I will still work with Jimmy. But of course, this has no bearing on these images, which should be kept as freely licenced artworks by a notable artist. russavia (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand. Most likely there is no absolute truth here: disputes are necessarily always described by those involved in a subjective and biased way, it has always been and will always be like that. I won't comment, and it's not really related to this deletion discussion. It doesn't seem important if russavia doesn't like Jimbo or Jimbo doesn't like russavia or russavia is part of a porn cabal or anything, so I personally won't try to find evidence for either of these statements. ;) Good night, darkweasel94 21:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused how anyone could suggest that a picture of someone you are in a dispute that has a penis rubbing on it can be seen as done in good faith. The act, by definition, is harassing and an attack on anyone even if there was not a negative interaction prior to the act. The actual combative attitude that Russavia has demonstrated so far is only more damning. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Has Russavia answered whether or not he discussed the creation of this painting with the artist before the artist decided to paint it? I think that answer will have some weight on whether it should be kept or not. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cla68 Everybody has [Right to silence]. --Seleucidis (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That I don't get. Usually you're supposed to consider the edit, not the editor. Here we're supposed to (for two files) ban a painting based on how it was made. Now we're supposed to ban a painting by a notable artist based on whether the person who processed the OTRS ticket talked to him about the idea first? How crazy can this possibly get? And it isn't even a probable conspiracy theory - I still don't get who you would have expected him to paint, knowing he was painting for Wikimedia. Wnt (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So he was specifically painting the picture for us? As far as I know, even that has not been established yet. --Conti|✉ 23:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True - I suppose he might have already done it and picked it as the obvious choice from his archives. But the loopiness of this -- I mean, what would you say if (HYPOTHETICALLY) Larry Sanger had commissioned the painting? Do we ban paintings as "harassment" if a non-wikipedian commissions them? What about if once upon a time Pricasso was a Wikipedian and was banned in 2005 or something? There's literally not one dead branch on this slippery slope to hang onto before you get to banning any painting you think is "nasty" based on your personal POV about anything. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, are you saying that editors are not blocked for attacks on others or harassment? I'm not sure how you can come up with such a conclusion, because there is many years worth of evidence suggesting the contrary. If Commons was acting properly, the images would have been instantly deleted and Russavia banned without need for a discussion. This is just evidence that Commons is broken, Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly, terribly, broken, people here seem to want some semblance of any actual evidence before following along with mindless rabble. Like air-striking someone's arse, only the leader on tv needs to say so to make it right, I can't imagine what people are thinking when they question our mind-controllers. Penyulap ☏ 03:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will ask...Russavia, did you and the artist discuss this painting before he started on it? Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair question, can't see you getting a response to it though, that'd be like going and asking Jimmy did he send a wave of editors over from en.wiki to help us make a better environment for all commons users, so that everyone doesn't need to feel harassed, or was the 'wave' specifically aimed at one particular person alone, for the benefit of another single person. We could go on about it all day, like 'did Russavia have enough knowledge and experience to know exactly what he was doing at the time', versus 'do we think that Jimmy has enough of a clue about how the project functions to know precisely what he was doing'.
At the end of the day, I think it's like that movie called 'good morning Vietnam' where Robin Williams character is pretending to go around the jungles of vietnam searching for 'charlie' by asking people 'Aaare yoou Chaaarlie ?' Penyulap ☏ 06:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The fact that it is a painting of Jimbo Wales does not indicate that it is indeed an attack on him, even if he is offended, and even if it was encouraged by Russavia. If Jimbo feels offended, that is merely his opinion on penises, but there is no objective reason why penises should be any more offensive or insulting than an ordinary paintbrush other than the idea that somehow penises are "immoral" or "dirty" or other such things. After all, the painting itself does not depict Jimbo Wales in an insulting manner.--172.11.52.18 04:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's all well and good to say that "there is no objective reason why penises should be any more insulting than an ordinary paintbrush", but of course that's not the way the world works. Whenever we evaluate whether or not something is offensive, we have to look at how that speech is traditionally perceived. There is, as an objective fact, a long history of treating genitalia differently from other body parts. When Pricasso paints something with his penis, there is a very different set of meanings involved than if he had painted with a brush, and I'm sure that's a big part of why Pricasso does it. We can't just say "oh, well, he shouldn't be offended because there isn't anything objectively offensive about it", we have to consider the implicit meaning that's involved here. As an example, as a society we consider using the 'n-word' to be far more serious than many other types of insults. One could argue that this just perpetuates a subjective judgment that race is important when, scientifically, race isn't all that meaningful a concept. However, to take that position would be to ignore the fact that for historical and cultural reasons race is a very big deal and calling someone the n-word is going to be perceived as more shocking and more insulting than, say, using a slang term to refer to their height or eye color. GabrielF (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I find a previous editors assertion that it should be kept because it's educational as an illustrative study of the scope of commons particularly entertaining. It's as if some people can't see the absurdity of an inclusion policy that is absolutely meaningless and boils down to "I like it" or not. If commons actually had a policy on self-promotion, then I'd cite that. But since commons doesn't really have any policies that mean anything at all, lets just call this a "I don't like it" vote, since that's what all the above votes are really anyway. Gigs (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't discourage self-promotion, within reason. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this is a well staged humiliation against specific person, using Commons as a ground to gain popularity and attract media coverage. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The only person who has used these images and videos to troll Jimmy is User:DracoEssentialis (the wife of User:Jayen466 - who has a long history of trolling Jimmy. Also, the artist is not using Commons to gain media coverage or anything of the like, because it is I who approached him to enquire about suitably licenced content for his article which I was already working on -- there was no "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back" deal. russavia (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole thing would have been less controversial if the subject of the portrait and video was either Pricasso himself or you, the one who approved such art performance to be valuable to this project. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pricasso already has his own website and channel on Vimeo. These should provide enough self-promotion. If anything, this stunt is likely to make Commons look foolish, something it can well do without. FWIW, there is pretty much zero chance of the photos or video being used in a biography of Pricasso on Wikipedia.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) if you're a naked guy in a pink foam hat, I think the concept of "enough self-promotion" may be difficult to grasp or understand, like the plasma wakefield contactors on the International Space Station. Making commons look foolish is more of a combined effort than a single pink parrot's crusade, many people have been working on it for years. Penyulap ☏ 09:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is on French Wikipedia, where I've been advised they would be ok. russavia (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't see it happening on enwp though. The whole thing looks more and more like an attempt to promote Pricasso, combined with a desire to make a point about the independence of Commons. If Jimbo is upset, so much the better.--Ianmacm (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? Let en.wp do what they want to do! English Wikipedia has a long and distinguished history of censoring content that other projects have zero problem with. Other projects, which aren't as broken as English Wikipedia, may wish to use these files, so we host them to allow for that. We don't allow en.wp to dictate our content here on Commons; even moreso, we don't allow a small subset of en.wp editors (many of whom have obvious agendas) to dictate our content here. russavia (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Russavia may treat Commons as his personal playground, but he is a fringe figure on the English language Wikipedia. His recent contributions (and more general track record in the past few months) suggest a lack of desire to contribute to an encyclopedia constructively.--Ianmacm (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The above post by Russavia is strong evidence that the uploads were done to harass an individual and wage war against a project. That is not what Commons is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A possible COI (conflict of interest) is as follows. User:Gigs has written (in en:Wikipedia) a column named "The tragedy of Wikipedia's commons". According to my personnal opinion, this column can be summarized as "Commons is broken, may be". And now we have here, in Commons, a set of pictures that, in my personnal opinion, can be summarized as "Commons is broken, indeed". The second set seems to be more attractive, better written and more conclusive (isn't it self-proving ?). Moreover, this second contribution is more prone to catch the attention of the real world (including the Funds Dissemination Committee) and, from all these reasons, more likely to contribute to a reversal of tendency.
