Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/12/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![5 File:"GIBBY".jpg](#File:"GIBBY".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_(4011945846).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_和中央文化宮前廣場_Square_in_front_of_the_Parliament_(left)_and_the_Central_Cultural_Palace_Buildings_(right)_in_Ulaanbaatar,_Mongolia.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
File:Charles Green, better known to his YouTube young'ins as The Angry Grandpa from an episode of his YouTube show, The Angry Grandpa Show- Noticeably wearing one of his trademarked shirts- 2013-12-10 19-06.jpg
[edit]
screenshot? Mjrmtg (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete Why not tag it with {{Copyvio}}?. Obviously copyright violation. — ♫♫ Leitoxx 
The Police ♪♪ — 04:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Considering uploader´s behaviour (only copyvios), unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, most likely cropped. Gunnex (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Info Tagged with copyvio (cropped) via http://www.panoramio.com/photo/94159560 (08.2013, © Alle Rechte vorbehalten von Christof Verboven). Gunnex (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/94159560 High Contrast (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
spam image DS (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I also suggest deleting the user talk page (which is likewise being used to spam) and blocking the account (whose only actions have been to spam). DS (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as blatant spam. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL indeed. I can't believe this is actually used on id.wiktionary. No educational value, blurry image, etc. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete:unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 14:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- After laughing my ass off, I've nominated this for speedy deletion as an attack image. It appears that the idwiktionary article was created by a bot which added a template that appears to auto-add files based on their title. I wouldn't call that a kind of "use on Wikimedia projects" that makes it less out of scope. darkweasel94 00:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deleted ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Unused portrait of the uploader. 91.66.153.214 13:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
![13:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/12/11#c-91.66.153.214-2013-12-11T13:38:00.000Z-File:"GIBBY".jpg){kind=link}
- Delete:Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 14:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Leitoxx -Pete F (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
![02:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/12/11#c-Jameslwoodward-2013-12-18T02:20:00.000Z-File:"GIBBY".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Outside the scope: the image is blurred and has no educational value. Eleassar (t/p) 09:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unknown person, see description part, some homepage picture Motopark (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Facebook filename. Need Facebook user's permission. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Very much a photo album type pic, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Author does not have copyright. Baidu water mark DreamLiner (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unknown person, see description part, some homepage picture Motopark (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unknown person, see description part, some homepage picture Motopark (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Image is here, for example. Source and permission are nonsense; image would require OTRS permission, if true, not a private conversation. Эlcobbola talk 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- This file was uploaded way earlier before any of those "example" photographs. Could it be that they took from here? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The contents of the source file is under creative commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) —G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I will restore the original image, and then there will be non copyright violations.--Tercerista (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio -- nc/nd license . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2070 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2081 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Unused, small resolution image, no conceivable scope russavia (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Concur with nominator. The photograph is a tad too blurry too — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 17:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Concur with nominator. The photograph is a tad too blurry too... Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
</noinclude> This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2081 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
</noinclude> This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2075 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
</noinclude> This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2071 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Author of the book died in 1989, so copyright is still affective Dqfn13 (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - there is still copyright on the cover. Natuur12 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Author of the book died in 1989, so copyright is still affective Dqfn13 (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete- Cover is still copyrighted Natuur12 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
superseded by SVG: 
McZusatz (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2066 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unknown person, see description part, some homepage picture Motopark (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Actually it is in scope, however its copyright status is uncertain, as this it seems to be a microblogging account avatar http://tweets.seraph.me/user/SNH48-%E9%99%88%E6%80%9D/3050742117 — where it is stored in a much bigger resolution (1200×1600 px). -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There's no FOP in Belgium Vera (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2081 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No free license at source. Per COM:CUR, coins are 3D and thus the photograph of the coins (regardless of the copyright of the coin) must itself have a free license. Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Cuban banknotes are under perpetual copyright. 84.61.176.82 19:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
File:DARSHAN KHERA well known name in jagadhri and yamunanagar -a boy from a very poor family start his life as a labour in a very small factory--With his hard work he becomes president of muncipal council know he 2013-11-29 20-11.jpeg
[edit]
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep: No, this was the last mayor of Jagadhri — that is plastered on the filename itself (which should be changed to something sensible upon keeping) and can be verified online [1][2]. It is therefore in scope, and has educational value. It is, on the other hand, not a personal phtoto, being a professional grade portrait; its copyright staus might be worthy of COM:AGF, or then again it may not. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Obviously a professional portrait -- very unlikely to be the work of a driveby uploader with only two images to his credit, one already deleted as SPAM. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No proof as source for the license provided. Yann (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- The original caption where the photo is found states that it appears courtesy of Okinawa City, which is the local government.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Government photographs are not PD in Japan . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only document which should be replaced with item in Wikidata. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused, uncommented equation; better written in latex Torsch (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused, uncommented equation; better written in latex Torsch (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused, uncommented equation; better written in latex Torsch (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused, uncommented equation; better written in latex Torsch (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused, uncommented equation; better written in latex Torsch (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused, uncommented equation; better written in latex Torsch (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
it should have been uploaded as a new version of First_Day_of_Week_World_Map.svg Tamaas hu (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Possibly non-free: "use exclusively for wikipedia articles, rights reserved by the company!" Acather96 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Not handsome, out of scope, and not much educational value, except to illustrate how a not-so-handsome mustached male wearing a red shirt looks like. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unknown person, see description part, some homepage picture Motopark (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Ian Morris 03-08-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The file is a duplicated. — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 03:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There are very specific conditions that must be fulfilled to legally reproduce the euro banknotes (e.g. the word "SPECIMEN" should be written across them etc.) This image does not meet these criteria. Eleassar (t/p) 13:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
one source image is missing at Commons, another source has been deleted at en wiki Denniss (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2069 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A classic dafuq moment... Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Pruebas de edición — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 14:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete apparently a promotional poster for …something weird -Pete F (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unknow author, unknow licence --MGuf (d) 09:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
What is this? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: It's the shirt for a Club Lujan football uniform . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Concur with nominator. The photograph is a tad too blurry too... — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of some random organisation Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Logo of the French Government is PD, the rest is basic text. Fry1989 eh? 19:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded TIFF. Replacing with a PNG version. Innocenceisdeath (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2081 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Mark Rainsford.jpg Gbawden (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Why not tag it with {{Duplicate}}?. — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 20:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Mark Rainsford.jpg Gbawden (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
unknown person, see description part, some homepage picture Motopark (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Subject and the uloader have the same name and the exif data shows that William Rutten owns the copyright (see [[3]]) and not the person at the photo. Please let the photographer send permission to commons:OTRS Natuur12 (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- We appear to have nominated this image simultaneously. Oh well. ErikvanB (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Unless a self-portrait, this is not own work, and "copyright holder © William Rutten" under Metadata suggests that permission is needed. ErikvanB (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- If William Rutten is OK with use on Wikipedia (hmm... issuing this image under a ccbysa-license), then please visit WP:OTRS or www.wikiportret.nl, as William Rutten has given permisison for images before. But there is no 'automatic permission' possible, unless (maybe?) William Rutten adds such license to the meta-data himself. Edoderoo (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violence, not own work: http://allthingsd.com/20110722/nokia-if-windows-phone-doesnt-work-out-theres-always-the-rubber-boot-option/ Seegge (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Why not tag it with {{Copyvio}}?. Obviously copyright violation. — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Cette photo doit etre supprimé car Olivier Minne ne veut plus que cette photo apparaisse sur sa page Wikipédia, il ne veut pas qu'elle soit utilisée de façon officielle. Bmarceau (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, my French is too bad to say what I want to say, but I can understand this DR: As Olivier Minne seems to be a public person, I see no real reason to delete unless we have better photos of him. If he wants some official photo to appear on Wikipedia, he will need to have its photographer release it under a free license so it can be uploaded here. darkweasel94 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm Bertrand Marceau, I took this photography in 2007, and I ask : delete this photo, Olivier Minne himself asked me this. Thank you (excuse me if my english isn't good)--Bmarceau (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- English: The uploader and the subject ask for a courtesy delete. My feelings are mixed, as we don't have another picture of this person, who is the host of Fort Boyard, a long running french tv show.
- Français : Le téléverseur et le sujet demandent une suppression de courtoisie. Je suis un peu gêné, puisque nous n'avons pas d'autres images de ce présentateur.
- Pleclown (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Je peux comprendre que vous n'avez pas d'autres images de cet animateur mais : 1) il ne veut pas que cette image illustre sa page wikipédia 2) c'est moi qui ai fait cette photo et je demande à ce qu'elle soit supprimée. Donc merci à vous de bien vouloir supprimer cette image, c'est un respect de droit à l'image et de droit d'auteur — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.38.56.199 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment, en matière de droit d'auteur ce ne serait pas une raison suffisante en raison de la licence, le CC-BY-SA aurait pu permettre jusqu'à présent que n'importe qui sur Internet exporte la photo et la diffuse ailleurs que sur Commons avec la même licence. Idem le droit à l'image et les demandes de la part de la personne prise en photo n'aboutissent pas toujours à une suppression (il y a déjà eu des cas où la demande soit refusée, en particulier quand la source de la demande n'est pas vérifiable). Mais comme c'est l'auteur de la photo qui fait la demande, elle peut être acceptée par le droit de retrait, à la condition que la photo ne soit pas utilisée ailleurs sur Internet (c'est la base du principe de droit de retrait...). Jeriby (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
L'image n'est utilisée que sur Wikipédia et Wikimedia Commons ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmarceau (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The licnese given when the image was uploaded cannot be revoked. We have no other image of this person. We do not generally delete images at the request of their subject. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Cette photo m'appartient, et il me semble être mon droit de décider ce qu'il en est, du fait de son utilisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmarceau (talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No. When you licensed it with CC-BY-SA and GNU licenses in 2010 you gave up the right to determine what use is made of it. You can require that users credit you and share alike, but you have no other rights. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Il faut un retour en arrière, il le faut absolument, je repète que cette photo ne doit plus apparaître. En 2010 ça ne posait pas de problème mais maintenant ça en pose un, cette photo doit etre enlevée immédiatement. Merci
C'est peut-etre comme ça mais ce n'est pas normal, quand une photo pose problème on doit etre en mesure de la retirer. Si c'etait une photo avec quelque chose finalement de grave, comment ferait-on ?
Cette photo doit être supprimée, car Olivier Minne lui même ne veut pas que cette photo serve à illustrer sa page Wikipedia. C'est moi même qui ait fait cette photo et je demande à ce qu'elle soit retirée ! Merci Bmarceau (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. C'est une photo d'une personnalité publique prise dans le cadre de ses « fonctions » (animateur de télévision), donc si je me souviens bien de mes cours de droit de la presse, l'autorisation de la personne photographiée n'est pas nécessaire. Cordialement, Jules78120 16:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: CC-By-SA licence can't be removed. If Bertrand Marceau or Olivier Mine can provide a good picture of him (with right licence and authorization), probably this (bad) one will not appear again... ----MGuf (d) 18:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Oui là je suis bien d'accord mais Olivier Minne lui-même considère que cette photo est à caractère privée, ce que je comprends puisqu'il n'est pas en tenue pour présenter l'émission. Du moins il ne veut pas que cette photo soit utilisée pour les autres sites. Alors mettez un filigrane ou supprimez-la je veux pas le savoir mais faites quelque chose ! Cordialement
- Peu importe ce qu'il considère lui. Je vois mal comment un juge pourrait ici considérer qu'il y a atteinte à la vie privée de M. Minne, personnalité publique photographiée sur son lieu de travail et dans un contexte public (il n'est pas en train d'embrasser sa compagne, par exemple). Cordialement, Jules78120 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Je suis d'accord, moi-même considère ainsi que beaucoup d'autres qu'il s'agit d'une photo sympa. Je le revois au mois de Juin, j'espère juste qu'il n'y aura aucun problème. Il serait juste possible de la verrouiller ou je ne sais quoi pour éviter qu'elle soit copiée sur d'autres sites ? Cordialement
- Ben euh... la photo est sous licence double GNU et CC-BY-SA, et donc dans ces deux licences on peut (c'est marqué sous la photo): respectivement copier, distribuer, modifier pour GNU, partager et adapter pour CC-BY-SA. Donc éviter qu'elle soit copiée alors qu'elle est sous une licence où on peut copier, c'est un peu comme reprendre un cadeau qu'on a offert à Noël^^ en gros... Je ne sais pas si c'est possible. Je laisse ça aux spécialistes des licences. Jeriby (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- A mon avis non, on ne peut pas. Comme je l'ai déjà écrit, une meilleure photo éclipsera celle ci, et on n'en parlera plus. Si Mine est si mécontent de cette photo, qu'il fasse en sorte qu'un photographe de sa connaissance mette une bonne photo de lui sous licence libre, et nous le fasse savoir. ----MGuf (d) 09:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept The license is irrevocable. If you insist on keeping control over your images, then put them on Flickr, but do not bring them to Commons. No new reason appears in this second DR.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
image utilisée sans mon autorisation a nouveau Bmarceau (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Didym (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Text columnar data; should be resubmitted as marked up text. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
_(4011945846).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4011945846).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Outside the scope: the image is blurred and has no educational value. Eleassar (t/p) 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
_(4011945846).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
_(4011945846).jpg){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2080 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Possibly unfree - permission stated as "exclusively for Wikipedia" Acather96 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for graphic art in Syria. Not de minimis. Kaluga.2012 (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Italy Berthold Werner (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No free license at source. Per COM:CUR, coins are 3D and thus the photograph of the coins (regardless of the copyright of the coin) must itself have a free license. Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No publication date at source. No support for pre-1923 claim. Эlcobbola talk 15:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyright violation; lack of specific information undermines any claim of public domain status. -Pete F (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unknow author, unknow licence --MGuf (d) 09:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
text tabular data; should be transcribed to marked up text and the deleted. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unknown person, see description part, some homepage picture Motopark (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Unused superseded by 
McZusatz (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Many copies on the net, user with bad history. Yann (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
PR image, would need a release from the production company. Fæ (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
out of scope JurgenNL (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No educational value, → out of scope. These link-pages should be deleted too:
- --Jahobr (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Promocional, conflicto de interés. No aporta a ninguna página globalmente. — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 17:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete definatly out of scope. Natuur12 (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 06:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Note that this is not the same image as the one I deleted above. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No indication that the work itself is in the public domain, and therefore image itself would be non-free. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Important work by an important artist - can be used under Fair Use laws. Do not delete...Modernist 11:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to use it under fair use, it has to be uploaded locally on Wikipedia. Commons does not allow fair use. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Fair use is not possible on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
don't want it 205.202.44.1 19:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: This not a criterion for delete. The file have a licensing and permission of OTRS. — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 20:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: File is categorized, has a description and is of a quality allowing use in Wikimedia-projects. -- Rillke(q?) 21:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Steinsplitter (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per out of scope — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Person of no notability (the article in ru.wiki is deleted). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
File:蒙古國國家宮 (國會與總統-總理辦公室) 和中央文化宮前廣場 Square in front of the Parliament (left) and the Central Cultural Palace Buildings (right) in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.jpg
[edit]_%E5%92%8C%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%AE%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96%E5%AE%AE%E5%89%8D%E5%BB%A3%E5%A0%B4_Square_in_front_of_the_Parliament_(left)_and_the_Central_Cultural_Palace_Buildings_(right)_in_Ulaanbaatar,_Mongolia.jpg){kind=link}
_%E5%92%8C%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%AE%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96%E5%AE%AE%E5%89%8D%E5%BB%A3%E5%A0%B4_Square_in_front_of_the_Parliament_(left)_and_the_Central_Cultural_Palace_Buildings_(right)_in_Ulaanbaatar,_Mongolia.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Mongolia. (COM:FOP#Mongolia) 레비Revi 04:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: .. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Undeleted Mongolia now has FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Alexios III Angelos
[edit]I came across File:Alexius III cropped.jpg as an improperly sourced derivative of File:Alexius III EL aspron trachy 592316.jpg and corrected its information to match the latter without fully researching it. Upon closer inspection, however, I've noticed that the OTRS ticket on File:Alexius III EL aspron trachy 592316.jpg was added at the time of upload by the uploader, who is not an OTRS member. The ticket applies only to images from www.cngcoins.com, and I am unable to find this image on that site. The image does appear here on wildwinds.com, a site which does not appear to have a free license.