    By the way, I think that User:Sameboat misses something when stating about "a well staged humiliation against specific person". The resulting painting is not about a "not so random person in her garden or elsewhere", but is about the "2008 Wikimedia Fundraiser Campaign". This amounts to more than one "specific person" that should be *educated* about Funds Raising... and Controling Afterwards: don't wash evidences. Pldx1 (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It's not a conflict of interest for me to have an opinion about commons and then make a deletion discussion comment that reflects my opinion (that the inclusion criteria here are meaningless and arbitrary). I found this discussion because it was linked to in a comment on my op-ed. Regarding your summary, you could look at it that way, but a more subtle summary would be "The way commons exists now, as a project that is caught between being a technical interwiki bridge for media, and a project with separate goals and governance, is causing a lot of problems" Gigs (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep or does the first amendment not count for arts and arts at the Commons? --Matthiasb (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may surprise you, but the first amendment is irrelevant when it comes to deletion discussions on Commons (or any other Wikimedia project). --Conti|✉ 11:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not legally binding, but it is relevant, and very much so on several fronts.   — C M B J   12:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how. The main allegation is the use of these images to spite another user. That is not what this project is for, regardless of free speech. --Conti|✉ 13:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • the 'standard' or 'average' expectations are what determine policy. Commons editors, drawn from across the world, expect more freedom, and that shows in commons policy. Whereas, on en.wiki for example, people expect much less from a governing body and they get it, chaos the norm. The term 'first amendment' is just lip-service in reality in that country, but in other countries it exists more in reality than as any simple catch-cry. People who don't know what the 'first amendment' means are actually more likely to demand it in reality, and those who do know what it refers to are less likely to do a damn thing when it's taken from them. Look at it this way, lots of noise here, but no push for change to the policies at the village pump. A twitter sized complaint and then they disappear.
          • Many commenters in this discussion do not want change, they simply want to complain. Lack of proposal for change at the VP is the deafening silence that bears this out. Penyulap ☏ 14:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The First Amendment does not allow for harassment, nor does it apply here. You need to use valid rationales in these discussions. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete -jkb- (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC) (russavia - and some others - seems to have some problems[reply]
  •  Keep Seems to be a relevant artist, and it shows that paintings can be created without hands, that's educational.--Stanzilla (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Educational requires use and not just a claim to such. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you going to comment on each "keep vote" from now on? There are a few left… odder (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being in-scope requires actual use? That's new to me. Being in use is a sufficient condition for being in scope, but not a necessary condition. And that's good. darkweasel94 19:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you bothered to look? [12]. Being in use is a necessary condition for it to be educational. Here are words that have been there for a long time: "Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose, and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that 'it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X', where X happens to be the subject of the file." Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course it doesn't. Blurred shots of things we already have fifty QIs of don't become educational just because they could theoretically be used. But this is a unique video; we don't have a comparable one to illustrate this artist's way of working. And this artist is notable enough at least for itwiki: it:Pricasso. I don't think there can be significant doubt that this video is educational; whether we should delete it because of "harassment of Jimbo" is a different issue. In fact we have many files that are merely unused, but that doesn't make them any less educational. Remember that one use of Commons is for readers to find a link to a category in Wikipedia articles, where they can then find possibly more interesting photos and videos than those that made it into the article. darkweasel94 20:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • "*Of course it doesn't. " Now you are suddenly changing your tune, but you are still wrong. There are already pictures available. Acting as if this harassing picture is necessary is quite a stretch. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Then please show me what other videos of Pricasso doing his work are available here on Commons under a suitable license. I might genuinely have missed them; perhaps somebody has meanwhile uploaded some? Then of course we can reconsider everything. darkweasel94 06:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The video was comissioned by the uploader to Pricasso, who is still living. In other words, if the making of video is demanded to aid in Pricasso's article, we can always ask him to do another one with the subject being like either Pricasso himself or the uploader. I'm speaking of mutual respect. If the subject has expressed uneasiness to be featured in your work, you reciprocate by doing something else, unless your intention is to irritate the subject. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Then please do so - ask him if he'll license another video under a free license, then upload it - and then we can reconsider things. Note that of course the picture he paints in the process may not be a derivative of a nonfree work itself. Why wait for someone else to do this if you can do it yourself? darkweasel94 06:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'm not going to do it because the whole painting by penis has no value to any Wikimedia project whatsoever IMO. It's another form of exhibitionism trying to gain public awareness with no more than 15 minutes of fame. Perhaps we will soon receive portrait (along with the making of video) which is done by holding the brush in someone's anus or vagina, any part of the body which will make a considerable amount of people to think "OMG, it's disgusting" and then such art will survive all requests for deletion discussion. Users who vote for deletion will be accused of attempt to censor Commons. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • As noted above and in his English Wikipedia article, this is just one in a long line of pictures done in this manner by Pricasso over a course of many years, and he was covered in a variety of third-party media before this painting was ever done. This doesn't really bear comparison to a random non-artist making a sensational upload to draw attention. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. It is just art, so everything is allowed. --TotalUseless (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is a rare technique, but the result is fabulous. --Alan (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and get rid of censorship advocate Wales, ASAP. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep; i went like... "tl;dr" on all the above communication, but still want to pitch into the discussion. I cannot see what is wrong with the picture (enlighten me if I am on a large-scale mental hangover); it is a derivative work of a free-licensed picture, which is totally OK considering the license. What, the way it was painted? Oh, schucks. Want to get rid of Joseph Pujol and the art he performed too? ;) Anyway, back to being serious; cannot see a reason to delete. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 19:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To quote myself from above: The reason to delete these files is not because they are inherently out of scope, it's because they were uploaded specifically to personally spite Jimbo Wales. Or at least that's the assumption of many here. --Conti|✉ 19:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Were they uploaded according to the Commons rules? Short answer, yes or no. I cannot profess to read minds, so I will not delve into what the uploader actually meant by uplading this file, this is far above my paygrade (God might know, but He chooses not to share it with me). As to the person of Jimmy, whom I personally do respect, Pundit had a wise word or three on the subject of what is sacred in the Wikimedia movement and what is not (wait till his book gets published, those of you who understand Polish can already purchase his book, translated by myself). The word is that authorities within the WIkimedia movement are not sacred, and this is a conclusion he made as a long-time ethnographic observer-participant to the movement, not a thing he pulled out of a hat. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • it would be a rare day if admins took intentions into account in a DR. uploaders with the best of intentions still get their crap deleted, intentions, even if proven, count for nothing in DR. Penyulap ☏ 20:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting insight there Wpedzich. Out of interest, could you possibly tell us where one can buy User:Pundit's book? Even in Polish, it sure sounds like an interesting read. I know that others have planned to write books on Wikipedia (or so they say) but to have someone of the calibre of Pundit writing one would make it a must read (for those who are into the whole Wikimedia movement). russavia (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here is the publisher's page with the book to be purchased. I am not fully aware of when the book will be out in its English incarnation (titled Virtually Powerless?) but having gone through it in detail, and preparing the Polish translation, I can say it will be a good must read. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 19:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • " I cannot profess to read minds, so I will not delve into what the uploader actually meant by uplading this file" Mind reading is not necessary when the actions are transparent. If someone stabs another 60 times, it doesn't matter if the person says "It was an accident, I didn't mean to." Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Short answer: Yes. Slightly long answer: Not everything that should not be done is explicitly forbidden by the rules, and "It is allowed as long as it is not explicitly forbidden." has always been a very bad approach to, well, anything. You're free to delve into all of this (this page, Russavia's talk page, Jimbo's talk page, etc.), but it's not going to be very fun. I can certainly understand why this looks like an obvious keep vote at first (and even second) glance. --Conti|✉ 20:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "OMG free speech is at stake" argument would be more credible if the tactic behind the Pricasso video was not basically the same as the one that Russavia used in the Polandball saga: upload controversial material, then play the censorship card when other people complain.--Ianmacm (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all. This is a complex case so I'll try to sum it up one point at a time:
    • Artist is potentially notable: As of recently, there is an English Wikipedia article on Pricasso (written by russavia) with a pretty extensive list of 24 references, including many newspapers. There is also a stub on Italian Wikipedia. This speaks to educational value.
    • Work is currently irreplacable: The video illustrates the painter's unique technique in a way no other media currently available on Commons does. This is the only video of Pricasso currently available under a free license, and the only one of his works based on a free content work (many of his portraits are derivative of non-free photos). This could change if someone commissions a new work.
    • Choice of image: Although russavia may have had a role in choosing the image to paint, this one was particularly suitable for three reasons: 1. available under a free license; 2. suits Pricasso's convention of painting public figures and celebrities; 3. directly related to Wikipedia for a donation to Wikipedia. In retrospect, other choices may have been more suitable, but the reasoning behind this choice is clear.
    • Uploader intention is irrelevant: The reason for uploading a work should not factor into whether we retain it; we are concerned with our adherence to the law, usefulness, and ethics of hosting the image.
    • Uploader intention is unknown: Russavia's claims that the work was intended to illustrate the artist are credible, notwithstanding his prior disagreements with Jimbo. In his worldview, nudity is inoffensive. Moreover, russavia did not engage in any action to bring the files to Jimbo's attention. Claims that the video is "trolling" are speculation.
    • Attack: Some images are obviously intended to attack a person, such as File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg, which any reasonable person would interpret as an attack on the character of Alan Dershowitz. This work makes no clear statement about Jimbo's character, and is easy to interpret as a simple demonstration of the technique in which Jimbo's role is incidental.
    • No request for removal: No explicit request for removal has been made. Jimbo's comments have made it clear he is unhappy about the works, but normally courtesy deletions require an explicit request to remove the works. It is entirely possible that Jimbo is unhappy with them but nevertheless understands that they have value to the project.
    • Public figure: Even if the image were offensive, and a request for removal were received, Jimbo is a public figure whose image has been used promotionally in multiple contexts, and courts have generally held that there is a higher standard for libel of public figures. From en:Public figure: "A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a sample on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure." This principle of law is based on the value to society in widely discussing and criticizing public figures. In addition to suggesting that the image is not libellous, this also suggests that we adopt a similar higher standard for public figures in our policy, for the same reasons.
  • To sum up my position: we have received no request for removal, and even if we did, Jimbo is a public figure, the artist is notable, and the work is currently irreplacable. The uploader's intention is irrelevant, and the work is not inherently offensive to Jimbo. I apologize if the work makes Jimbo feel uncomfortable, but I sincerely believe its educational value to society at large is more important. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The reason for uploading a work should not factor into whether we retain it;" Policy says otherwise. Also, "Public Figure" has nothing to do with harassment. Most of your points are not based on policy and are emotional. The statement that Jimbo could possibly think that the images have value to the project when he has said many times that the images are disgraceful and don't belong here makes it seem like your lengthy statement has much to be desired. I think you need to start by refreshing yourself with our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then please explain this. Why is Jimmy not calling it harassment or sexual harassment on Twitter? russavia (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no idea what Jimbo said in twitter about or not about Pricasso's stunt counters any previous statement of HESH. Are you trying to prove that calling it disappointing or uninteresting makes the HESH claim untenable? I don't think so. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find it odd how you can link to something unrelated and attempt to say "why isn't it there too?!?!" Are rapists suddenly let go because their victim didn't cry rape every second of their life? That isn't how reality works. And the link has someone else quoting Jimbo as saying it, so that is just evidence that he did say it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've explained above, I do not believe these works are attacks, and so the policy regarding attacks is inapplicable. Moreover, regardless of the present policy, I think it should be clear that useful media that comply with our other policies should be retained even if they were uploaded for the purpose of an attack (that is, the present policy is bad and did not adequately consider such a scenario). My arguments are based on calm and thoughtful reasoning, and I have no investment in these works - I assure you, I am not being emotional in the slightest. I hadn't had an opportunity to fully review Jimbo's comments, so I struck the part you mentioned above. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And suddenly all kinds of verbal abuse and personal attack are justifiable in the name of artistic stunt. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • And your professional expertise (apart fromm opposing everything I do on these projects) is what? Forget about my own; go read Nemo_bis' comments -- he's an HR expert with sexual harassment experience. I am loving these continued accusations against myself though; I am collecting quite the mountain of diffs. Please provide evidence of verbal abuse and personal attack on my part. I have plenty of evidence of you calling me a sexual harasser in a public forum, so you better watch it. russavia (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nemo bis is a highly biased user who has a long history of condoning extreme sexual content here in a way that does not match any cultural norm in the region he claims to be part of. Your own combative, nasty, and incivil attitude is not what Commons is for. You turned this into a major battleground and you should have been banned from the start of this discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Although you clearly got the wrong idea, I would like to ask if this is a formal topic ban by the Commons admin. If yes I will shut up. If no I won't comply. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • To be fair, I'm not and I didn't claim to be a HR expert (I was also member of the university board's HR committee, but that's not a professional role); I just gave some personal/"professional" background on why I feel offended by these allegations of sexual harassment, and why I suspect they are ill-founded. As Dcoetzee notes, we have no official request for removal by the files' subject; but I repeat that if we had, then such allegations should be carefully considered by professionals/subject matter experts. --Nemo 07:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Our precautionary principles makes it clear that we do not require an official request. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • COM:PCP applies to copyright, and nothing else. And the copyright status of these works is totally clear (or if you doubt even that, ask at COM:ON). Read the policy you're referring to before using it as an argument. darkweasel94 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • "such as the following" Does not suggest "only the following". The discussion page made it clear that it applied to all of the Scope, of which it is a subpage. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I cannot locate anything on that page's talk page that would suggest that, and even if it did that would be irrelevant since talk pages are not policies, guidelines, not even essays. And if you read the policy, you will see that it says: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." Emphasis by me. Read that word. Freedom. Not ethical considerations such as if somebody is attacked. I know of no policy saying who has the burden of proof for this, but common sense would suggest it's those who want it deleted - otherwise people could nominate anything for deletion saying it's an attack image even though there's nothing that would suggest so. (And this is exactly the situation we have here. There is nothing that suggests that either Pricasso or russavia had any malicious intent.) darkweasel94 16:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Your response is obfuscation. As I already demonstrated, the page is not limited to what you stated. Then, a simply glance at the talk page still shows that the first section reveals that the page has the intent of being beyond that. By being a subpage of the greater policy, it reveals a lot more than you let on. Furthermore, your wikilawyering about "freedom" is rather funny, because "freedom" has no legal bearing. However, the word "legality" should have been used, and the word freedom is implied to mean legal in that sentence. It all boils down to you wishing to justify harassment of others through images, which is also stated as a blockable offense in our blocking policy. Commons requires that we respect others, and it is saddening to see such callousness. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • "As I already demonstrated"? You did not demonstrate anything. You are basically doing the same thing as a math professor (from a joke I once read) who says before a break "... and after the break I'll show you the proof for what I just said", then, after the break has passed, continues with "as we've proven before the break, ...". If you don't know what "freedom" in this context means, read Commons:Licensing; that word has a sufficiently clear definition for our purposes. And have you just seriously claimed that one comment, which nobody else even responded to, from 2010 on a talk page somehow changes the scope of the associated policy? If yes, it would seem like it's you who has problems with judgement here. darkweasel94 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's important to balance the cost to the individual and benefit to the public. If a random non-artist drew an explicitly offensive image of one of our users and uploaded it, I would support deletion on the basis that any conceivable educational purpose it might serve is outweighed by the risk of reputation it presents to that individual. The case is very different where a notable artist is portraying a public figure, and when the supposed attack is a matter of subjective interpretation - I believe in this case the public's interest clearly supersedes the individual's. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Dcoetzee, if you honestly believe that degrading pictures of penises being rubbed against pictures of user's faces against the user's face is an acceptable use of Commons, then I have no confidence in your ability to serve Commons in any capacity. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I do not find the work degrading; an image of a person is not the person themselves, and as a matter of necessity, you can't paint something with your penis if your penis does not come into contact with the canvas. The contact is not gratuitous or intended to convey an insult. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you can't understand that someone rubbing their penis against an image of a person's face is degrading, then you are a callous individual and I have no confidence in your ability to judge images. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So that's your reasoning? Those who disagree are callous individuals and you have no confidence in their ability to judge images? Apart from the fact that it's an ad hominem attack and an absolute non-argument, it shows that you should be the last one to tell any other people here that they're arguing with emotion instead of policy, since that's exactly what you've just done. Also, while the video does indeed include a penis being rubbed against an image of a person's face, the point of this video is to show the process of the image being created in the first place. That simply happens to be done with a penis, and obviously that body part is also sometimes rubbed against the image in the process. That's very different from rubbing it against an image e.g. to imply oral intercourse with the person depicted, or whatever you may be thinking of. darkweasel94 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ad hominem is not what you think it is. Ad hominem would be if I mention their weight, height, etc. that has nothing to do with judgment. Judgment is a necessary requirement in a discussion based on value judgments. I, instead, undermined the credibility of the response, which is absolutely standard for debate. Furthermore, there is no emotion in saying that it is harassment to have one's face rubbed with a penis in opposition to their will. If you can't understand how a "penis" is different from other body parts, then that is rather strange. However, it is obvious that your response does value penises above other body parts and that you contradict yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • "here is no emotion in saying that it is harassment to have one's face rubbed with a penis in opposition to their will" - oh, ok, yes I agree. But since no instance of somebody rubbing anybody's face with a penis in opposition to their will is the subject of this discussion, it seems irrelevant that there is no emotion in that. darkweasel94 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I do not believe these works are attacks" It is impossible to think otherwise. It is like saying you don't believe water is water. Flat out denial does not rewrite history. You failed to come up with policy based rationale. You are expected to perform to a higher standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand that to you, it is patently obvious that it is an attack, but when I first encountered it, it was just as obvious to me that it was a mere demonstration of the technique in which Jimbo's role was incidental. It is common for performance art to generate multiple valid interpretations. I don't believe there is any question that the work is within policy; I argued at length why the work is in scope, and others have argued why COM:IDENT was not violated. So I addressed the larger question of whether it is ethical for us to host the work, even if Jimbo finds it upsetting. My conclusion is that it is. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • If there are "many valid interpretations" then my interpretation that it is degrading is valid and the file needs to be deleted on that. We have policies against Commons being used to harass, and we have precautionary principles to protect the integrity of Commons. Jimbo feels it is harassing. Many, many people feel it is harassing. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • "We have policies against Commons being used to harass" please tell me where, I've been trying to create exactly such a policy, along with other people who are supporting the idea at the VP. If these policies actually exist, it would make our job easier, we could just spread a few links to the policy rather than trying to create one from scratch because it doesn't exist. Please tell me where is the policy to delete a photo on the grounds it harasses someone. Looking at the deletion policy I can't see it. Penyulap ☏ 05:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Uploader intention is irrelevant" I very much disagree with that, and so does Commons policy. For instance, there is "Commons is not an amateur porn site", and images are routinely deleted when it is obvious that they were uploaded solely for the uploaders sexual gratification. And there have been enough cases of images being deleted because they were only uploaded to harass other users. --Conti|✉ 12:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • gazillions of well-meaning people upload stuff with the best of intentions everyday, and commons, the heartless beast, takes no notice of their pious intentions in most cases. I shall write my congressman. Penyulap ☏ 13:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • To pose a hypothetical: if I upload a high-quality image of George Washington because I know that a user I hate dislikes both high-quality images and George Washington, and I wish to offend them, it is clear that the image still should not be deleted. Any policy which would call for the deletion of such an image is a bad policy. Sanctions against me for the provocative action may be justified. The policy was created to address typical "attack images" that serve little to no conceivable educational purpose. This is not such a case. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes indeed. I was once on a German-language forum (which I've since left, partly due to this) where a meme of a misspelling of the German-language word for "soup" was created by some users. The administrator got annoyed by this and started banning this, which made the users use it even more. Now suppose I would, during this dispute, have taken and uploaded a photo of a plate of soup to Commons and linked to it on that forum. The administrator of that site could then have said "I'm deeply disappointed by the fact that Commons hosts such attack media, clearly uploaded with malicious intent of trolling my forum". If somebody would then have proposed deletion of that photo of a plate of soup, I wonder if this would have become a debate as heated as this one?! Probably not. darkweasel94 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that's the beauty of it: This is an attack image that does serve a secondary purpose. And Russavia very well knew that he would get around policy this way, of course, and that he could get away with uploading an attack image. We can agree to disagree on whether the image in question still needs to be deleted or not, but let's not pretend that this image has not been uploaded with the purpose of annoying its subject. And I would happily support any kind of sanction against the user instead of the image, but I have a feeling that there will be none. --Conti|✉ 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I wish to offend them" If you are uploading images because you wish to offend people, then you should be banned from Commons. That isn't acceptable behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Dcoetzee. Thank you for the thorough analysis of the various issues. -Pete F (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MDS, you might want to check your dates again; they are wrong months. We are in June. Also, it might be worthy of noting what date the non-Jimmy-related images in Category:Pricasso were uploaded (January 2013). And it would also be handy noting that my first-ever contact with the artist in question was on 16 May. So yeah, sure, all these dates are all over the place, but one thing it does demonstrate is that as per usual, I'm pretty upfront on the matter, in that the photos I uploaded from the Flickr stream, led to me creating the userspace draft stub after my unblock on English Wikipedia in March. Nothing more was done until 7 June when I uploaded these images. So it is obvious that I was always going to write the article (purely based upon my uploading of the photos -- as is often the case as editors who actually know my history will attest); with or without these files. People who know my activities on Commons between March and May this year will understand why nothing was done in terms of actual article creation. russavia (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you ask for the image of Jimbo Wales, of all people? --Conti|✉ 22:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How could he have asked for a picture of Jimbo if he's never been in touch with the Artist Conti ? Penyulap ☏ 04:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I'm not sure I understand. Russavia has said many times that he's been in touch with