- File:Alexius III cropped.jpg
- File:Alexius III EL aspron trachy 592316 (cropped).jpg
- File:Alexius III EL aspron trachy 592316.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Эlcobbola talk 16:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- notice 1: Here (the description of the file) there is "By permission of CNG, www.cngcoins.com.", which probably means they found the image exactly there.
- notice 2: This is the pict of this coin.
- notice 3: I was able to find this image on that site and fixed the source in the file (uploaded 5 years ago).
- Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Thank you, that resolves the issue. Эlcobbola talk 20:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Multiple problems:
- In some cases, it is unknown who the photographer is, or there is no evidence of permission from the photographer. Currency images always need permission from the photographer per COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet.
- Permission is also needed from the engravers.
- {{Money-EU}} is only for banknotes, not for coins.
- {{PD-GermanGov}} is only for text, not for images, as explained at Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. The tag can therefore not be used for coins.
_-_Back.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Front.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Derivative work of coins.
- File:- Money 01 -.jpg
- File:Centimes euro vrac.jpg
- File:Euro muntstukken.png
- File:Eurobox Blue.jpg
- File:Le beurre et l'argent du beurre.jpg
- File:Wiener Schachtel.png
Stefan4 (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, what is the problem with derivative works of coins ? Lionel Allorge (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are not the copyright holder to the coins, so you can't upload photos of them. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, after reading COM:EURO, I believe it does not apply to my picture (File:Le beurre et l'argent du beurre.jpg) because the copyright faces of the euro are a very small part of my picture and therefore, De Minimis should apply. Lionel Allorge (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- De minimis doesn't depend on the size of the images but on the purpose of the photograph and whether the shown parts are above the threshold of originality. See for example this court ruling from the European Court of Justice. Showing coins is one of the main purposes of the image (the file name even mentions money), and the coins are clearly visible. The coins therefore do not satisfy de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, after reading COM:EURO, I believe it does not apply to my picture (File:Le beurre et l'argent du beurre.jpg) because the copyright faces of the euro are a very small part of my picture and therefore, De Minimis should apply. Lionel Allorge (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are not the copyright holder to the coins, so you can't upload photos of them. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Non-free coins. Some of them are tagged with {{PD-GermanGov}}, but as explained at Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, that template can only be used for text. A coin is not text. Some of the images do not have permission from the photographers, which a coin always must have.
- File:1 Cent - Juan Pablo II (2002-2005).jpg
- File:1 Cent - Sede Vacante (2005).jpg
- File:1 Euro - Benedicto XVI (2005-2013).jpg
- File:1 Euro - Juan Pablo II (2002-2005).jpg
- File:1 Euro - Sede Vacante (2005).jpg
- File:1 eurocent 1 pfennig.jpg
- File:1-€-Münze.jpg
- File:10 Cent - Benedicto XVI (2005-2013).jpg
- File:10 Cent - Juan Pablo II (2002-2005).jpg
- File:10 Cent - Sede Vacante (2005).jpg
- File:2-€-Münze.jpg
- File:5 euro cent Slovenie.png
- File:50 cent coin SK Bratislavsky hrad.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Euro coins are not free for Commons: derivative works are not allowed if they are not in the "faithful likeness" and "not detrimental to the image of the euro". See also the previous discussions.[5][6]
- File:Austria 2e.gif
- File:Europa 2009 face.jpg
- File:Europa 2010 face.jpg
- File:Money - The last Cent.jpg
- File:Pièce 1000€ Côté Pile.jpg
- File:Pièce 100€ Côté Face.jpg
- File:Pièce 100€ Côté Pile.jpg
- File:Pièce 200€ Côté Face.jpg
- File:Pièce 200€ Côté Pile.jpg
- File:The Austrian 25 Euro bimetal coin 'Renewable Energy'.jpg
- File:The Austrian 25 Euro bimetal coin 'Year of Astronomy 2009'.jpg
- File:Tire-Euro-Bad.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 13:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Non-free coin.
Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Non-free coin. One of the files can be saved by reverting to the original revision which doesn't contain any coin and deleting only those revisions which show a coin.
Stefan4 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Reverted one per Stefan, deleted the other. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Unfree coin.
Stefan4 (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 00:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Non-free coins.
Stefan4 (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Delted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Per COM:DW.
Stefan4 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Missing permission from engraver. See COM:CUR#Euro.
- File:1 euro 1999 España.jpg
- File:1 euro 2010 España.jpg
- File:1 euro 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:1 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:1 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:1 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:10 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:10 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:10 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:2 euro 1999 España.jpg
- File:2 euro 2010 España.jpg
- File:2 euro 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:2 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:2 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:2 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativa EURO 2012 estonia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 austria.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 belgica.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 eslovaquia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 holanda.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 italia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 luxemburgo.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 malta.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2011 malta.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2011 portugal.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2012 monaco.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2012 san marino.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2014-1 malta.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2014-2 malta.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 bélgica.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 chipre.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 irlanda.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 italia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 malta.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 portugal.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2005 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2010 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2011 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2012 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2013 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2014 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos EMU 2009 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos EMU 2009 francia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos EURO 2012 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos EURO 2012 francia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos ROMA 2007 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos ROMA 2007 francia.jpg
- File:20 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:20 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:20 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:5 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:5 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:5 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:50 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:50 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:50 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:Reveal-DX.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no problem in using images of the designs of euro coins. I wrote the european central bank and various central banks of europe. The problem is when you use images of an specific web page. I made the photographs of every coin I uploaded. Euro images CAN BE USED because they DON'T HAVE COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS. European central bank even told me that I could use the images in their web page if I cite them as authors of it. That's even written in their web page!! For all those reasons I think that this topic MUST BE INVESTIGATED BEFORE DELETING THE FILES --Philloven (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Everything you say is true, but not the whole story. At the European Commission web site it says
- "Only the following reproductions are allowed:
- reproductions in a format without relief (drawings, paintings, films) provided that they are not detrimental to the image of the euro."
- "Only the following reproductions are allowed:
- This means that you cannot use images of the coins to create parodies of the Euro or any other derivative work. And that means that they are not free enough to keep on Commons. As you will see above, this has been well established over eight DRs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Euro coins are more complex than that. There is one common side, shared by all countries. The European Central Bank owns the copyright to this side of the coins and decides the restrictions, and the conclusion on Commons is that the common side is unfree. Therefore, pictures of the common side may not be uploaded to Commons.
- There is also a national side, for which the restrictions depend on the country of issue. For the national side of the coins, coins from Latvia are fine per {{Latvian coins}}, while coins from Finland probably are fine per {{PD-FinlandGov}}. Lithuania will introduce the euro on 1 January 2015, and Lithuanian euro coins will be fine per {{PD-LT-exempt}}. The national side of the coins from other countries are not fine, and can't be uploaded to Commons without OTRS permission from the copyright holders. The list above does not cointain any coins from Finland, Latvia or Lithuania. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I asked if I could use the images to write an article in wikipedia and they answered "yes, you can if it is not detrimental to the image of the euro". The use of the image, as I used it, is not detrimental in ANY WAY to the euro. It's not a parody either. Yes I see it has been discused but I think it's a mistake. It can't be that the BCE itself says that the images can be used and we delete them based on interpretations. --Philloven (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Commons requires that all images hosted here are free for any use by anybody anywhere. Your WP article may be perfectly all right with the Bank, but that is not enough to keep it here -- they must be OK with any use, even parody, which, obviously, they are not. You can probably use the images on WP:EN for a single article under Fair Use, but they cannot be kept here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Krd 16:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (Cyprus)
[edit]No evidence of permission from the engravers.
Stefan4 (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (Treaty of Rome)
[edit]No evidence of permission from the photographer and/or engraver.
- File:" 07 - ITALY - Commemorative 2 euro coins of Italy - Trattati di Roma - 2007.jpg
- File:2 € commémorative - Traité de Rome - Belgique - 2007.png
- File:Commémocommun.PNG
- File:Special coin Cyprus 2007.jpg
- File:Comm 2007 fi.jpg
- File:2007(Treaty of Rome)Germany.jpg
- File:Alemania tratado de roma.gif
- File:€2 commemorative coin Germany 2007 TOR.jpg
Germany.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Fresque des Lyonnais
[edit]see Commons:Deletion_requests/All_images_in_Category:Fresque_des_Lyonnais: No FoP in France (COM:FOP#France)
- File:Lyon (9 août 2013) 007.JPG
- File:Lyon (9 août 2013) 008.JPG
- File:Lyon (9 août 2013) 009-001.JPG
- File:Lyon (9 août 2013) 011.JPG
- File:Lyon (9 août 2013) 015.JPG
- File:Lyon (9 août 2013) 017.JPG
- File:Lyon (9 août 2013) 040.JPG
- File:Lyon (9 août 2013) 042.JPG
- File:Lyon (9 août 2013) 046.JPG
- File:Trompe-l'oeil painting in Lyon.jpg
_007.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_008.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_009-001.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_011.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_015.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_017.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_040.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_042.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_046.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anarchistdy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyright status is unclear as the photos were uploaded from the Flickr stream of ChibiChiii, who uploaded clear copyvio earlier (File:CharlesDance.jpg). Image number four mentions "MIchael Melia" as author in the EXIF.
- File:Charles Dance6.jpg
- File:Charles Dance5.jpg
- File:Charles Dance4.jpg
- File:Charles Dance3.jpg
- File:Charles Dance2.jpg
- File:Charles Dance1.jpg
Trijnsteltalk 16:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The files infringement the copyrights of people life — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 16:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as per the description of that Flickr account. The user clearly says that she gathers the images on the Internet, making it flickr washing. Nymf (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you should be voting on this since you have been following my uploads for a few days now and have already voted on previous delete requests Anarchistdy (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Nymf (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you should be voting on this since you have been following my uploads for a few days now and have already voted on previous delete requests Anarchistdy (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Considering uploader´s behaviour (including 4 fresh detected copyvios) unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Why not tag it with {{Copyvio}}?. Obviously copyright violation — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 21:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Comunicaciones Cecar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions.
- File:Bloque-t.JPG
- File:Bloque-s.jpeg
- File:Bloque-n.JPG
- File:Bloque-f.JPG
- File:Bloque-d.JPG
- File:Bloque-e.JPG
- File:Bloque-c.JPG
- File:Bloque-b1.JPG
- File:Bloque-b.JPG
- File:Bloque-a.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Erandha123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small images for advertising purpose. Copies available on the web. No permission.
- File:Ceylon tea.jpg
- File:Sri lanka (3).jpg
- File:Gems.jpg
- File:Spices (28).jpg
- File:Spices (21).jpg
- File:Spices (12).jpg
- File:Cinnamon.jpg
- File:Cloves ceylon.JPG
- File:Spices (4).jpg
- File:Nutmeg 22.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yann (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader is not author, no permission . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Felipea12345 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jimmybenge (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only files which should be replaced with wiki markup.
- File:Bisection method in Maxima.png
- File:Inverse quadratic method in Maxima.png
- File:Big O Notation in Maxima.png
- File:Zhang's method in Maxima.png
- File:Secant method in Maxima.png
- File:Newton's multiplicity method in Maxima.png
- File:Newton's method in Maxima.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Used in es.wikipedia for selfpromotion, no notability person in es.wikipedia. --Taichi (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept per OTRS ticket number 2013122910005957 - the selfpromotion argument is invalid, the files are currently in use in an article that not even has been nominated for deletion. It's not up to Commons administrators to take decisions on behalf of the ES.wikipedia community - Jcb (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Michell890 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Currency images. There is no section for Honduras at COM:CUR, so we have to assume that these are unfree unless someone can show the opposite.
- File:2 lempiras.jpg
- File:5 lempiras.jpg
- File:500 lempiras.jpg
- File:10 lempiras.jpg
- File:50 lempiras.jpg
- File:100 lempiras.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pixelapache (talk · contribs)
[edit]Lower resolution, no metadata, other user uploads are blatant copyvios (see talk/deleted contribs) related to dogs
Эlcobbola talk 16:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Collection of promo photos No evidence or permission(s).
- File:Black Aces New Cover.jpg
- File:Black Aces with Champigon.jpg
- File:23MinutosArt.jpg
- File:Letícia Silhouette.jpg
- File:Letícia Santos.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello - not sure that this is the correct area to respond, but I am the US Fan agent for Black Aces in the United States. I represent the band and the individual members and other operating entities in their interests for promotional gain. What would you like from me in order to preserve all content uploaded thus far?