the artist. That was never in question. --Conti|✉ 08:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I thought it was a loaded question game, logical fallacies and misdirection, I love that kind of thing, magician's stuff, the wordplay of questions. Now tell me, are you implying that Russavia actually did ask, because Jimbo said he'd publicly support your request for rights on other projects ? Penyulap ☏ 09:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo didn' say that. See? It's that easy to refute a silly claim. :) --Conti|✉ 12:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why most people fall for the baiting, because they can't see it. Like in the movies where cops ask drivers they pull over 'do you know why I pulled you over ?' and most people incriminate themselves 'because it is so easy', including innocent people. People are too stupid for their own good. example. All I can see here is Russavia criticising the system, and Jimbo getting upset at it, and considering the strict adherence to mainstream policy and actual educational content, I'd say Russavia has won, in comparison to the canvassing which has only let Russavia martyr himself on en.wiki, as I had predicted. Jimbo is taking criticism of his public figurehead position too personally and it's showing in the nature of the response. From a scholarly viewpoint, Russ has the upper hand with his critique of the shortcomings of the 'Lord of the flies' system there, and the poor charter here. He goes into the record books along with Richard who got shot for using cut and paste after 5 million edits. Penyulap ☏ 12:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Fixed. Thanks.--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to check the timeline as I have stated above, I am happy to publish the email from 16 May with full headers if necessary to prove I didn't promise an article in exchange for the painting. russavia (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No e-mail (with or without headers) will change the mind of those who wish to delete, as their arguments are based on the fact that it is the depiction of J. Wales that was painted by a penis. The thing is that even if all the accusations are true (for example even if you have promiced to dedicate some time writing an article in exchange for the release of these files under some free licence) the fact is that these are educational and useful files. It matters not why they were published, why they were created, who uploaded them, when they were uploaded, or what emotional state you were in during and after the upload. We have COM:SCOPE and COM:L, files pass both with flying colours. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, you've been always evasive to answer the question: why has it to be Jimbo, rathan than you, to be the subject of the portrait? Not only you failed to foresee how such kind of stunt could offend the model of the portrait. Worse, you made up excuse to refuse to minimize the damage after the subject of the portrait clearly stated he's not pleased with the art. Has Pricasso's portrait of Jimbo received sufficient media coverage? Not yet, so this particular work is not essential to Pricasso's Wikipedia article. It can be replaced by any art which the subject would gladly be Pricasso's model. If your intention is to contribute Wikipedia, do it with minimal damage possible. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said, there is no other similar video currently available under a free license, so no, it can currently not be "replaced by any art in which the subject would gladly be Pricasso's model". If you or anybody else arranges for a replacement to be released under a free license, we can use that and discuss this again under that premise. As of now it's a false premise, so we can't draw useful conclusions from it. darkweasel94 06:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a big step in the right direction, Russavia, and would hopefully greatly reduce the drama surrounding all this. --Conti|✉ 08:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have an idea for a compromise: somebody cuts the video so it does not show the original photo of Jimbo Wales, and does not feature Pricasso saying he'll paint Jimbo Wales. This is uploaded under a new filename and description making no reference to Jimbo Wales (except where legally necessary because of the license of the template photo), it only says he's painting "a portrait of a male person". Those who do not recognize his face anyway will not notice that this is Jimbo Wales, and it could just as well be somebody who looks similar to him. This should cool down the accusations of harassment, but retain the informational parts of the video. darkweasel94 05:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must understand that this would decrease the educational value of the video. The problem that most people have is not that Jimbo was painted, but that the painting was done with a penis. If you do not believe me, then please request for some well known painter to paint Jimbo's painting with a brush and upload it to Commons, then you can wait for it to be nominated for deletion... and it won't. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue that most delete !voters raised is that it's harassment of Jimbo, and some have actually proposed that he should paint someone or something else and then we can keep it. darkweasel94 06:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Ban user Russavia- he has sadly developed his contributions into disruptive trolling - he is using the commons project to support his trolling. Youreallycan (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not know that deletion requests were where you call for banning people. Could we please discuss this particular photo and not who is disruptive on which project in unrelated ways? darkweasel94 06:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The picture that is rubbed here is not "someone, may be notable, in her garden, with a cat and a butterfly". The picture is the 2008 "File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG". The advertising banner of that campaign was saying "Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others". And the thankyou was saying: "Your [contribution] makes you a key supporter of the free culture movement". Great words indeed !
Therefore the series "Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg" is strongly *educational* towards the rank-and-file contributer and the rank-and-file donator as well. They are an honest and efficient description of how the actual 'commons.wikimedia.org' deals with (and in fact rubs onto) the rank-and-file contributer and the rank-and-file donator as well. May be, the series should be put on the Commons front page, for the additional education of the rank-and-file bypasser.
A future academic use of these files will be in articles about how one of the biggest charity buissness has solved or not solved its "Pink Parrot Incident": "When I masturbate in public, I don’t really feel any different than when I do it in private; can you possibly tell us why when you masturbate in public, it hurts? -- Russavia". What a great public park. Pldx1 (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Educational does not mean "makes a political point about someone I disagree with at Wikimedia." Your rationale is that the picture should be kept because it attacks another user, which is opposite of our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating an accusation with zero evidence works on wikipedia, that has been scientifically proven. On commons, we like to call it 'talking out your arse' or, on planet Penyulap, it's called 'singing out your arse' and is quite popular on stage.
<Doing a fine Jim Carrey imporsonation, Penyulap stands up, bends over and begins farting the blockbuster musical tune "It's a smell world after all"> Penyulap ☏ 11:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
It has already been proven that this is classic harassment with bad intent, and Russavia was banned over at en.wikipedia overwhelmingly because of his actions. Merely going "nyah nyah I can't hear you" is not an argument nor is denying obvious fact appropriate course of action. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it relevant what enwiki did? You are also banned on enwiki as I can see on your user page there, so does it follow we should assume bad faith with you? No, it doesn't (even though it's getting increasingly difficult for me to assume good faith). And please stop claiming that things have been proven when they haven't (ctrl-f -> math professor, to avoid repeating myself). If you can prove something, do so. darkweasel94 14:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"How is it relevant what enwiki did? " Really? Really? You are basically saying "They disagree with me, therefore they are wrong." You've obfuscated throughout, made some of the worse debating errors, and basically put your fingers in your ears while denying reality. Commons deletion discussions require a bit more maturity and respect than that. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim enwiki was wrong (though if I did, why would that be a problem? Am I not entitled to have an opinion about other wikis' blocking decisions?), because I do not know (or care) what exactly he did there that led to his block. I said it was not relevant to this discussion, which is true since other projects have their policies that they enforce when they are broken there, and we have our policies that we enforce when they are broken here. And I am fairly certain that trying to "prove by repetition" or "prove by obviousness" (as in, "it is obvious that this is an attack") are worse debating errors than any I may have made. Though of course I welcome any constructive criticism of my debating techniques. Just, please, not here but on my user talk page. :) darkweasel94 20:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A derivative work.--Ianmacm (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one lacks a license notice so one should be added by the copyright holder or it should indeed be deleted. darkweasel94 20:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
License details added. This image has CC 3.0 status, so remixes are OK.--Ianmacm (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The artworks despicted here are made by a notable artist, and therefore his works are within COM:SCOPE, and his propouse is very clear: to illustrate the page of the mentioned artist. All the other discussions do not fit in a DR, everyone can remove the picture or video from their respective WP versions if their respective communities decide so, but we cant remove a one-of-a-kind media (how many videos of people painting, let alone with their penises, are in commons?) over that. Béria Lima msg 21:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg

es ridiculo. No es digno de estar dentro de una enciclopedia. 190.212.244.22 01:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as kept per previous listing. After considerable discussion closed less than 2 days ago, anon's opinion that the image is "ridiculous" does not merit a new listing. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg

per http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people : "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." Jimbo already complained on his talk page: "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)" Further, Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Moral_issues says: "While some aspects of ethical photography and publication are controlled by law, there are moral issues too. They find a reflection in the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation." Common decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law." Unfortunately, I neither see the closing admin or participants of the previous discussions consider these points. So I humbly request to reconsider your opinions. JKadavoor Jee 07:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete per my comments elsewhere: There's also the fundamental issue of human dignity here, and where we draw the line - if this is okay, then is it okay if the subject of the portrait is female? or is it sexual harassment? Are we opening Wikimedia up to a lawsuit? Moreover, will this be an endorsed method of retaliation for any public figure who falls afoul of the Wikimedia movement (such as SOPA last year)? --Rschen7754 08:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closing. This has just been discussed to death and the deletion request properly closed according to established process. It is not a requirement of the process that every possible part of the guideline be mentioned in terms for the closure to be valid, nor that each and every external opinion be cited. I am sorry if you missed the discussion and were not able to contribute while it was going on, but I'm afraid that a closed deletion request cannot be re-opened just on the basis of a new opinion. You may disagree with the decision, but personal disagreement no matter how strong is not a valid basis to ask for the decision to be overturned. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Taolennoù de Paul Peyron