Thank you, Sly2kusa
Deleted: Each needs a license from its photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. However, since the band does not show up on the first two pages of Google, or at WP, there is a question of whether they meet our notability requirement. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Derivatives of Catedral de Santa María(...).JPG
[edit].JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
They are derivatives of File:Catedral de Santa María (Toomkirik), Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 05.JPG and are respectively duplicates of File:Uexkülli sugupuu Tallinna toomkirikus.jpg and File:Palter von der Broeli sugupuu toomkirikus.jpg. They are not exact duplicates but they are intended to be crops of same area of the orignal image as are images that they are duplicating. So these duplicate images are not needed. As you can see the titles were mixed up at first try. Sorry about the mess. --193.40.10.181 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
,_Tallin,_Estonia,_2012-08-05,_DD_05.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
JPG version uploaded at File:Adie Moses 25-10-2008 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: No tiene un gran aporte este sitio. No tiene uso global. — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 14:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 20:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Ben Tozer 03-08-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Not a registered coat of arms from Sweden. See [2] Edaen (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC) This image is not based on the blazon and thus not a national symbol of Sweden according to the State Herald of Sweden.[7] Since it is not based on the blazon it is a derived work of the logo the Parliament actually uses and thus a copyvio. Edaen (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- The three crowns are taken from the coat of arms, so yes it is based on the blazon and a derivative of the PD coat of arms. Not a copyvio and a very obvious Keep Fry1989 eh? 19:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- According to the State Herald in the article linked above: "Kronorna får inte vara blå, som de har varit i riksdagens logotyp sedan 1992. De ska vara i guld." ("The crowns must not be blue, as they have been in the Parliament's logotype since 1992. They must be gold."). It is not an obvious one since the supreme authority on these matters in Sweden clearly states that it isn't based on the blazon and since the legal division of the Parliaments adminsistration allegedly has accepted the herald's opinion. Edaen (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Changing the colour does not change the copyright. Nor does the herald in that paper actually claim this is copyrighted. He is trying to suggest that because these are blue, they're somehow "illegal" because in the Coat of Arms they are yellow. It's a rather silly argument and has no basis in law. It's PD. Fry1989 eh? 19:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- According to the State Herald in the article linked above: "Kronorna får inte vara blå, som de har varit i riksdagens logotyp sedan 1992. De ska vara i guld." ("The crowns must not be blue, as they have been in the Parliament's logotype since 1992. They must be gold."). It is not an obvious one since the supreme authority on these matters in Sweden clearly states that it isn't based on the blazon and since the legal division of the Parliaments adminsistration allegedly has accepted the herald's opinion. Edaen (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 08:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
redundant file Mediamintbiz (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Dannie Bulman 17-10-2009 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Danny Emerton 03-08-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see why not, even if it's unused. This photograph illustrates a festive demon costume worn during a Halloween celebration. That makes it within scope and gives it some educational value. Cheers, Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal photo, and possible copyvio, as a dervative of non-free content FASTILY 08:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Darren Carter 03-08-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:David Brown 15-08-2009 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Low quality selfie Gbawden (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Ian Simpemba 21-02-2009 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Joe Widdowson 03-08-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Jon Challinor 15-08-2009 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that this logo of an Azerbaijani football team would be free licensed Poco2 19:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Kevin Amankwaah 03-08-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: It's a duplicated. The quality of file is minor that the File:Kevin Amankwaah 03-08-2013 1.jpg. — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 20:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Lee Collins 03-08-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Lee Fowler 12-09-2009 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
no souce, big doubt that Richemarc was the photographer in '40. So, unknow author, unknow licence --MGuf (d) 09:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Substituted by a better svg image (File:Genova mappa metropolitana 2012.svg) Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It's a duplicated. The quality of file is minor that the File:Genova mappa metropolitana 2012.svg. — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 14:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
the author is not Richemark, he can't put this file under CC-By-SA --MGuf (d) 09:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
not Richemarc 's work : copy from an unidentrified source, we can see it's a copy from a newspaper --MGuf (d) 09:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Matt Heath 03-08-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Nigel Worthington 03-08-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violence, definitely not own work (As flagged) http://www.hackitectura.net/escuelas/tiki-index.php?page=Nokia%2C+telefon%C3%ADa+m%C3%B3vil Seegge (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Why not tag it with {{Copyvio}}?. Obviously copyright violation. — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Imagen borrosa. No se pueden apreciar con exactitud detalles. — ♫♫ Leitoxx 
The Police ♪♪ — 15:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The distortion is extreme and so it's an unrealistic depiction of this cityscape, unused, no potential usage -> out of Commons scope. (Derivative of my photos without prior asking for advice) A.Savin 08:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pas de souci pour moi, cet assemblage peut être supprimé.François de Dijon (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Distortion is typical for panoramas. Many of WP's city articles have similar images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Re-nomination. Again, this file is out of Commons scope. It is not being used anywhere, nor is it likely to ever be. The distortion is extreme and so it's an unrealistic depiction of this cityscape. It is a derivative of some of my photos (which aren't appropriate for stitching together) without prior asking for advice. Prior RfD was closed as kept although there was a consensus for deletion. Discussion with the closing admin is useless. --A.Savin 19:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing new here. If A. Savin wishes, he or she can remove the attribution from the file, but cannot control DW from CC files. The creator of this image has no obligation whatsoever to ask A. Savin for advice. This is a usable panorama of a large city and may well find a use somewhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as it is out of COM:SCOPE which admin "Jameslwoodward" fails to see. --A.Savin 12:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I broke my eyes looking at that. Unfortunally it's terrible forgery, not a panorama which can be useful for Commons. I'd be never placed such illustrations to any article. Jameslwoodward, did you read "Inverted World" by Christopher Priest? This picture reminds me about Priest's novel (but again, not as illustration :)). --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment the author of the DW agreed to delete, the author of the original works ask fro deletion, ans finally the distortion is too high for the image to be usable (except maybe for a « don't do panoramas like that » page on Wikibooks). Why on Earth should we keep this file ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Jim that we can't restrict people from making adaptations. An admin should be a model so can't enjoy special considerations. But I see that the adapter agreed to delete it even without showing any discomfort. So I think this is a perfect candidate for Commons:Courtesy deletions. See Samuel's comment there: "Courtesy dictates that all unused / marginally-used images should be deleted on the author's request....Letting a few dozen creators each year delete their images won't hurt Commons. But unfriendliness will, and has." We can be more friendlier here. :) Jee 08:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bonjour à tous, je ne voulais irriter personne en faisant cet assemblage. J'en ai déjà effectuer plusieurs, certains avec plus de succès et des remerciements de l'auteur des fichiers sources. Il y en a eu de repris comme illustration sur des pages de Wikipédia. Si celui ci est si horrible (low quality a été mis sur la page...) vous pouvez l'effacer, cela ne me rendra pas malade et évitera une dispute des différents intervenants.François de Dijon (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, François de Dijon, for your understanding; always appreciated. Jee 07:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bonjour à tous, je ne voulais irriter personne en faisant cet assemblage. J'en ai déjà effectuer plusieurs, certains avec plus de succès et des remerciements de l'auteur des fichiers sources. Il y en a eu de repris comme illustration sur des pages de Wikipédia. Si celui ci est si horrible (low quality a été mis sur la page...) vous pouvez l'effacer, cela ne me rendra pas malade et évitera une dispute des différents intervenants.François de Dijon (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, per above -FASTILY 08:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
derivated work from File:LouisEveraert.jpg : no source, no author, no licence --MGuf (d) 09:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
the author is not Richemark, he can't put this file under CC-By-SA --MGuf (d) 09:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Concern that as it prominently fetaures the bottle artwork it's a dervied work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of bottle label. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Roy O'Donovan 03-08-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Low quality selfie Gbawden (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Sam Rents 05-09-2009 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that this logo of an Azerbaijani football team would be free licensed Poco2 19:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 18:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
We have this flag in SVG in both versions (blue on top and yellow on top). Fry1989 eh? 20:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that this logo of an Azerbaijani football team would be free licensed Poco2 19:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Images appear here. Would need OTRS permission related to both the card/scrapbook and the photograph itself as these are derivative works.
- File:Scrapbooking - stránka, layout.jpg
File:Scrapbooking - cardmaking.jpgKept per OTRS permission
Эlcobbola talk 16:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Photos are downloaded from this site but the web www.cz-milka.net is mine... I can't have any permission because this is my own work and my own photo. I thought I gave permission by uploading on Wikimedia Commons...
--CZ-Milka (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Per COM:OTRS, images that have been previously published require permission to go through OTRS. An email from an @cz-milka.net domain, for example, may resolve the issue. Note also the permission must be granted by both the creator of the scrapbook and the photographer. Also, in the case of File:Scrapbooking - stránka, layout.jpg, demonstration that the picture of the airplanes is free would also be required. See COM:DW for more information. Эlcobbola talk 15:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Template:OTRS ticket covers both. In the case of the second, I think we are done (I asked for confirmation that the same person is the author of the photo and the scrapbook, I think that is the case, but I want to be sure). In the case of the photo with the plane photo in it, I've asked for more info.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. File:Scrapbooking - cardmaking.jpg is kept and we'll wait for clarification on the planes for the other. Эlcobbola talk 20:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Template:OTRS ticket covers both. In the case of the second, I think we are done (I asked for confirmation that the same person is the author of the photo and the scrapbook, I think that is the case, but I want to be sure). In the case of the photo with the plane photo in it, I've asked for more info.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: One kept, other deleted FASTILY 08:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Sea Birds, Khasab.jpg
- File:Banana Boat Ride 2.jpg
- File:Banana Boat Ride.jpg
- File:Snorkellling near the TELEGRAPH ISLAND.jpg
- File:QANAHA vilalge.jpg
- File:School of travelly - under water of musandam.jpg
- File:MOfish color2RE.jpg
- File:Fish color.JPG
- File:An Old house in khasab.jpg
- File:Diving Sea.jpg
- File:DHOW Cruise.jpg
- File:Tortois.JPG
- File:GOLDEN TULIP RESORT MUDANDAM-KHASAB.jpg
- File:Map - Copy.jpg
- File:Khasab..jpg
- File:Khasab castle..jpg
- File:Khourshem Tours.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep File:Sea Birds, Khasab.jpg - this appears to be an original, the only online version I could find (here) is much lower resolution and is presumably derived from the Commons file, rather than vice-versa. It is also a useful photo depicting a species that Commons does not have much imagery of. Agree many of the others - particularly the smaller images which may not be originals - could be deleted, but they will need to be looked at individually. - MPF (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: one kept, rest deleted FASTILY 08:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Quienmasquienmenos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploaded among blatant copyvios (see talk/deleted contribs), no camera EXIF; see also COM:VAGINAS.
- File:Masturbación femenina clitoriana.jpg
- File:Labios menores y clítoris.jpg
- File:Detalle clítoris.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Jüdischer Friedhof Lübeck is stored two times under the same expression. Roland.h.bueb (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Das eine ist die Seite, das andere die Kategorie. Wo ist das Problem? --Mogelzahn (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Den Unterschied zwischen Gallery und Category kannte ich noch nicht. Danke für die Aufklärung.--Roland.h.bueb (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope. There is Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose. I agree that the photo should be kept, but this "making of" has no useful propose. Instead, it is disgusting. Also, most arts don't have a "making of", I see no reason why this should be kept. Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg Previous DR that included this file.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg. Please explain the reason as if the painting should be kept the video of its "making of" should be deleted, and please dont say that this is disgusting as this is your POV and is not a reason to delete and others people could feel curiosity to this painting technique of which this is the only media that exists, so this file is in scope. Tm (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Before anything else, I gotta say, Zhuyifei1999 that was dreadful reasoning for this file being deleted, referring to it as disgusting. I doubt too many are interested in your specific reaction to it, just your reasoning to why it should be removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I didn't know how I felt about this in all honesty. The deletion request itself, that is but if it is going to stand then, I feel this really does need to go. And I think it should be removed wikiwide from all projects straight across the board, especially if Jimbo Wales has a global account.
- I mentioned something on the recent discussion about Russavia's bureaucrat status about this being a parody about another Wikimedia member. I noticed at the deletion discussion for the image there seems to be a pretty good consensus there that this was actually a parody and a few quick parodies were thrown in of the member for good measure. That just compounds the situation where a small portion of the community, in defense of one, attack another as a group. And all using the excuse that he is a public figure. Before he is a public figure he is a registered member and where people are thinking he is not special, what you may forget is he is not any more special than you, as a registered member of the community. There are some things we do not do. We do not attack each other or create parody wars or file wars and that is what this is doing. This is an act of provocation.
- Of course having an artist paint a portrait with their penis of someone else... not yourself....is going to be be seen as sexual harassment. As I said, this was extremely unfair to this artist. It has at least been established that the idea came from Russavia. That it was done on purpose, as some form of expression or critical commentary, by having a notable artist paint a figure of a Wikimedia member for Wikimedia.
- This is an expression of Russavia but not in artistic terms, put as producer. Lets really look at what happened and why this is here. The editor produced this work by requesting it. This artist did not do this on their own. The reality is that the file does have almost no true educational use. It is exotica and the artist's Wikipedia page can confirm this. This is erotic performance art, and every recipient is being placed in a sexual position with the artist. Period. One does not need to decide whether this is pleasant, insulting or neutral, it is sexual and it is in reference to one of our community.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The ethical versus legal status of hosting media is presently being discussed at Commons talk:Courtesy deletions. We may wish to table this DR until we have consensus on a policy change there. I think as it stands now many are upset that we can host any media on the copyright and legal consent standpoints only. Ethical deletions are currently being discussed. As for scope it is similar to this video. Whether artists paint with body parts, a brush, or elephant trunk, many would see it as being within scope by showing how art can be created in different ways.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- As performance art, which this is, sure. Like with artist David Garibaldi where, his performance in painting the image to music in a few minutes is as much the "art" as the image itself. The concept is placing the artist forefront and embeds them into the art in a manner that leaves the viewer remembering the performance as much as the art. Now...could you explain why we accept erotic performance art? Could you explain why we would accept it when it is directed at a registered user? As performance art...is it our place as commons members to produce the art using Wikimedia members as captive audience? I understand the good faith intentions of the editor that produced the effort. But it crossed a couple of lines and it isn't something I feel stands on its own. It is very much like circular referencing on an article at Wikipedia. It started on Wikimedia Commons and drew attention and is now even more notable in some manner than it was when it was placed because more contributors are familiar with it and more readers and image searches are looking for it. We draw attention to it and I feel as if the performance art hasn't ended we are all becoming unwilling characters in an on going performance art piece.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- That would fall under an ethical deletion then. We are still seeking consensus on ethical deletion policy. It should be within scope as educationally showing how art can be created with various parts of the body.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per my previous reasoning. Note that I do not think that this is out of COM:SCOPE as suggested by the opening. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete <sarcasm> A poor community member (who has only autopatroller and filemover rights in this community) thinks this media is produced to insult him. But unfortunately this media is produced on the request of a topmost person (crat) in this community (I think he already said so) and uploaded, who has enormous blind support from many admins. They think they are still in the Ottoman era; so anybody make any voice against their master will be beaten till death. Hmm, I don’t know what to do. :( </sarcasm> JKadavoor Jee 09:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. There are neither policy nor legal reasons to delete this file. It is well within scope as showing how a rare art form is created. Closing admin should consider W:Wikipedia:JDLI input as invalid according to current policy. These policies are currently in flux and after consensus is reached then this file may be sent to DR. Until then there should be no reason to delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Art is art. --Alan (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- How is this "making of" art? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Its erotic performance art. I had no idea Wikimedia allowed sexually explicit erotic performance art, let alone to be used against Wikimedia members.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is permitted and is not discouraged. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe that to be accurate at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- It has been permitted and has not been discouraged here for the past nine years. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 00:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Still see that as a very inaccurate statement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- We are working on a new guideline. As it stands now our policies and guidelines allow us too keep this file. See: Commons_talk:Courtesy_deletions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Amadscientist, you know all those people who keep complaining about all the "porn" on Commons? Well, they were complaining about erotic/nude photography/art. We certainly don't discourage people from uploading sexually explicit media, though we could do with less low quality penis photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Still see that as a very inaccurate statement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- It has been permitted and has not been discouraged here for the past nine years. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 00:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe that to be accurate at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is permitted and is not discouraged. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Its erotic performance art. I had no idea Wikimedia allowed sexually explicit erotic performance art, let alone to be used against Wikimedia members.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- How is this "making of" art? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per the last time. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is significantly more educational than the painting because it actually shows how it's made, which is the real point of Pricasso's art. darkweasel94 22:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep How is it outside of project scope? It is essentially a making-of video demonstrating the style of the artist for others to learn about if the desire.
The relentless campaigning (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg, Commons:Administrators/Requests/Russavia (de-adminship, de-bureaucratship), Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia (de-Bureaucrat), and now this) to remove this file and the associated painting needs to stop. It is disruptive. I hence request a speedy close over disruption.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC) - Speedy keep This has already been discussed. Nothing new. - Zil (d) 23:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This shows a notable artist creating a notable portrait of a notable public figure. INeverCry 19:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- The artist may be notable but not everything they create is. Jimbo Wales is only known for one thing and even though he may be a public figure that does not override his being a Wikimedia registered member.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- If a notable photographer uploaded a video detailing some of the techniques they used to create their works, I doubt that anyone would call for it's deletion. This artist uses his body to create rather than a camera, but it's still the act of creation of a notable artist. As for Jimmy Wales, I think he's an articulate and intelligent man, I just don't think anyone should be given preferencial treatment. A public figure is a public figure. INeverCry 20:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- But you are giving preferencial treatment...to the artist. As I said, Jimbo isn't above everyone else because he is a public figure. He still deserves the same treatment we would give anyone else being insulted in this manner. As I said, just being notable does not make every work notable, when notabliltiy is boarderline. The artist is notable for a specific reason. Shock value.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- What makes his work insulting or shocking? I'm not shocked at all by a man painting with his penis or testicles. I'm not uncomfortable about human bodies and nakedness. All men have penises, so they're not a big deal to me. I don't think Pricasso did the painting to insult Jimmy or shock anyone. Also, I think Pricasso has real artistic talent. INeverCry 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure how important it is that you are not shocked by a man painting a picture with his penis. For that matter neither am I. But is that the point really? Let me mention a few things about this work, regardless of how talented the artist may be. It is not a notable work by this artist for a number of reasons.