[edit]

Painting not own work by the uploader as stated (as the most). Not clear if {{PD-old}} applies.

JuTa 20:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: oops. I just see artist fr:Paul Peyron died 1919. self closing DR. Will change the licenses to PD-old. JuTa 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:VandalicKingdomFlag.png

[edit]

No scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: and no license at all JuTa 23:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:UrartuKingdomFlag.png

[edit]

No scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: an no license at all. JuTa 23:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MattHunter1.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Student 2013-06-24 20-40.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Workingout.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dave Franco picture.png

[edit]

"I took a screen shot of a video" is not a good source Entheta (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The World's 500 Most influential Arabs in 2013 Mohamed Osman Baloola.jpg

[edit]

The same image appears also here but in a lower resolution High Contrast (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Untitlsssssed.png

[edit]

http://tineye.com/search/0db904f9df413ddb0a1a85ab3c536793d892e682/?sort=size&order=desc High Contrast (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gisartificier.jpg

[edit]

http://tineye.com/search/b3444fcf1d619e589c6eedc9ea55171dfa5d5ad7/?sort=size&order=desc High Contrast (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AssafArabIdol.jpg

[edit]

This is not much evidence that this image is released under PD. It is a low resolution image and the source link is to a comment made by the official account of Mohammed Assaf (winner of Arab Idol (season 2)) on Facebook in Arabic (which I am a native speaker of) in which he thanks those who voted for him but nothing about the licence of this image. If the licensing is correct, then I believe the uploader of this image should verify the licensing information through OTRS. Meno25 (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Drew Van Acker at the Devious Maids premiere party 2013 2013-06-26 00-15.jpg

[edit]

Has a water mark for another website. Seems unlikely to be own work Bawolff (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Me 2013-06-26 01-43.jpeg

[edit]

COM:SCOPE - selfie Bawolff (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Нурик) 2013-06-26 21-45.jpg

[edit]

Unused. Looks like a self-portrait. Bawolff (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Name-Maureen Jamaica Ventura Ramos--Age-13--Birth Date- July 31, 1999--Current City- Maui, Hawaii--Home Town City- San Ildefonso , Ilocos Sur--Mother- Teresita Ventura Ramos --Father-Marino Ramos (died)--Siblings-Mark J 2013-06-23 22-16.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:兵庫県神戸市出身。未婚。-6歳から、空手を始め、中学でバスケを部活に頑張る。27歳で、創価学会と出会い、信心を始める。題目、勤行を根本に、障害者就労継 2013-06-24 22-31.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ignalanus (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

Gunnex (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I strong support the request. This user has a long history of uploading copyrighted files to the Commons. Fma12 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Made in PR (talk · contribs)

[edit]

promotional content

Ray Garraty (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Javanese illumination of an unknown text.jpg

[edit]

Licensed at the source as "All Rights Reserved", which is not a free license. McZusatz (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the image is a photograph of old artwork, perhaps the license could be change to PD-Art? Alteaven (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Do you know how old the artwork is? --McZusatz (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, but judging from the artwork and the form of the letters, I guess it's from the 1800s. Production of Javanese manuscript stopped in the early 1900s, but this book is still in good condition, so it was made pretty close to that era. Also, Javanese manuscript are often anonymous, discovering the contents would not necessarily tell you who the writer nor the era of which he/she lived. But I can tell you it's definitely not recent. Alteaven (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There, changed the license to Pd-Art. Alteaven (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The servers had technical issues yesterday, again... I do not know the exact reason for that but it seems some files got lost. --McZusatz (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Alteaven McZusatz (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:დადიანი, შალვა ნიკოლოზის ძე.jpg

[edit]

The photographer died in 1940, so this was still copyrighted on 1 January 1996 when the URAA agreement became effective. On that day, this image was retroactively copyrighted in the US. It is now important to find out when it was first published. If published between 1923 and 1978, the copyright term in the US would be 95 years from the date of the first publication. If it was published after 1978, it can be kept because then the term would be 70 years past the death of the author, i.e. 2010, and would so have been expired. De728631 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file published before 1920. More likely close to the date it was made, which can be estimated to 1910s, due to the age of the subject. Commons:URAA-restored copyrights#Preliminary tests: No works published before 1 January 1923 anywhere in the world are in copyright in the US. This is absolute and not changed by the URAA.. {{PD-1923}} or maybe even {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Geagea (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable, so I have adjusted the licenses. But do you really know that this photo was published right after it had been taken? It could just have been a private commissioning. De728631 (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bat in that case it not published until it uploaded to The National Parliamentary Library of Georgia site - in 2010 or later. Geagea (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after re-checking. This photo, together with others from Luarsab Togonidze collection never published and given as a gift in 2009 to the National Library and published in the The National Parliamentary Library of Georgia site (2010 or later). Geagea (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Thank you for checking this. I've looked it up at www.copyright.gov: There are no works registered for Vasily Tskhomelidze after 1978, so this is also PD in the United States (see here). I think we can close this discussion. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry 00:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MattHunter123.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:NASCE O BABY.JPG

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:O0OS5LsVEls.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pierrehenrydufeil.png

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Reband rzgar 2013-06-25 00-56.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Uddrag af have 2013-06-24 12-44.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:現代アート.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Download.com June 2013 Logo.PNG

[edit]

I request deletion of this file EuroCarGT (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Reflections-bgnd-menu-img.png

[edit]

Uploader request - Zerabat (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Logo of the Oak Sprig Tradition Federation, Finland.svg

[edit]

not text only logo, need OTSR-permission Motopark (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can upload to finnish Wikipedia with fairuse permission and not used in any other wikipedias.--Motopark (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Josef Schuster Antiquitätenstillleben mit Kaminuhr.jpg

[edit]

It is not yet in the public domain, the painter died 1945. Austriacus (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Germán Cano14DIM.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Part of a row of uploads regarding Argentine football players already identified as copyvio. Gunnex (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Taiwan-Taipei101-Love-IndianaThompsonHsu.jpg

[edit]

According to the details at Freedom_of_panorama#Taiwan_.28Republic_of_China.29, Taiwanese copyright law stipulates that reproductions of artistic works may be used only for non-commercial purposes, which means that such photographs are not free enough for use on Commons. DAJF (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:20030831-Love.jpg

[edit]

According to the details at Freedom_of_panorama#Japan, Japanese copyright law stipulates that reproductions of artistic works may be used only for non-commercial purposes, which means that such photographs are not free enough for use on Commons. DAJF (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Darin zanyar melodifestivalen.PNG

[edit]

Copyvio http://www.posh24.se/photo/288356/darin_zanyar_melodifestivalen Tournesol (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Park Geun-hye official photo.jpg

[edit]

Can't find any free license. website states: COPYRIGHT 2013-2018 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. SOME RIGHTS RESERVED. - Moros y Cristianos 12:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Air cannon.jpg

[edit]

The picture look like a cropped product brochure. The uploader has history of copyright violation in Chinese wikipedia so it's logical to assume that he will do it again on WikiCommons. SElefant (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mátyás király birodalma és hűbéresei.jpg

[edit]

Map without any sources Iadrian yu (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:COMUNIDAD EUROPEA77.pdf

[edit]

out of com:scope McZusatz (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jeet ganguly.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nude brunette before a tree.jpg

[edit]

no longer required 86.136.23.188 15:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"no longer required" by whom? for what? Anyway, this is by no means a reason for deletion, so  Keep. --Vydra (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry 00:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nude brunette before a tree.jpg

[edit]

do not want 68.190.2.124 03:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't want a good many things too, among them users who make inane deletion requests like this one.  Keep because there is no acceptable reason for deletion. --Vydra (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep You, the DR requester "do not want"! What you "do not want"? Is it to look at this image? If so how thaty ou managedto open this image that has a clear name? Was by navigating the categories, all marked as having nude images? Very strange this prude DR, but image is clearly in scope and was kept in a previous DR. Tm (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as before.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nude brunette before a tree.jpg