- What makes his work insulting or shocking? I'm not shocked at all by a man painting with his penis or testicles. I'm not uncomfortable about human bodies and nakedness. All men have penises, so they're not a big deal to me. I don't think Pricasso did the painting to insult Jimmy or shock anyone. Also, I think Pricasso has real artistic talent. INeverCry 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- But you are giving preferencial treatment...to the artist. As I said, Jimbo isn't above everyone else because he is a public figure. He still deserves the same treatment we would give anyone else being insulted in this manner. As I said, just being notable does not make every work notable, when notabliltiy is boarderline. The artist is notable for a specific reason. Shock value.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- If a notable photographer uploaded a video detailing some of the techniques they used to create their works, I doubt that anyone would call for it's deletion. This artist uses his body to create rather than a camera, but it's still the act of creation of a notable artist. As for Jimmy Wales, I think he's an articulate and intelligent man, I just don't think anyone should be given preferencial treatment. A public figure is a public figure. INeverCry 20:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- The artist may be notable but not everything they create is. Jimbo Wales is only known for one thing and even though he may be a public figure that does not override his being a Wikimedia registered member.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- First, it isn't original. Believe it or not, that is the threshold for notable works. It isn't his work. He shares that artistic vision with Manuel Archain, who has NOT received proper attribution on the WORK ITSELF. I do not mean to be insulting to Pricasso as an artist, but then why would I not be AS sensitive to Mr. Archain, who seems to have been lost in all of this. I also find this to be an unacceptable misuse of the CC BY SA 3.0 license without proper attribution ON THE PAINTING ITSELF. This is a copyright violation that will be compounded when the work is sold. The original author is required to have proper attribution in plain sight.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not shocked at a man using a penis as a brush? You sure are de-sensitized. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) "Notable" is not a term from Commons policies. The term we use is "useful for an educational purpose", and that's automatically fulfilled if it's in actual good faith use on a Wikimedia project. Is that the case? For the portrait itself see pl:Tim Patch, for the video see eo:Pricasso. (Disclosure: the latter article was written entirely by myself.) darkweasel94 21:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I say potato... ;) INeverCry 22:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Darkweasel94, in the spirit of "disclosure" I think you should have been clear that the video was not in use until you added it to that article, well after this deletion discussion was started. You could have added the video prior to this (such as when you created the article) but you did not. For me, that raises doubts about the "actual good faith use" you claim. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I had long before planned to add it when doing an expansion of that article, and decided to do that expansion now. This edit did not randomly add the video just to have it in use, I added it because there was now more text and more space for media files (compare with this edit where I included a video in an article with similar text/media ratio). However, even if it weren't in use, the video would still be in scope because a reader who reads the article on Pricasso is likely to want to know what that painting technique looks like. darkweasel94 09:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- In order to reduce the appearance of bad faith and the potential for drama, I have once again removed the video from the article, but I plan to add it again when the deletion discussion is over. darkweasel94 11:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I had long before planned to add it when doing an expansion of that article, and decided to do that expansion now. This edit did not randomly add the video just to have it in use, I added it because there was now more text and more space for media files (compare with this edit where I included a video in an article with similar text/media ratio). However, even if it weren't in use, the video would still be in scope because a reader who reads the article on Pricasso is likely to want to know what that painting technique looks like. darkweasel94 09:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Darkweasel94, in the spirit of "disclosure" I think you should have been clear that the video was not in use until you added it to that article, well after this deletion discussion was started. You could have added the video prior to this (such as when you created the article) but you did not. For me, that raises doubts about the "actual good faith use" you claim. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I say potato... ;) INeverCry 22:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) "Notable" is not a term from Commons policies. The term we use is "useful for an educational purpose", and that's automatically fulfilled if it's in actual good faith use on a Wikimedia project. Is that the case? For the portrait itself see pl:Tim Patch, for the video see eo:Pricasso. (Disclosure: the latter article was written entirely by myself.) darkweasel94 21:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--SunOfErat (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Per...all the previous delete argomentations. I think this is trolling. But the most important thing is that also the person depicted in the "work of art" think this is offensive.--SunOfErat (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Deletion discussions are not votes. darkweasel94 22:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - This is pretty obvious, especially seeing as there is no way to justify the use of a video in another project and thus no "use." Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - The subject of the art in this video has commented that he considers it "Hostile environment sexual harassment". Tucoxn (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - It's a form of harassment. The sole purpose of the painting and the "making of" ist to harass J. Wales. Loading up quite a lot of photos of identifyable people myself, I would never even think about purposely publishing content to embarrass and annoy the one depicted. --Tsui (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- We don't have a policy nor guideline to delete on these grounds yet. If the subject doesn't like the video then he can request removal through OTRS. This is the same as a DCMA takedown where the rights holder or legal rep have to formally make the request to WMF.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- This deletion request starts with: out of scope. I agree, as I do not consider harassment part of the educational and encyclopedic scope of this project. Additionaly quoting from Commons:Photographs of identifiable people: Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. [...] Defamation is both a legal and moral issue; therefore, Commons does not base decisions on whether the subject is able or likely to sue. --Tsui (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- We don't have a policy nor guideline to delete on these grounds yet. If the subject doesn't like the video then he can request removal through OTRS. This is the same as a DCMA takedown where the rights holder or legal rep have to formally make the request to WMF.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per AFBorchert. I haven't viewed the video, but from its description it seems in scope, either as a form of performance art or as a "making of" video. However the subject of the painting objects to it and has said they view it as sexual harassment, so it contravenes the WMF's BLP resolution (point 2 in particular). (This is true regardless of the intent of the uploader.) It seems there are many people who don't object to being the subject of such works, so it isn't irreplaceable, nor is it highly relevant to our coverage of the painting's subject. So we should delete it. --Avenue (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- We do need to consider it irreplaceable: The artist normally charges money for his works,[8] and I don't think he'll be willing to do another one unpaid just because of somebody's moral panic. And it's not clear that even if some Commons user(s) were willing to pay for another portrait, he'd agree to release it under a free license. However, if you want to arrange for that, go ahead, I wish you the best of luck! darkweasel94 19:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is conceptually replaceable. There is no inherent reason why an article on this artist should be illustrated by a painting of Jimmy Wales, or the corresponding "making of" video, as opposed to a painting of some other subject. This is one way in which this case differs from political cartoons, for instance. Every image costs someone time and money to provide; whether the creator chooses to charge for a particular one isn't relevant to the point I made. --Avenue (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- We do need to consider it irreplaceable: The artist normally charges money for his works,[8] and I don't think he'll be willing to do another one unpaid just because of somebody's moral panic. And it's not clear that even if some Commons user(s) were willing to pay for another portrait, he'd agree to release it under a free license. However, if you want to arrange for that, go ahead, I wish you the best of luck! darkweasel94 19:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per Zil. Stop the drama. Pleclown (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the analysis of AFBorchert, i.e., "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."[9] Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep,start canvassing for free expression, and warn the world to back up Commons. The objections here are based purely in censorship, and from the Russavia battleground they are apparently fueled by a vigorous campaign of e-mail organization. People who believe in free expression have erred greatly by failing to be the first to get organized and to hell with any and all anti-canvassing policies. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, randomly accuse people of canvassing and then call for canvassing to be made acceptable. --Conti|✉ 16:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Very poor reasoning by nom. Obviously, a video demonstrating his technique serves an educational purpose. It is why he provides those videos. The video serves to prove to skeptics that he does in fact use the technique to paint the portrait. As far as Jimbo taking offense, that a public figure takes offense to some depiction of them is not sufficient to warrant deletion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Educational" on Commons requires use, not some theory about it possibly being used. There is no use nor possible use, so claims about educational have no basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. SCOPE says that a file in mainspace use is educational, but that that is not the exclusive definition. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Educational" on Commons requires use, not some theory about it possibly being used. There is no use nor possible use, so claims about educational have no basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Attribution/copyright violation
[edit]This video appears to be a copyright violation as the video itself has used the original image and the derivative work without attribution in any form on the video itself to the original author. I do believe this is a requirement by copyright law for video and film making. I watched the entire 3 minute and 13 seconds of the video and Pricasso has only credited themself. With out OTRS, this appears to be a clear copyright violation. The same is also true of the derivative work itself. Both the video and the painting fail to attribute the original author. The same is true with images. Any use of the original file must have the proper attribution. Not just on the file, but on the work itself in the case of film.
Here is the Australian Creative Commons attribution information page. It does infact state that with films attribution is required on screen when the image appears or in credits. CC attribution guidelines- Australia--Amadscientist (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Film
•Include the relevant attribution information with the work when it appears on screen during the film.
•If this is not possible, attribute the work in the credits, just as you would see in a normal film.
- I request speedy deletion at this time do to copyright violations.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I’m not sure whether the painting is a derivative; but the video shows that photo several times. If the photo is not CC-BY-SA, the video is clearly a copyright violation. Even if it is CC-BY-SA, it is a violation per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4d (Original Author is the producer, not the photographer in a work for hire contract. So photo should be removed and any link to that work in attribution also should be removed if any plan to “keep” that video.
- If the painting is also a derivative work and need to be attributed; the situation is more complicated. We can’t attribute to the original work (even with a link) if the Original Author has complaints. So we need to collect his opinion formally and stored in our OTRS system and leave the work without any attribution. JKadavoor Jee 06:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't quite understand the last part. You see the work must be attributed to the original author and it must be done in plain site. Since this is a physical object, attribution is required where the artist is signing or it looks as if the artist is claiming the work as their won and /or that the original author is endorsing the use in this manner. At any rate...yes, we do know that both are derivative works.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you that a derivative work must be attributed properly. But the problem is CC gives a provision for the copyright holder to use his "No Endorsement" right if he doesn't like a particular use. So chances that Jimmy will use his right immediately if we add the attribution. So we need to store that mail in our OTRS or WMF Office and remove the attribution. The better solution is to delete the file immediately. :) JKadavoor Jee 07:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- The creator of the original photograph is attributed in the author field. What further attribution did he request in the license of his photograph?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- [10]: "As it stands at the moment, this is not a photo I would be recommending anyone to COM:REUSE to create true derivative works, because the actual copyright and licencing information is not clear enough." JKadavoor Jee 08:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just added the photographer to the license as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think Amadscientist is talking about File:Jimmy_Wales_Fundraiser_Appeal.JPG. The photographer is not confirmed a CC-BY-SA license or work-for-hire contract so far through OTRS. Further that video requires an embedded attribution too. (Read full concern at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat)#Very_important_question_to_Russavia. JKadavoor Jee 09:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Jimbo himself tagged it as work for hire. If you think he lied to keep his image here than should we vote to remove him from commons?--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- The usual practice I see here is AGF. It is Russavia said that he failed to get an OTRS from the photographer. If we don’t need an OTRS (I too think so); then it is CC-BY-SA (Copyright holder and Original Author Jimmy Wales as the producer in a work-for-hire contract). So the question is whether we should remove his photos from video per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4d since the video become a derivative work if it contains that photo. Amadscientist argues that the painting is also a derivative work; but I’m not sure. Do we need a legal advice? (I'm unable to continue further in these discussions since I have to leave for a week due to personal matters.) JKadavoor Jee 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think we should ever assume that a certain Adaptation or Collection is "prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation" because what falls under that term is very different depending on the cultural norms and therefore the jurisdiction where such a lawsuit takes place. If Pricasso were to paint a painting based on one of my recent uploads, I would not even have the idea that this could be prejudicial to my honor or reputation. (That file isn't cc-by-sa, I think none of my works is except when derivative, but I think you get the point.) darkweasel94 10:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- The usual practice I see here is AGF. It is Russavia said that he failed to get an OTRS from the photographer. If we don’t need an OTRS (I too think so); then it is CC-BY-SA (Copyright holder and Original Author Jimmy Wales as the producer in a work-for-hire contract). So the question is whether we should remove his photos from video per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4d since the video become a derivative work if it contains that photo. Amadscientist argues that the painting is also a derivative work; but I’m not sure. Do we need a legal advice? (I'm unable to continue further in these discussions since I have to leave for a week due to personal matters.) JKadavoor Jee 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Jimbo himself tagged it as work for hire. If you think he lied to keep his image here than should we vote to remove him from commons?--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think Amadscientist is talking about File:Jimmy_Wales_Fundraiser_Appeal.JPG. The photographer is not confirmed a CC-BY-SA license or work-for-hire contract so far through OTRS. Further that video requires an embedded attribution too. (Read full concern at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat)#Very_important_question_to_Russavia. JKadavoor Jee 09:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just added the photographer to the license as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any proof that the author authorized the change of copyright. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe this is better handled by nominating File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG for deletion, because that's the file whose copyright status is being questioned. This would of course also apply to derivatives. darkweasel94 13:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I concur, I will work on having that image removed from this video in the meantime, so that it won't be affected on the outcome of any other discussion. However, would someone else like to nominate it for deletion, as per my reasoning here. It will also affect several other files. That is, if someone else agrees that the reasoning I have presented has merit. russavia (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- How would removing the image from the video change anything? We still know (and have evidence) that it was the basis of the painting, after all. Or am I missing something? --Conti|✉ 15:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Quite simply put, because the painting is not a derivative of the photo. russavia (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- How would removing the image from the video change anything? We still know (and have evidence) that it was the basis of the painting, after all. Or am I missing something? --Conti|✉ 15:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I concur, I will work on having that image removed from this video in the meantime, so that it won't be affected on the outcome of any other discussion. However, would someone else like to nominate it for deletion, as per my reasoning here. It will also affect several other files. That is, if someone else agrees that the reasoning I have presented has merit. russavia (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe this is better handled by nominating File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG for deletion, because that's the file whose copyright status is being questioned. This would of course also apply to derivatives. darkweasel94 13:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- To put some facts into this discussion that risks becoming "yes it is derivative" "no it isn't" "yes it is", I've created the comparison to the right so we can discuss it from a factual basis. (There's also an xcf version if you want to improve it, I might not have done everything perfectly.) darkweasel94 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- The photo does not need to be removed from the video if it is either credited if kept or de min if deleted. This DR should be tabled until an OTRS result. We can easily add credits to the video or remove the frames that aren't de min if the photo is deleted. Either way the video can stay after edits and the painting may have to go if the photo does.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- If the photo is not compliant, than any use, be it as a photo or in the painting, is derivative and infringing. De Minimis would not apply because the subject of the video is the photo and the painting. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- If we rename the video and remove all frames of the photo and complete painting we should be okay. I have never seen the video but if the photo is deleted then I will save a copy and try some edits to bring it within the law.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- And what are we left with? A guy waggling his penis around? Haha. It isn't education now, and you think it would be great if it was even less educational? It is hard to accept the keeps as being honest and serious. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- We would be left with about 72 of the current 193 seconds:
- 0:04 to 0:55 (introduction and the beginning of the painting procedure where nothing is recognizable yet)
- 2:35 to 2:39 (applying the paint to his penis and painting a bit of the edge)
- 2:43 to 2:45 (the only part of the "painting the edge" scene where almost nothing of the derivative parts of the portrait is visible)
- 2:50 to 3:05 (where we only see his penis in gray paint, he's painting the background)
- And yes that would take away some of its educational value, but its basic educational purpose would still be fulfilled because it shows enough of how Pricasso paints. It also wouldn't need to mention Jimbo Wales anymore anywhere, because the video wouldn't show anything related to him, so the allegations that keeping this constitutes harassment of some kind should be gone as well, and we can all be in peace again. :) darkweasel94 20:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- We would be left with about 72 of the current 193 seconds:
- And what are we left with? A guy waggling his penis around? Haha. It isn't education now, and you think it would be great if it was even less educational? It is hard to accept the keeps as being honest and serious. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) It would be trivial to remove the photo with a video editor. The painting, not so much - the video would need to be reduced to the first few scenes where the painting doesn't yet have any visible resemblance to the photo, plus some scenes near the end where the portrait is not at all or barely (de minimis) visible. (In that case it also wouldn't really show Jimbo Wales anymore, satisfying also those who want to have it deleted on grounds of "harassment".) I think what's best to do is to nominate the original photo of Jimbo Wales for deletion, wait for the outcome of that DR, and if it's to delete, renominate the files here in question to reach a conclusion on whether they are derivative works. If the outcome is to delete these as well, a cut version of the video can be reuploaded. I don't think the result of this DR, at this moment in time, will be to delete, as no new arguments have been brought up except for the copyright issue which needs to be resolved differently. darkweasel94 18:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good work. Far more than I would have done. We can table this DR until the OTRS comes through as y/n. The ethical issues may come into play later once we have a courtesy deletion guideline in place. As it stands now we can keep any image that is legal in FLA. The WMF requested ethical guidelines from all projects but we have yet to create one here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not pretend as if it is certain that the proposal will pass. There are some of us that outright oppose the idea. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 07:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh, it was never meant to be a policy, just a statement of "this is how we do things". -mattbuck (Talk) 23:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not pretend as if it is certain that the proposal will pass. There are some of us that outright oppose the idea. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 07:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good work. Far more than I would have done. We can table this DR until the OTRS comes through as y/n. The ethical issues may come into play later once we have a courtesy deletion guideline in place. As it stands now we can keep any image that is legal in FLA. The WMF requested ethical guidelines from all projects but we have yet to create one here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- If we rename the video and remove all frames of the photo and complete painting we should be okay. I have never seen the video but if the photo is deleted then I will save a copy and try some edits to bring it within the law.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- If the photo is not compliant, than any use, be it as a photo or in the painting, is derivative and infringing. De Minimis would not apply because the subject of the video is the photo and the painting. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is absolutely ridiculous. The way to fix the attribution problem is to have a line in the file description -- which it has from the beginning. Your argument is that it is illegal to take video that includes any CC-licensed art in the field of view, unless you have a big stupid notice right in the video rather than putting the attribution in the legalese drivel where it can be properly ignored by reasonable people. That is contrary to how practically any copyright licensing is done by any film or video ever. Wnt (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not so very long ago we kept this image as being within scope. I don't see that anything has changed since. The only new arguments which have been made are related to whether the source image is itself a copyright violation, and, as Russavia showed, Jimbo does not have a great track record on that sort of thing. However, such a discussion would better take place at a DR of the source image, not here. If the source image turns out to be a copyright violation, then this can be deleted or edited in consequence. But this image is certainly within our scope, if for no other reason than it shows a notable painter painting. If the painter used any other implement then we wouldn't hear a single suggestion it was out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Violates the Foundation's revised BLP resolution [11] In particular this video violates "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information and/or media, especially in articles or images of ephemeral or marginal interest;" as the subject of the portrait has several times declared the image to be offensive, and frankly anybody should be able to see why he thinks so. This has been discussed for deletion twice before. Smallbones (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Smallbones, why did you choose to use the WMF board of trustees resolution announced only hours ago, to act on an artwork derived from a freely released image of a member of the same board of trustees as the first file to apply it to? I am sad to see you taking an action timed in such a way as to maximize damaging divisive drama and soapboxing before we have even reviewed any Wikimedia Commons policies, or anyone has even proposed any changes to existing policy.
- Note, this is a comment, not a vote, I have not voted on past deletion requests in relation to this artwork. --Fæ (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Fae. Two images that aren't impacted by the COI, but might be worth revisiting in light of this policy: File:Streisand Estate.jpg and File:Whos Nailin Paylin.jpg (The second, of course, is not free and therefore hosted on Wikipedia, not Commons). In both these cases, a living, public figure is either known, or could reasonably be assumed, to be opposed to the publication of the image. -Pete F (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually Fae is wrong - the resolution was announced 5 days ago. The 2 minor changes on that page since then were only display formatting. As far as Pete F's argument, it looks like the common "Other stuff" argument. This video is obviously the simplest basic case related to the Foundation's resolution. Note that the deletion discussion above had !votes of 10 to 10, with the most common argument in favor of keeping being something like "it doesn't matter that this is disgusting". The resolution makes it clear that disgusting images of BLPs do matter in BLP deletion discussions. Smallbones (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- An announcement went out on Wikimedia-l today from a board member about this resolution. Smallbones, you appear confused about how this is supposed to work. WMF board resolutions are a great resource to review and establish project policies. At this time no changes to policies have even been proposed, let alone implemented. If you want to help on Commons rather than being the source of drama, perhaps you would like to put forward a proposal for the community here to agree. Even when policies are changed, choosing to use Jimmy Wales as the first example looks pointy and unnecessarily political. As a member of the FDC I would expect you to have slightly more self-awareness and maturity when it comes to your own actions. --Fæ (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Relevant links for reference, since not everyone here is familiar with English Wikipedia, Wikimedia governance, or the mailing list in question:
- w:en:WP:OTHERSTUFF (the "other stuff" argument)
- the initial email to Wikimedia-L referred to above
- w:en:WP:POINT (on "pointyness")
- meta:FDC (the Funds Dissemination Committee)
- -Pete F (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Relevant links for reference, since not everyone here is familiar with English Wikipedia, Wikimedia governance, or the mailing list in question:
- "How this is supposed to work" - we remove obvious cases of images that clearly violate somebody's human dignity. Everything else is a pure technicality, and we don't need to follow process for process's sake on WMF projects. The only drama I see here is being made by you. BTW I am not a member of the FDC. Smallbones (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, easy to loose track of which hats people are wearing. Point still applies, you may want to try getting the community to support a proposal to a change to policy here, before attempting to implement it using just the force of your personal charm. You may wish that the WMF board can tell us which images to keep or delete on Commons, but it is actually the community here that does that job using community agreed policies and guidelines. There are good reasons (and legal reasons) for it to work that way as I would have imagined you would know. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- An announcement went out on Wikimedia-l today from a board member about this resolution. Smallbones, you appear confused about how this is supposed to work. WMF board resolutions are a great resource to review and establish project policies. At this time no changes to policies have even been proposed, let alone implemented. If you want to help on Commons rather than being the source of drama, perhaps you would like to put forward a proposal for the community here to agree. Even when policies are changed, choosing to use Jimmy Wales as the first example looks pointy and unnecessarily political. As a member of the FDC I would expect you to have slightly more self-awareness and maturity when it comes to your own actions. --Fæ (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually Fae is wrong - the resolution was announced 5 days ago. The 2 minor changes on that page since then were only display formatting. As far as Pete F's argument, it looks like the common "Other stuff" argument. This video is obviously the simplest basic case related to the Foundation's resolution. Note that the deletion discussion above had !votes of 10 to 10, with the most common argument in favor of keeping being something like "it doesn't matter that this is disgusting". The resolution makes it clear that disgusting images of BLPs do matter in BLP deletion discussions. Smallbones (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Fae. Two images that aren't impacted by the COI, but might be worth revisiting in light of this policy: File:Streisand Estate.jpg and File:Whos Nailin Paylin.jpg (The second, of course, is not free and therefore hosted on Wikipedia, not Commons). In both these cases, a living, public figure is either known, or could reasonably be assumed, to be opposed to the publication of the image. -Pete F (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Votes
[edit]- Delete The amended resolution strengthens the points I made earlier. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Smallbones' rationale and the points made by AFBorchert. This video is a perfect illustration of the necessity of the amended resolution. — Scott • talk 00:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It remains an obvious troll. Outstandingly so, but it fails the test of fairness and decency towards a human being. (Why was the placeholder image changed to something NSFW?) Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per rationale of original nominator. Fae, I thought you would've realized that board resolutions carry significant weight after the whole Reeperbahn thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I don't want to vote here as I said in my last discussion on this matter; it was my last attempt. But I'm happy that the Board listened us (not me alone; many people participated in various related discussions especially on Commons talk:Courtesy deletions). My/our attempt was to make a strong policy on how to deal with offensive media. Yesterday Phoebe shared the same feeling: "[T]he board feels Wikimedians should exercise equal care when dealing with all portrayals of living people on our various projects."
- Fae, I'm somewhat disappointed with your stand on this matter. I can see you agree with me on various places regarding insulting media or comments.
The only place where we disagree is Jimmy related matters. :)See Commons:Deletion requests/File:African women icon.svg. There you argues to delete that artwork, claiming it is insulting to a particular race. You even opened a discussion at VP. I agree with you on deleting it, if it is insulting; that is why I explicitly requested the opinion of NJR ZA, a matured user from South Africa. But he/she refused to see it in that way, even though suggested to delete it on the grounds of out of scope. I will say your double stand is defaming to your reputation. Try to see it as a generic matter. We must not be a tabloid; we must discourage any attempt to insult any. I'm not seeing this video or that The Photographer's artwork are created with bad intentions. But it is better we delete them if a considerable volume of the community thinks they are insulting.
- I expect more productive results based on this wonderful resolution from the Board. Thanks all, especially the community nominees on the Board, for their willingness to actively involve in community related matters. Jee 03:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jkadavoor, I have expressed no opinion to keep or delete this file.
- Let me repeat that: I have expressed no opinion to keep or delete this file.
- Raising this DR undermines the WMF resolution as by using Jimmy Wales as an unfortunate poster boy, this now gives the appearance that the board passed this to satisfy the self interests of one of its own members voting on the same resolution. As for painting myself and Jimmy Wales as opponents, please don't do that, it has been a particularly stupid and false theme of a long running hounding/harassment campaign against myself and Jimmy off-wiki, which is not based on any fact of our actions or opinions over the last seven years. --Fæ (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, OK; it seems I somehow overlooked your comments above. Sorry. Jee 08:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- When curating knowledge, it's important to be sensitive to individuals' wishes, but it's also our goal to present information and media. So there are judgment calls that come into play sometimes. What are the best principles to apply when making those judgments? What are the attributes that differentiate this file from a photograph of singer Barbra Streisand's house (to whose publication she famously objected) or an article about a satirical pornographic film about a famous politician who (likely) opposes pornography? Or a political cartoon by a notable artist, mocking a controversial and notable public figure in an obscene way? Should these files and article be kept, or not? My point is that these issues are complex by nature, and I find "arguments" that state that the correct conclusion should be obvious unpersuasive. Throughout the various discussions on this topic, only one perspective stands out in my memory as thoroughly exploring the complexity of the issue; it was Derrick Coetzee's analysis and he arrived (in my opinion convincingly) at the conclusion that this and the related files should be kept. If anyone has taken a similarly thorough look and arrived at the opposite conclusion, I invite anybody to remind me and others. I do not feel strongly about whether or not this movie should be kept, but I do feel strongly that we should proceed in a principled way, especially in a case where there is cause for concern about special treatment of a leading figure in our movement. I will hold off on voting in this round, though I have voted "keep" in the past. -Pete F (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry; this is not the way how law and justice work. Do we free a rapist because we can't punish all rapists. We consider every case, case to case; not altogether. You are free to nominate any whatever you feel not suitable to host here. Jee 03:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pete F, I assure you if this video was of you and you did not consent to it (forgetting that it was commissioned as a troll of you) I would still delete it and for the same reason. If this picture was of one of your family on a nude beach and they didn't consent to it be taken/published, I would delete it for the same reason again. Living people should be allowed a measure of dignity. If this video made a legitimate political statement about a semi-public figure my answer might have been different. It doesn't. It's just a troll and we all know it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Saffron Blaze, you contend that Jimmy Wales is not a public figure? I disagree -- he:
- is the best known leader of the world's most widely viewed source of original content
- has had his photograph used in that site's fund-raising for many years in a row
- has appeared in numerous international news and entertainment media -- TV, radio, etc.
- is (or was, I'm not sure) an adviser to the UK government
- has posed for advertisements and fashion spreads in major magazines
- much of the above has occurred since he was first assumed to meet English Wikipedia's notability standard many years ago
- etc. To me this makes him not merely a "semi-public" figure, but one of the very most public figures in existence. So I can't imagine how an analogy to me or (nearly) any other Wikipedian could possibly pertain. I do understand that if you disagree about his status as a public figure, your position makes sense; but I find that premise very, very far out of line with reality.
- As for "legitimate political statements" -- I agree that's a sufficient condition for keeping a file, but it's hardly a necessary one. There are many instances where there's no political statement involved. The "Streisand Effect" and "Nailin' Paylin" examples above, for instance. -Pete F (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- But you forgot that he is an active Wikimedian, and these types of insults force him to refrain from doing his voluntary work in Commons. Strictly speaking, any violation of ToU#4 is eligible for a global lock, so better for us to quickly and silently remove such contents to avoid further controversies.
- As far as I know, this file can be deleted by any member on Board other than Jimmy; better we ourselves do it instead of forcing them to do so. :) Jee 06:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- (ec with Zhuyifei1999) I don't think that when a public figure is also an active Wikimedian we should therefore apply stricter rules to writing about that person (even though, of course, this video does not really communicate any message about Jimmy Wales). Responding to User:Saffron Blaze, I of course cannot speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't have a problem with such a video of a painting of myself existing (even on Commons); I might have a problem with being identified (anywhere, on an otherwise unproblematic photo or on such a video) on a description page but that part isn't really applicable to a public figure whose Wikimedia identity and visual likeness is well-known. darkweasel94 10:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Of course I did not forget that he is an active Wikimedia contributor, but I don't think that fact is a legitimate basis for making a decision. Certainly we should not tolerate harassment, but I do not think harassment has occurred. Just because he says the existence of a file constitutes harassment, does not make it so. (Barbra Streisand felt that the publication of a photo constituted an unacceptable violation of her privacy, and backed up that belief with a $50,000,000 lawsuit; but even so, the courts disagreed.) If somebody were repeatedly posting the video to his talk page, tendentiously adding it to his biography in the face of a clear consensus not to, that would be harassment. But declining to delete a file from a repository with many millions of files? I do not see how it constitutes harassment, or how it prevents him from working on this site in any number of ways that would not expose him to it. -Pete F (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pete F, the part you missed was the issue of consent and this combined with no meaningful attempt at satire or political commentary made the file nothing more than a troll and should have been deleted immediately. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- FFS, will people stop engaging in misinformation, it is making people look ridiculously stupid. What consent is needed? The answer, inline with the CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence that Jimmy himself placed the file under as the copyright holder, that is all the consent that is required. And Saffron, I would appreciate it if you could stop with the arseholish comments about me being a troll. russavia (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia, I don't think that's quite true. CC BY-SA addresses copyright, but not personality rights. Choosing such a license does indicate some awareness of possible future use, but it's not so clear cut as to say that he consented to any and all future use; and presumably he would have grounds to take legal action if some use violated his personality rights. Also, we at Commons are not obliged to host everything that is legal; establishing that it's legal is important, but not sufficient. However, I agree with you that Saffron Blaze is not making a good case, and as previous deletion reviews concluded, his opinion that it is "nothing more than a troll" is at best a minority view.