[edit]

Ready to fukk and sukk! Eh @Achim55, Tm, and Hasley: I slept with your momma... and your poppa! Oh your momma squealed like a pig last night! 92.40.182.4 22:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Non administrator closure. Usual vandal, making his lockdown childish routine. Tm (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Passau st stephan altar.jpg

[edit]

In addition:

This altar was created by w:de:Josef Henselmann, who died in 1987. So, this sculpture-scene on the top is copyrighted. As freedom of panorama do not meet within buildings, and while it is the central element of the picture, we cannot host it here. Quedel (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:新北市深坑四寶公仔.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation: the picture is created by a local government authority and is not open for free use. SElefant (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SMS Pfeil (1882).jpg

[edit]

Not PD in the US, since it was still under copypright in the country of origin in 1996, so its US copyright was extended by the URAA. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Denis Cauchi Floriana.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Picture shows Maltese footballer Denis Cauchi, receiving in 1993 a trophy for the Maltese Premier League. Uploaded by User:Stew jones, per enwiki user page, born 1985 in England and living there. 1993 - 1985 = 8 years old. The uploader should explain reasonable how he was able to take this image. Btw, all other uploads by this user IMHO highly suspicious as all in low res, mostly cropped and without any exif information. Gunnex (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Equipo campeon 2012 la v.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Strange watermark "FOTO NUCERA". Gunnex (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Afrikanischer-Strauss.jpg

[edit]

Falsche Lizenz gewählt. Ro-snapshots.de (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Central Springfield Business District.png

[edit]

Copyright claim by owner per [14], ticket:2013062610013456 §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:HittiteEmpireFlag.png

[edit]

No scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:EmirateCreteFlag.png

[edit]

No scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete -- "Special or fictional flags" are allowed, but this is a strange Greco-Turkish Christo-Islamic hybrid which doesn't appear to make much sense... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Marcos Acuñaa.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vincedizon.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:About Bannow - geograph.org.uk - 14596.jpg

[edit]

COM:FOP does not apply for information panels in Ireland. AFBorchert (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:I got a 48! 2013-06-26 13-05.jpg

[edit]

Seems more appropriate for facebook Bawolff (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Arular (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Seems to be CC-NC. NC is not allowed on commons.

McZusatz (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Did anyone actually search for the sources? It looks like a drive-by nomination without any investigation at all. It took me a few seconds to find one good image and after that the rest was easy and just took a little time. Except for one image File:LadyGagaBTWBornThisWayBall.jpg which might be considered derivative due to the size of the large designed inflatable on stage, all the other images pass flickrreview with flying colours and are now properly sourced and reviewed by me.
Thank you for the investigation. I only had a superficial look at the recent uploads of the author which revealed NC. --McZusatz (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted only one. The others have appropriate permission. McZusatz (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by GabuchoCuervo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. 6 living uploads = 4x copyvio = IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material so these remaining ones can't be believed either.

Gunnex (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Google Play logo without name.png

[edit]

It have a svg version: File:Google Play symbol.svg Zhangjintao (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: not in use, uploader request Ezarateesteban 19:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:RobertDlong.jpeg

[edit]

A far higher resolution version has been uploaded to en:File:Robert-DeLong-Main.jpg back in March this year, though unfortunately this is still pending verification. Raising on a DR as deletion may depend on a review of whatever has been forwarded to OTRS. Fæ (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Abdul-Jawad Gharavian 2010.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Martin H. as no source (no source since). But I cannot find an external source to doubt own work as stated. JuTa 08:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bawiec Pronunciation.oga

[edit]

Duplicate File

Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Felsina Manu.jpg

[edit]

Je suis le proprietaire de ce cliché, je le trouve inadapté - Merci Hedy76 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Annonay, choeur ND.jpg

[edit]

Please confirm the licence and the authorship. Can be done through com:otrs for example. McZusatz (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Coat of arms of Nauru.png

[edit]

This rendition is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 05:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Coat of arms of Nauru.png

[edit]

VI's images can't be here. Fry1989 eh? 20:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Si nadie las pone quien lo hace, esta imagen es una imagen muy útil al ser el escudo de un país.

Deleted: INeverCry 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Viveletalent-commons

[edit]

All images of this user are copyrighted and taken from various internet sites. See contributions. --Smooth_O (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 19:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alex Cezario em Cem Anos Sem Machado.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Coltsfan as no source (no source since). But I cannot find an external source to doubt own work as stated. The permission for the depricted drawings might be missing. JuTa 08:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guy used this pictures in his own biography (which was deleted for being a curriculum vitæ rather than a biography). He has not provided any source. Coltsfan (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 21:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alex Cezario em Suburbia.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Coltsfan as no source (no source since). But I cannot find an external source to doubt own work as stated. JuTa 08:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guy used this pictures in his own biography (which was deleted for being a curriculum vitæ rather than a biography). He has not provided any source. Coltsfan (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 21:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alex Cezario jpg.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Coltsfan as no source (no source since). But I cannot find an external source to doubt own work as stated. JuTa 08:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guy used this pictures in his own biography (which was deleted for being a curriculum vitæ rather than a biography). He has not provided any source. Coltsfan (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 21:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ehrenbreitstein Koblenz Rheinpanorame.jpg

[edit]

Doppelte Datei mit ungünstigem Format mit fehhlerhaften Namen, siehe: File:Ehrenbreitstein Koblenz Rheinpanorama.jpg Pedelecs (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 21:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Logo radioaktywne-crop.png

[edit]

"own work" is dubious; it's possible {{Pd-textlogo}} would apply, but is it in scope? Does it surpass the threshold of originality? I'm not sure. Pete F (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: pd-text applies, and apparently in scope FASTILY 21:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mr Robot.JPG

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Canoe1967 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: FOP USA
Converted by me to DR as the image is on Commons since >6 years. However, if this robot is considered as art, then it is copyrightable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 21:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Q-logo.png

[edit]

bestaat in tegenstelling wat wordt vermeld niet enkel uit geometrische vormen Meerdervoort (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - {{PD-textlogo}} is van toepassing, bestaat slechts uit een paar letters met een contour - Jcb (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De letter Q lijkt geen simpele geometrische vorm. --Meerdervoort (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Volgens ons beleid zijn lettertekens niet vatbaar voor copyright. Ook niet als ze een extra krulletje bevatten. Jcb (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: looks like pd-text FASTILY 21:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Q-logo.png

[edit]

Complex logo. JurgenNL (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete US-law ignores fonts but the Dutch law doesn't and the letter Q is complicated enough to have a copyright. most likely com:TOO in The Netherlands. Natuur12 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Westwood, Ashley Roy.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Ok I guess FASTILY 21:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/06/26&oldid=99936989"