- While it is important to establish consent/release of personality rights in cases that involve ordinary users, it is less of a consideration with public figures. I think that is an essential part of the reason that we host images and articles to which public figures like Barbra Streisand, Sarah Palin, and Alan Derschowitz would surely object, and I don't see a compelling difference in this case. -Pete F (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I refer to this bit in the CC license "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation." If making that video did not violate this aspect of the license I don't know what would. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jimmy Wales is not the author, but I'll leave that aside as it might be considered a mere technicality. How is his honor or reputation impacted? This is a good illustration of why the public figure consideration is important: he has a strong and well established reputation, and it's well beyond the ability of a single artist to impact it my simply making yet another adaptation of a work that is widely used and reused in derivative works. Saffron Blaze, what person -- real or hypothetical -- do you imagine would have a lower opinion of Jimmy Wales for having watched this video? Also: can you please state clearly, do you believe Jimmy Wales is a public figure or not? -Pete F (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I refer to this bit in the CC license "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation." If making that video did not violate this aspect of the license I don't know what would. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again, this comment reveals Russavia's ignorance on "other rights." (See an old example.) Here the concern is on moral rights as Saffron Blaze quoted above. CC 4.0 made some amendments which is a bit ambiguous to me; that I clarified later. Here the original work is interesting as here Jimmy is the Subject and Original Author as per the work for hire contract. One more interesting thing is that the license was very vague when the Pricasso's work was executed; cleared later, only after the closing of the last DR.
- All these arguments are on legal grounds, not at all required while considering a courtesy deletion request to favor the feelings of a fellow editor per the new WMF resolution. Jee 07:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Saffron Blaze, you contend that Jimmy Wales is not a public figure? I disagree -- he:
- Keep No new reason for delete has been brought up, it also does not violate the changed BLP policy which was falsely cited to bring up this DR up again (and to feed some trolls from en wiki now hoping to get this deleted). --Denniss (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Denniss, nihil sub sole novum. --Nemo 07:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I have removed two personal attacks against myself which refer to myself being a troll; not only does it degrade arguments that commentators may be making, but it is not civil discourse and making personal attacks against individuals is not on. russavia (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I removed one personal attack against somebody else. Jee 08:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have blocked the IP for a month. russavia (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have restored Saffron's fair comment on the act of commissioning/uploading this work. You may find it offensive/uncomfortable and people may disagree with it but it is valid. It is only a personal attack if directed at the person. Good people can do stupid things. I've removed Denniss's personal attack on anyone joining the discussion from en wp. Russavia should recuse himself from any admin actions concerning this issue. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Redacting a comment is not an admin action. darkweasel94 11:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I know. But he has also blocked an IP and threatened to block Saffron if he repeats the act. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Redacting a comment is not an admin action. darkweasel94 11:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I removed one personal attack against somebody else. Jee 08:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Keep per above comments: this image does not violate anybody's personal privacy (except possibly Pricasso's, who however clearly consented to having this on Commons). Human dignity has been taken into account (or at least repeatedly mentioned by delete !voters) in all the previous DRs (taking into account does not necessarily require deletion), and in any case has long been in COM:IDENT#Moral_issues. I don't think anything in the new BLP resolution changes anything here. However, I've a question: would it be acceptable to the delete !voters if all references to Jimmy Wales were edited out (i.e. the photo, the introduction), and it would be reuploaded under a new filename+description? In that case one does not need to know anymore who is depicted there. If not, what should at the minimum be able to be kept is a version where everything where a substantial portion of the final product is visible is edited out, because then even a viewer who knows Jimmy Wales's likeness will not associate it with him. If the outcome here is, against all expectations, to delete, I'll happily create either of these edits depending on what the community finds an acceptable balance between educational usefulness and compliance with its interpretation of the revised BLP resolution. darkweasel94 10:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I know (from my memories on visiting his site a few months ago), Pricasso is famous (?) for making instant portraits of people sitting willingly in front of him. So this video and portrait have little educational value in documenting his work. Jee
- According to the sources online Pricasso is making portraits in two ways: looking at the person sitting in front of him or looking at the picture of the person who he is making a portrait of. All painters can make portraits in these two ways, so yes, it has educational value. If an artist makes portraits then one can order a portrait of another person (as a surprise, a gift). Only a photo must be provided for the artist. I saw it last summer during an art exposition. Seleucidis (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seleucidis, thanks for correcting me; but I still think the EV is very limited as portraying from a photograph is not his main area of interest. Moreover, I don't think he too prefer this (as a gentleman), as there are many other non controversial/consented works available with him, including a mayor from South Africa. Jee 11:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, if you can get him to release a more non-controversial video under a free license, I think we will all be very happy and grateful, and the premises for this discussion will be very different - I at least will probably no longer !vote keep (nor delete, I'll be fairly neutral). I already suggested that in the very first deletion request. darkweasel94 19:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Will try; but not obliged to it. Moreover, it is easier for many others here, as he is from Australia. :) Jee 03:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, if you can get him to release a more non-controversial video under a free license, I think we will all be very happy and grateful, and the premises for this discussion will be very different - I at least will probably no longer !vote keep (nor delete, I'll be fairly neutral). I already suggested that in the very first deletion request. darkweasel94 19:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seleucidis, thanks for correcting me; but I still think the EV is very limited as portraying from a photograph is not his main area of interest. Moreover, I don't think he too prefer this (as a gentleman), as there are many other non controversial/consented works available with him, including a mayor from South Africa. Jee 11:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- According to the sources online Pricasso is making portraits in two ways: looking at the person sitting in front of him or looking at the picture of the person who he is making a portrait of. All painters can make portraits in these two ways, so yes, it has educational value. If an artist makes portraits then one can order a portrait of another person (as a surprise, a gift). Only a photo must be provided for the artist. I saw it last summer during an art exposition. Seleucidis (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I know (from my memories on visiting his site a few months ago), Pricasso is famous (?) for making instant portraits of people sitting willingly in front of him. So this video and portrait have little educational value in documenting his work. Jee
- Keep - We agree that Pricasso is a notable artist, and given that he is painting an image like this, this is clearly one of his methods. Besides, I don't think that it really matters whether you're looking at a live person or a picture, given the point of the video is to show how painting is done. The point is technique, not subject. I stand by my previous closure of this DR - if this were any other artist, we would not be having this conversation, it would obviously be in scope. Similarly, there is no denying that Mr Wales is a public figure - if you appear on The Colbert Report, in magazines, at the top of the 7th most visited website, advise the government, etc etc etc, then I am honestly unsure what else he could do to be a public figure. Perhaps release a country music album and marry a Kardashian? There are no copyright grounds for deletion (see previous DR), there are no scope grounds for deletion, and since Mr Wales is a public figure I do not believe there are any compelling moral grounds for deletion either. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The video doesn't violate the dignity or privacy of mister Jimmy Wales, because it is Pricasso who is naked and not Jimmy Wales. One can only see Jimmy Wales' face. The making of video has educational value – it shows how a portrait in penile art is being made. It is interesting for art students, artists and everybody interested in art, modern trends in art and that is a huge group of people. Up to now Pricasso is the only penile artist on the Earth and yes, he is recognised as an professional artist by art critics. As far as I know the video did not cause any problems by our Wikipedia readers, although the article was on the front page and had many viewers, so it is high time to leave this video in peace. Seleucidis (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep We are not uploading this against the artist's will; Pricasso has selflessly released this video to the public in general by granting exclusive permission for the file's uploading to us. Rarely do we see critically-lauded artists work their craft with their genitals... This provides educational insight as to now penises can be used to paint. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- An adaptation must have same or similar license per the CC BY-SA 3.0 terms; so nothing selfless here. Jee 11:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per AFBorchert above. Also per Jimbo: "It is harassment, it is trolling, and I am deeply disappointed to have to point this out to some people". And per Saffron in this edit. Russavia is not a troll, but the commissioning and uploading of this work can reasonably be interpreted as an "obvious troll". One which Jimbo wisely didn't feed but Commons stupidly fell for. The community should have respectfully and swiftly deleted this video without fuss. The video is different from the resulting portrait, which is a valid keep (though Russavia was appropriately censured by the community for its commissioning and upload). -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – Per my comments at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg. The video is informative and intriguing. It's knowledge, and we can't allow oversentivity stand in knowledge's way. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Addendum (in response to MichaelMaggs' comments about focusing arguments on the WMF resolution): As I've stated in the Santorum discussion, I believe that the WMF resolution conflicts with the principles that the Commons community should value, and the account of "keep" !votes here show that WMF resolution conflicts with the personal beliefs and principles of many of the users here. We can either respect the opinion of the community here or respect a short-sighted resolution, and I believe that it's best for Commons to favor the community's opinion over the resolution. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Almost none of the "keep" votes address the resolution at all so cannot be regarded as a measure of community rejection of that resolution. That they don't address the resolution is more indicative that they have no answer to it that would allow them to maintain their position. Hence a "keep - it is educational" or "keep - it is art" is lacking the necessary comprehensive analysis. I don't actually believe the community is in any position to reject the resolution, only to decide how best to implement it. -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, not worthy the timewasting, really --A.Savin 19:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- See this. Here you didn't like the way another user made an adaptation of your work; so you tried to get deleted it. One of your argument was "Derivative of my photos without prior asking for advice." Jim rejected it saying "Distortion is typical for panoramas. Many of WP's city articles have similar images." You challenged it with words "I place value on contributing decent quality images to Commons. I don't want to have this terrible image with my attributed authorship anywhere." and Jim replied "Since you object so strenuously, you can remove the attribution from your images, but you can't prevent the creation of this derivative work." per the CC waive the attribution requirement clause. You made another DR stating "Discussion with the closing admin is useless." and made the adaptation get deleted by another fellow admin. - I can understand your feelings when one of your work is adapted in a inferior way. Why Jimmy too can't similar feelings? Please don't take it personally; I'm just pointing the contradiction in your POV. Jee 06:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. There was consensus for deletion. If the uploader was against it, or there were otherwise keep arguments, I would probably have had to respect it. Btw, the video we talk about is in use and I don't find it to be a harrassment against Jimbo. --A.Savin 11:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; the uploader understood your feeling; that is the most important fact and difference here. :( Jee 12:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. There was consensus for deletion. If the uploader was against it, or there were otherwise keep arguments, I would probably have had to respect it. Btw, the video we talk about is in use and I don't find it to be a harrassment against Jimbo. --A.Savin 11:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- See this. Here you didn't like the way another user made an adaptation of your work; so you tried to get deleted it. One of your argument was "Derivative of my photos without prior asking for advice." Jim rejected it saying "Distortion is typical for panoramas. Many of WP's city articles have similar images." You challenged it with words "I place value on contributing decent quality images to Commons. I don't want to have this terrible image with my attributed authorship anywhere." and Jim replied "Since you object so strenuously, you can remove the attribution from your images, but you can't prevent the creation of this derivative work." per the CC waive the attribution requirement clause. You made another DR stating "Discussion with the closing admin is useless." and made the adaptation get deleted by another fellow admin. - I can understand your feelings when one of your work is adapted in a inferior way. Why Jimmy too can't similar feelings? Please don't take it personally; I'm just pointing the contradiction in your POV. Jee 06:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Smallbones. I find nothing educational here. --Moonik (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment You may not find anything educational here, but editors on Esperanto Wikipedia do, as the file is clearly in use on that project. russavia (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of that, "no educational value" reasoning has been debated twice, and twice decided to keep. darkweasel94 09:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- The "is educational" opinion is so ridiculous it is at parody level. "We uploaded a video of a guy painting with his penis so that other people who want to paint with their penis can learn how it is done. Next week on WikiForDummies, Russavia uploads a video of him taking a dump so that people who have forgotten how to shit can finally relieve themselves." Carry on making fools of yourselves if you like. -- Colin (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that videos of different species, including Homo sapiens, defecating, would be entirely in scope for Commons. Not sure if/how many we already have (nor particularly interested in checking). darkweasel94 12:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding "educational", I would opine that the educational factor of this video is it showing people that people actually paint with their penises, rather than it showing that it's possible to... This is an appropriate video for Commons, as well as contemporary art enthusiasts alike who which to discuss the cultural influence of penile painting, among other things. And while some may argue that just the finished artwork will do, this video should also stay because it serves as concrete proof that said painting was actually painted with a penis. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- See also this useful news piece, in which Mr. Pricasso states that the videos are supposed to be for proof. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Male infertility is very common in nowadays; so there is nothing wrong if people search for other purposes with their tools. Lack of consent from the Original Author is the only problem here. Jee 12:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- See also this useful news piece, in which Mr. Pricasso states that the videos are supposed to be for proof. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding "educational", I would opine that the educational factor of this video is it showing people that people actually paint with their penises, rather than it showing that it's possible to... This is an appropriate video for Commons, as well as contemporary art enthusiasts alike who which to discuss the cultural influence of penile painting, among other things. And while some may argue that just the finished artwork will do, this video should also stay because it serves as concrete proof that said painting was actually painted with a penis. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that videos of different species, including Homo sapiens, defecating, would be entirely in scope for Commons. Not sure if/how many we already have (nor particularly interested in checking). darkweasel94 12:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- The "is educational" opinion is so ridiculous it is at parody level. "We uploaded a video of a guy painting with his penis so that other people who want to paint with their penis can learn how it is done. Next week on WikiForDummies, Russavia uploads a video of him taking a dump so that people who have forgotten how to shit can finally relieve themselves." Carry on making fools of yourselves if you like. -- Colin (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of that, "no educational value" reasoning has been debated twice, and twice decided to keep. darkweasel94 09:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Intemperate sides discussions and fights that add nothing useful. Please keep discussion strictly to the point of the DR
|
|---|
|
- Please don't say "decided"; we all know "who" and "how" decided. And, I see only your name among the so called "editors on Esperanto Wikipedia." :) Jee 09:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
All the reasons people use to keep this file would make sense to me if the subject of the video/painting had consented to it. The subject of painting made it clear he was offended by his likeness being used this way (from an image he contributed). This is an occasion where human dignity should trump scope. 131.137.245.209 15:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that human dignity should trump scope, so long as this is not then misused by celebrities. Setting a first precedent for "courtesy deletions" by removing a video showing a freely released portrait being made of a WMF board member, based on a recently passed WMF board resolution that the same board member voted on, is an extremely poor strategy which appears highly political; refer to hard cases make bad law.
- At the same time as all this drama around derived works of a freely released photograph of a notable WMF board member (that will continue to be held on Commons whether this video gets deleted or not), a deletion request raised by a non-notable person wishing to remove an unused explicitly sexual photograph of his wife was denied a courtesy deletion and shamefully got no attention from all the good folks getting so worked up in this discussion. Which do you think would have been a better choice by Smallbones to set a case study precedent with that later might have been used to support a review of cases such as this? --Fæ (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, have to support Fae on the fact that not deleting those other images was fundamentally wrong. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Fae for pointing it. Well, the "keep" voter and closing admin are well known; so we can't expect a different result. But glad to see Samuel is looking into it.
- In a related note, Phoebe said "And as I noted, we saw a need to clarify what we intended in the earlier resolution -- not something that can really be determined by community consensus." So the Board intended it earlier and clarified it now. No more discussion is needed in this exactly same matter. Jee 02:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The suggestion below by Seleucidis sounds like a perfect solution to end this drama. I'm sure russavia will vehemently oppose it. --Conti|✉ 21:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per my comments at the earlier deletion discussion. --Andreas JN466 17:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete the video is interesting and educational (it shows how one can use their dick creatively in other ways than one usually does), but the human dignity is of primary importance and should not be overriden because of our mission or anything else. Here it has not been respected. I'd not oppose to such a video if the uploader provides it with the consent of the portraited person. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as per Eleassar. Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It's a really uncomfortable video for me, however, there is no reason to make an exception just because it's Jimmy Wales. Any activity that results in a free and useful multimedia content does not violate our domestic laws can be called trolling?, then trolling is welcome!. For the reasons stated above I believe that if we vote no to keep this video we are applying the law only to some and not for others. For me it is quite clear vote to maintain this image. It is a renowned painter, using a technique uncommon and original. --The Photographer (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to disagree, The Photographer. It seems you destroyed all the goodwill you created through your recent DRs by this single comment. Where you see Jimmy is getting a special treatment? In fact, the truth is entirely opposite. His feelings are neglected because he is famous. My opinion will be same if the victim is you, your girlfriend, or any other fellow Wikimedian. I think many Wikimedians (me, at least) afraid to host their images for the use in user-pages due to these types of insults. Moreover, I decided to refrain from hosting any photograph containing a human being too, due to the exact reason. There may be people like you who are not bothered about the dignity of the subjects, but don't expect the same from all. You can see the comment of another well known people photographer here: "It's a form of harassment. The sole purpose of the painting and the "making of" ist to harass J. Wales. Loading up quite a lot of photos of identifyable people myself, I would never even think about purposely publishing content to embarrass and annoy the one depicted." Sorry, my friend. Jee 05:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- You have used a more logical basis than most. Jimmy is not important here, I did not observe any violation to dignity. Artists use strange techniques, many artists had not even show their works which later became art works we all enjoy. As Miguel Ange nudes Sistine chapel in which they had to be covered. You are welcome --The Photographer (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This "video" is obviously insults Jimbo, the subject. I'd like to think that if a specific living person deemed an image harassment and trolling, it would be deleted. If someone else wants to have this guy, um, paint a picture of them, then sure, go ahead. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 02:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think we would delete the images in Category:Santorum neologism-related images if Rick Santorum complained? I don't think so. Wales should not receive special treatment that would be denied to others based on likes and dislikes. You're either intellectually honest about this sort of thing, or not. And if a consensus were to develop through thoughtful discussion in the community that such images should not be hosted (and PeteF makes some very well-considered arguments above why that might not be a good thing and lead to censorship), then media related to Wales should be the very last of these to be deleted, just to prove to the world that the principles at stake are applied fairly, without discrimination based on whose vanity is being offended. Andreas JN466 04:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- You talk of intellectual honesty then try to draw a parallel between Santorum and Wales? Nothing in that video relates back to anything Wales has ever said or done. It is not satire. The video was commissioned not in protest but rather as a self-serving dig. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Saffron Blaze, unfortunately there have been many protests about Wales relating to pornography. Wales is a very complicated man when it comes to pornography, with many notable public actions in this area, including making money from porn with w:Bomis, and then deleting pornographic art from Wikimedia Commons. See this Signpost Editorial: The Loss of the Moral High Ground. Andreas, have hope ... I have nominated them for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Santorum images. If the Commons community doesnt remove intentionally derogatory media about Santorum, then deleting media about Jimmy because he finds it offensive will be a further loss of any high ground we presume to have had to begin with, and evidence of special treatment for Jimmy Wales. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are you speaking on behalf of russavia now? I ask because your contention is that this video was made to protest Wales's views on pornography. I think you are also disregarding the fact that this video was made with the aid of hosted CC licensed image and there are many of us that think the re-use violates not only certain personality rights but the license itself. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I speak only on my own behalf. I do not know why it was commissioned, and I don't even know if w:commissioned is the right term. I am happy to read more background about that if you can give me links. You say "The video was commissioned not in protest but rather as a self-serving dig." Do you have evidence for that? I do know that it would be very logical for Jimmy to have been selected simply because Jimmy is the public face of Wikipedia. But in addition to that, selecting Jimmy as a subject is rich in satire, due to his complex history regarding porn and censorship. And that there are many people who have protested against Jimmy's misuse of his GodKing status. The Wikipedia bio about this artist says he has done a cock painting of a real monarch, QEII, also without permission I presume. Like beauty, art is in the eye of its beholder. And being famous is not without its costs.
Regarding personality rights, I suggest that you read this thread on the Creative Commons community mailing list in August, initiated by user:Jkadavoor about this video, which includes 1, 2 & 3 replies roundly rejecting your assertion that this re-use violates the license itself. I am surprised that Jkadavoor hasnt corrected you. They dont see that Jimmy or the photographer have any rights that can be used to prevent publication of this video, and all three believe it is satire/parody/art. Those comments are from people who don't have any skin in the race as far as I know. If you have a qualified legal opinion that it violates the license, could you please provide evidence. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think you misconstrue Jee's position on this. Regardless, russavia admitted to commissioning this work and he denied doing it as any form of satire or protest. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks John bringing older posts I involved. Yes; I mentioned it in our earlier discussions and thoroughly discussed with Russavia. I was talking about moral rights (mainly) there; as I too a photographer. You can see no CC people responded to it. They don't respond if the answer is difficult (:D). The people replied there only said that it is difficult to claim violation of moral rights; so difficult to win in courts. It doesn't mean we must accept it in a community where the victim is also participating. Russavia claimed that the Original Author is "Manuel Archain"; so moral rights not applicable here. I clarified that Original Author is the producer in a work for hire contract and he replied "In which case, the photo can be removed from the video. That is easily fixed. russavia (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)" After that I was not available in those discussions due to personal reasons; so didn't know when and why Russavia withdrawed from that offer.
- An explanation on my position here: Since you challenged my stand in this case I would like to give an explanation about my participation in the Commons. I appreciate "free culture"; but not a fan of ignoring people's rights or encroaching into their rights for the sake of "freedom propaganda." As a photographer, I'm well aware of the rights of me and my colleagues. I come to defend whenever I feel it is compromised. This is only one example where I see the rights of the photographer and his subjects are well compromised. You can see at COM:FPC where I shared my concerns earlier. I am going to mention it again there.
- This is not the single case I participated. I discussed with the CC team when Arctic Kangaroo was bloodly attacked and our experts struggled to answer the questions like whether a minor can enter into contract raised.
- You can see an amendment in [12] "For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." which is a response to my question.
- You can see a current case where we are expecting for an answer soon. Jee 03:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I speak only on my own behalf. I do not know why it was commissioned, and I don't even know if w:commissioned is the right term. I am happy to read more background about that if you can give me links. You say "The video was commissioned not in protest but rather as a self-serving dig." Do you have evidence for that? I do know that it would be very logical for Jimmy to have been selected simply because Jimmy is the public face of Wikipedia. But in addition to that, selecting Jimmy as a subject is rich in satire, due to his complex history regarding porn and censorship. And that there are many people who have protested against Jimmy's misuse of his GodKing status. The Wikipedia bio about this artist says he has done a cock painting of a real monarch, QEII, also without permission I presume. Like beauty, art is in the eye of its beholder. And being famous is not without its costs.
John, glad to see the president of Wikimedia Australia himself is landed to defend his friend and boost the auction going parallel. Let me know if you chapter is struggling with lack of funds, may be Wikimedia India can help you.Coming to the point: Here we are not judging the character of the subject. Whether any court declare a rape as not a crime if the victim is a prostitute? Your DR is childish per Wikipedia:POINTy: "If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion...do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale." How long we need to tolerate these types of nonsense? Jee 06:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, John Vandenberg is not on the WMAU Board, let alone President. Your comments here about another editor's life and the business of WMAU are unhelpful and speculative. Your comparison makes it appear that another contributor must support rape of prostitutes, if their point of view is different to yours. This is inflammatory and highly offensive, there is no justification in deriding other contributors using disgusting examples of crimes such as this. Please lay off, you have set yourself up as a champion of morality and civility for Commons, your comments here do not meet those standards. I encourage you to consider striking your ad-hominim comments as an uncharacteristic misjudgement. --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just quoted what is written on his page; and happy to striking off whatever if John asked me to remove. Thanks for quoting me as a "champion of morality and civility for Commons", which not suitable to me. I usually use harsh words against people to whom I have some respects. So you can assume how I see John. Jee 13:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, your comment is wrong on a few levels. I don't mind harsh words, and don't ask that you censor yourself. I initially found your post here to be offensive, as my opinions are not for sale for thirty pieces of silver, but I've gotten over it. I was president only until March 2013. There was a stray mention of 'president' on wmau:User:Jayvdb, which I have now removed. Sorry for any confusion caused by that. As you can see at wmau:Meeting:2013 AGM/Treasurer's Report, WMAU is not struggling with lack of funds. I also don't benefit from WMAU or Wikimedia; in fact it has consistently cost me large amounts of money in expenses and I also fund small projects myself. Finally, I believe it was silly for you to suggest that WMIN could give money to WMAU; that type of expenditure isn't in WMIN's plans. I trust that the WMIN board is not going to use Wikimedia money in ways radically different from their stated activity plan for the next year, and it is inappropriate for you to suggest otherwise here. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just quoted what is written on his page; and happy to striking off whatever if John asked me to remove. Thanks for quoting me as a "champion of morality and civility for Commons", which not suitable to me. I usually use harsh words against people to whom I have some respects. So you can assume how I see John. Jee 13:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, John Vandenberg is not on the WMAU Board, let alone President. Your comments here about another editor's life and the business of WMAU are unhelpful and speculative. Your comparison makes it appear that another contributor must support rape of prostitutes, if their point of view is different to yours. This is inflammatory and highly offensive, there is no justification in deriding other contributors using disgusting examples of crimes such as this. Please lay off, you have set yourself up as a champion of morality and civility for Commons, your comments here do not meet those standards. I encourage you to consider striking your ad-hominim comments as an uncharacteristic misjudgement. --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, John. Could you add these to the deletion request? Most of them seem not to be included, and they are the most egregious (and emetic, to give you due warning) of the lot. Andreas JN466 06:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I replied over on that DR that I would prefer to keep it focused. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- John Vandenberg, I tell you what, you get russavia to admit he made the video as a protest of Jimmy Wales's view on pornography and I will re-evaluate my position on this matter. Otherwise your point has no basis on the evidence. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep After two previous DR this is still place for more drama? Opening a DR (and canvassing by the way) to try to make a point? Or in need of more .... whatever. File is in scope, doesnt violate personality rights of a very public figure, has no copyright problems, is in scope on a very unusual painting technique. Tm (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, per Denniss, and Mattbuck, essentially. Also, Peteforsyth makes some wise comments above which are worth reading, and then re-reading, again. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- The comments by Pete F and Dcoetzee demonstrate that otherwise intelligent people can debate for the wrong side if they put their mind to it. I'm sure that tomorrow they could construct a cogent argument the other way, should they wish to. This isn't a political satire image, nor is it some Hollywood celebrity being foolish. Which part of "human dignity" is this project having problems with? Jimbo got it right when he said "I am deeply disappointed to have to point this out to some people" and now the WMF have pointed it out and made it clear (to those who wouldn't accept it) that BLP applies to all media not just article text. Those who think hosting Russavia's "literally rubbing his face in it" insult towards Jimbo is part of our mission, or hosting a video to help sell a painting at auction is part of our mission, should think again. -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Prr others.--Jebulon (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per Smallbones, AFBorchert and Eleassar. --Myrabella (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No regrets -- --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The only way this nonsense storm that Russavia created will end is when it's all deleted. Fry1989 eh? 19:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- So censorship is the answer? russavia (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh please. This isn't like the Satanic Verses or the Nazi flags or movie with nudity which offend a large group of people in the world for whatever stupid reason and they want to stop others from seeing it. This is a ridiculous storm of controversy that keeps coming up over and over and over, and you created it, and everyone knows why you did it whether they're willing to admit it or not. If I do personal attacks against a user, I'm blocked. You get to hide under the veil of "art" and "free speech" and whatever other excuses that keep being used. I don't care whether Wales was insulted or indifferent, and I don't care whether you truly meant it as an insult or not (even though the consensus of thought about your motives is clear), I'm just tired of this constantly coming back up for discussion. Everyone's tired of it. It adds nothing to the project, this controversy is never going to go away for as long as it's here, so it should just be deleted. Go ask Pricasso to send you the painting in the post, hang it on your mantle for all I care, but it has no place here. Fry1989 eh? 19:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- So censorship is the answer? russavia (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete; I was willing to believe initially that the motives in having this picture created were innocent, but the way that it's brought up at every opportunity to troll Jimbo is enough to stretch beyond any reasonable definition of good faith. It's harassment, plain and simple. Lankiveil (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC).
- Just wondering, who brings it up at every opportunity to troll Jimbo? darkweasel94 10:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Trolls, ofc --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- There have been a lot of unproven assertions in this DR. Could you provide some diffs of this video being used for harassment please, otherwise this will just look like another bad faith allegation to add to the pile? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps offering the video up for aution during this heated debate? 131.137.245.209 14:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- There have been a lot of unproven assertions in this DR. Could you provide some diffs of this video being used for harassment please, otherwise this will just look like another bad faith allegation to add to the pile? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Trolls, ofc --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just wondering, who brings it up at every opportunity to troll Jimbo? darkweasel94 10:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, per Denniss, Mattbuck, and Peteforsyth. INeverCry 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think we all know who I mean and what I'm talking about so I won't bother to repeat that. The "latest" occasion would obviously be the offering of the painting up for auction. Lankiveil (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC).
- Keep. There is interest from multiple Wikimedia projects in the artist and his work process; this movie is unique in being available under a free license, and therefore has value to our readers. An important part of what Commons does is to offer media that supplements information presented by other WM projects. That value is, of course, something to be considered alongside the rights of the various people impacted, notably including the personality rights of the subject of the painting. In this case, we know that the subject of the painting objects to the publication of the painting and the video, so there is tension between the two considerations; there are both reasons to keep, and to delete. Two considerations stand out to me:
- The subject is a public figure. Under the law and also journalism ethics, this establishes a much higher standard for any impact to his personality rights.
- The subject is well known in our community. Are we dispassionate and even-handed in how we accommodate the wishes of individuals? For a project with high aims -- which certainly pertains to Wikimedia -- this is a vitally important question. Do we aim to do something serious, or are we a club where insider status enables special treatment? Many examples discussed above make it clear that public figures are frequently powerless to remove undesirable material that concerns them from our projects. As long as that is the case, we should be very, very cautious about affording special treatment like a courtesy deletion to a prominent member of our community. One thing that we typically require in the case of a courtesy deletion is that there be a clear and unambiguous request. We don't even have that in this case -- only expressions of displeasure.
- There is nothing new in this nomination. The Board's was wise to update the resolution in this way, but in this case the relevant issues have been considered in previous deliberations. One thing that might shift the consideration would be a clear statement from Jimmy Wales, addressing both his preference on whether this file itself should be kept or deleted, and establishing context by discussing how he thinks the relevant principles ought to be applied to the various similar cases brought up by myself and others in the discussion above. Unless and until we hear something more from him, I don't think there's anything further to discuss here. -Pete F (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- You seem somewhat dismissive of the fact the two previous DR were controversially closed while votes were leaning towards delete. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- And you seem exceptionally persistent. But our purpose here isn't to discuss each other, but the decision in question. -Pete F (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- There have been very clear statements from Jimbo that he'd like to have these images deleted and considers them harassment, if I remember correctly. --Conti|✉ 00:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- As to what is "harassment", that is debatable. We are not going to delete every single file relating to Jimbo just because he wants them to be gone. We must look at things from a neutral perspective. Right now, this file should stay, regardless of who uploaded it, because it provides useful educational insight regarding how penises can substitute the conventional paintbrushes, and it is also within scope. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I can see some significance in Evolutionary biology and Transmutation of species. It is quite natural that an organism tries to find a different usage if an organ is not suitable for its natural functions. As I said above, lack of consent is the only issue here. Jee 06:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- As to what is "harassment", that is debatable. We are not going to delete every single file relating to Jimbo just because he wants them to be gone. We must look at things from a neutral perspective. Right now, this file should stay, regardless of who uploaded it, because it provides useful educational insight regarding how penises can substitute the conventional paintbrushes, and it is also within scope. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You seem somewhat dismissive of the fact the two previous DR were controversially closed while votes were leaning towards delete. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Like Fae and others, I am quite concerned about the WMF board resolutions first use being to remove an image of a WMF board member, as I suspect the many contributors are commenting here only because it is Jimmy, and they will not bother to exert any effort on other living people in similar predicaments. I agree in principle with the free speech aspects, but recognising the WMF board resolution, and based on my analysis of unpublished art of living people on Commons, I believe Commons should limit the number of these media files, and extend courtesy deletion whenever the media is not sufficiently notable. This media depicts a living person, who objects to it. The painting has only a small amount of notability in its own right, as there are a few stories about it, but they are minor rags, and the 'making of' video isnt notable in its own right. Maybe someone could extract the educational parts of the video that don't depict Jimmy Wales and upload them, or we can ask Pricasso to provide another video of his art with either the subjects explicit approval or a subject that is not a living person. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing a well reasoned rationale for deletion. -Pete F (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per John Vandenberg. Thanks John. Jee 07:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - Russavia was trolling when he uploaded it. Per John Vandenberg and per all reasons of personal dignity and common sense. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't like this situation; my main worry is that it may be too late, that all the controversy over this is working out to notability. If we presume Pricasso has sufficiently low notability, we should throw this out in an instant. But I worry this could go Essjay on us if we (or, for that matter, Russavia) aren't careful. This was a horribly bad idea by Russavia, an extreme situation that needs either dealt with cleanly or left well enough alone. This could so easily blow up on us. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- It would be very self important to assume that a bit of on-project drama would generate notability. Don't worry about that. --Dschwen (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Apart from the OMG It's violating Jimbo's dignity and it's trolling him hard! comments, I don't see any policy based reason to delete the video. I honestly am neutral about it and have yet to see it (I feel completely uninterested about this or the painting), but I believe that everyone just thinks about Jimbo (who actually does close to nothing content wise) and his dignity, and we then send Russavia (who has done a lot) into the flames just because he and Jimbo have a two-party dispute we have no place in. I don't really care who's right; I just see that this body of work meets Commons' inclusion criteria. — ΛΧΣ21 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is an example of a notable artist's unusual technique. Even if the public figure depicted in the artist's piece finds it objectionable, this does not inherently mean it should be deleted. Nothing in the modified resolution says media should be deleted just for offending a living person.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per trolling / harassment. James Heilman, MD (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per others. --Joydeep Talk 07:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I still (as during the DR in August) consider the painting itself as well as the "making of" as purposeful harassment. It doesn't really matter if such an action is directed aganst J.Wales or someone else, though the background of controversial discussions between Russavia and him before this painting was comissioned and made adds to my rejection of it. In any case I consider it of an abuse of Commons. This is a media repository for educational material in the broadest sense, not for personal offenses, no matter who is targeted. --Tsui (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's over the line to actually host this video as it is very demeaning to it's subjects, as a visual depiction of them and a penis. No matter how you look at it, even with any other subject, the video itself has a demeaning quality that the subject would naturally perceive as an uncomfortable situation. I seriously see more than a small amount of bullying that the video represents. We do need to begin to understand how we portray people effects them and that a reasonable request needs to be addressed per: "Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same. "--Amadscientist (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per "Jimbo's statement" and per Mattbuck. The artist is mentionabel and this movie could very well be used to demonstrates his techniques. When you are in a position like Jimmy Walace things like this happen. I don't see him complaining about the video here. And so what? A professional artist made a painting of him and he uses a unique techneque. This file is kept twice before and it is up for deletion again? Come on. It is definatly in scope. Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I think John Vandenberg has made a compelling argument that the negatives outweigh the positives. I'll add that there a lot of other subjects (of much broader interest) that Commons doesn't adequately illustrate (at the moment) because of the very conservative principles on which it is based. I think it's appropriate to extend the same level of precaution that we apply to suspected copyright violations to the dignity of living people. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as harassment/BLP violation and violating a Foundation resolution that they had to reword because some people didn't get it the first time. PS: It doesn't matter that Jimmy is a public figure. There's a difference between attacking someone in their public capacity and having a personal dispute. If someone had insulted the President because the President had given him a low tip on a restaurant bill, we shouldn't publish that either, unless the restaurant bill became a major news story. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Pete Forsyth has knocked the nail on the head very succinctly. russavia (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have re-read his comments to try and understand what you were holding on to and fail to see it. Peter remarks himself he does not feel strongly about whether to keep or delete the file. I read his comments with interest because they were reasoned and principled but they did not dissuade me from a delete vote. I felt he drew too much from other examples that only superficially have a nexus with this case. The Streisand issue was one of privacy while this is more about personality rights and protecting the dignity of the subjects of freely licensed works. In the Santorum case it is more a question of notability versus scope. I think we agree that "agenda" censorship is not the issue in any of these cases. If you had used your own image to be the poster child of penis painters around the world this entire discussion would not be happening. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. It's hilarious, but I'm not convinced this has any real educational value. -FASTILY 05:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fastily, do you think that Piss Christ has educational value? -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cirt you are constantly trying to frame this as an issue of censorship. It's not. Are we to become our own self-licking ice cream cone generating art for the purposes of an internal Wikimedia reality TV show? Piss Christ created world wide controversy and it was from a well known artist. Wikipedia documents that controversy; it didn't create it. Moreover, even if you have Jesus living in your heart, I am sorry to say he is not covered by the BLP resolution. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cirt, could you give me a link of File:Piss Christ by Serrano Andres (the making of).ogv? Jee 07:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- This binary "has/hasn't" choice wrt "educational value" is very unhelpful in this or any deletion discussion. It should be one of those "things to avoid in deletion discussions" that Wikipedia has. Everything has degrees. "Educational value" isn't even a 2-D spectrum but can be looked at from many angles and weighed in different ways. The question is whether the remarkably low value to this project in terms of educational use outweighs the other concerns. Anyone who thinks this has high or even moderate educational value is just making a mockery of those terms. Diagrams of the solar system, periodic tables, pictures of Darwin, photographs of prime ministers, these are high educational value. Some calibration please. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, as before, since if anything the amended resolution strengthens the case for deletion. --Avenue (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. It is educational, there are very little (if any) similar files. Someone not liking this portrait is not a sufficient condition for censorship. - FakirNL (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you didn't look even on the header? Here we are reviewing an OGV file; no portraits. Jee 03:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The deletion rationale is still flawed - the video does not in any way misrepresent or denigrate anyone, fairly or unfairly. The error here is that some people want to portray certain subjects as intrinsically wrong, which is and remains censorship. If I thought censoring this was OK, why on Earth would I not support eradicating any footage of someone burning Hu Jintao in effigy or a political cartoon about Barack Obama, things which are directly insulting and demeaning? Wikipedia is teetering on the brink here of committing to become a place whose only purpose is for amateur PR shills to duke it out over who controls the site for their own purposes. Wnt (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- OBVIOUS KEEP, & the fact that we are having this "discussion" AGAIN & AGAIN makes a joke of commons DR procedures. it is not ok to just keep REPEATING a DR until you get the outcome you "want". close, & BLOCK future DRs of this item.
- we should also consider banning the nominator from future DRs, for demonstrating amazingly POOR JUDGEMENT.
- as regards the "special committee" being formed to handle the close. looking at the vote-count & the debate this is either a "keep" or a "no consensus", but THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN GET A "CONSENSUS TO DELETE" out of this discussion. the admins on this "extraordinary judiciary" should keep that in mind.
- respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously not respectful & obviously THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN GET A "CONSENSUS TO KEEP" --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The video appears more intent on disparagement than on elucidating a valid artistic expression, and, as such, is damaging to the Wikimedia projects as a whole. And that which damages the projects is not "auto-keep" for "no consensus" - any closer well ought to note the policy based arguments here, including the issues of disparagement to a person and damage to Wikimedia projects. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Jimbo is obviously hurt by this video. While he may be a borderline public figure, he is sort of special for us/Commons/WMF projects, due to being the founder of all this, which is independant of whether we personally like him of not. He, therefore, deserves a bit better "treatment" than any unrelated public figure. However, by hosting this video he seems to be treated worse than any other simple community member, which would be granted an immediate deletion for such material about him/herself. (That doesn't mean that I buy the accusation that it was uploaded with mal intent.)
In addition, as others have noted already, this file has been the reason for a lot of (verbal) aggression among Commons users and has potential for a lasting damage to the community. It's enough already. --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC) - Keep Argument seems to be based on this would somehow violate Jimmy Wales' dignity, I simply don't see how that can be true. It is a comment, much like the Obama Joker poster, only this time done through the process of creating a painting which by itself is interesting and educational. People seem to be granting special privilege to Jimmy Wales which they shouldn't do. Axb3 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Alternate solution suggested by Seleucidis
[edit]See the suggestion by Seleucidis as a win-win option. Jee 13:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting response by russavia to this proposal. Sell the painting in an auction to draw more attention to the movie. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is enough for sanctioning a global block/ban against him. Hope the Board will look into it. :( Jee 03:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia is doing so for a good cause – that is, to raise funds for WMAU and Wikimedia Commons... Why don't we AGF? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is enough for sanctioning a global block/ban against him. Hope the Board will look into it. :( Jee 03:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I just took a look at this auction site. I agree with JEE that this is enough for a global ban against Russavia. Despite the tiny print that says this is not related to the WMF, pages and pages of full size print strongly suggest the opposite. The use of Jimbo's name in the response email can only be described as impersonation and intentional trolling. Selling the video along with painting just compounds the problems here. I will inform Jimbo and the WMF. Smallbones (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have contacted a person by WMF and asked if it is possible for WMF to pay the price of a new neutral picture (an Australian landscape) and video showing the making of it in order to replace the controversial video. I have also asked to place the answer from WMF here, on this page. Seleucidis (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure many people would be delighted to have their portrait painted. The artist specializes in portraits so a landscape would be oddly unrepresentative. Add my name to the list if you are short of ideas. --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have proposed a landscape, because firstly Pricasso also paints landscapes (not only portraits and nude) and secondly to avoid problems with personal permissions and copy rights and thirdly I predicted that there might be a lot of wikipedians willing to be portrayed by Pricasso for free and get their image into an article, so we would start quarrelling and fighting again about who must be the chosen one:-) Seleucidis (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure many people would be delighted to have their portrait painted. The artist specializes in portraits so a landscape would be oddly unrepresentative. Add my name to the list if you are short of ideas. --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, your "win-win solution" is no solution at all. If we have a second image, what does that mean? Simple: Commons has two artworks to defend! The anti-censorship position does not permit giving up either one. Also, while I of course welcome contributions from any acknowledged artist, I don't think the WMF should be paying them to do it; at least, not unless it is some comprehensive scheme to obtain an archive with a lot of value for the money that doesn't leave people scratching their heads as to why they hired this. Wnt (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Inter-editor fights
|
|---|
Colin's "taking a dump" fantasy[edit]Could a administrator of this project explain why Colin's fantasy of publishing a video of Russavia "taking a dump" is not a direct personal attack and an incident worth an immediate edit block? I believe that describing anyone who inserts nasty comments like these in DRs as a troll is entirely appropriate and accurate. --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
"(a.k.a Silly "him" vs. "himself" epic showdown)" added to this section title by User:Bonkers The Clown and removed as unhelpful. --Fæ (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, unless you are an alien of some sort, I cannot imagine why you would think that uploading a video of one taking a dump is something wrong. Don't you take a dump at least once a day? Such videos clearly illustrate how a homo sapien sapien defaecates... We have very educational videos of horses, cats, dogs, fishes, bugs, monkeys, and others "taking a dump". Why the exemption with humans? Seek to look from an educational perspective. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This is so funny and I forgot to buy popcorn. Oh, thanks Darkweasel94. Yum. I actually thought someone might be more likely to take offence at the "Carry on making fools of yourselves if you like" comment, but you guys have just supplied me a whole load of diffs for evidence should that be required. What's even more ironic about this "taking a dump" educational video fantasy is that I've actually "taken the piss" and got it featured on Wikipedia. Have a great weekend folks. -- Colin (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Hey! who stole the popcorn? -- Colin (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Tis a bit odd that the people complaining about other's behavior have no qualms stating that what others are doing is stupid. 131.137.245.209 20:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC) |
Discussions about alleged edit warring, unrelated to the substance of this DR
|
|---|
Edit warring by Russavia[edit]Russavia is edit warring to remove valid but uncomfortable comments on his actions in commissioning and uploading this video. First here where he removes Saffron's comment along with another which was indeed a personal attack. Second here where he again remoevs Saffron's comment that I had restored. Saffron's remark that the commissioning and uploading of this video, and the work itself, was an "obvious troll" is fair comment and a valid one to make regarding the BLP issues raised. Russavia claims (in the edit comment) this "insinuates that I am a troll" which is simply false and designed to make this look like a personal attack for which block might result. I suggest Russavia puts "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)" in his Christmas wish list. The reaction to people saying someone did a stupid or illegal or immoral or trollish (or any other bad thing one might do) thing is naturally "but I'm not stupid, I'm not a criminal, I have morals, I'm not a troll, etc, etc". It is a fundamental mistake and makes one go on the attack to defend one's perception of self. Good people do shitty things. Deal with it. This is a lame attempt to use policy to suppress free expression of comment on behaviour and actions. The edit should be restored and Russavia censured for this abuse. -- Colin (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Arguing the video was produced without any inkling it would cause controversy would be bankrupt of any connection with reality. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussions about editor blocking, also unrelated to the substance of this DR
|
|---|
|
Admin warning about behaviour on this thread, and discussion about the warning
|
|---|
Warning[edit]Once again, this discussion has turn to a fight. Consider this a fair warning. No more personal attacks or trolling. Please stay on target: Is this file in scope ? Is there any educational value in this video ? Every other consideration on persons or anything else will be dealt with with extreme prejudice. To be fair, my pointer has hovered over several block buttons since yesterday. I'm currently in a horse competition, doing photographies for the greater good, you know, the free culture, that thing that motivates us to spend time here and on the field. I won't have time to monitor this page closely today, but I will look at the history on Sunday. Now, to all of you. Stop trolling, calling other names and pointing fingers. Take a deep breath, step away from the computer, go outside, take some photos, read a book, participate constructively in this wonderful adventure. Pleclown (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I feel like a teacher in kindergarden. Watching you running around, threatening and insulting each others, coming to the teacher to point the finger at another one. I've said every step aside from the discussion would be "dealt with with extreme prejudice". Yet, you didn't stop a single moment to think. None of you. I've pondered what I should do. Blocking every single last one of you have crossed my mind. Several times. But this would be adding drama to the drama. So I will take my own advice. Take a deep breath, and step away from my computer, in the real world. I won't block anyone, I won't !vote on this DR, I will remove it from my watchlist. Because, as a wise man said once, "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". Pleclown (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Falling for anything
[edit]The keep-defence here is lame beyond parody. For those voting keep, it seems the threshold is merely that if it is legal then it is in scope. And plenty on Commons take delight in something that slights the "enemy". For one can construct an "educational" argument for any image or video, especially a self-referential educational argument, which is the weakest of all. It is deeply unhelpful to consider the world black or white. I saw this with the "a free licence is a free licence" chanting at another debate. It is not an argument of any utility. An orange is an orange. So what. All content informs one about something. So let's move away from an is it or isn't it argument about educational. One must balance several factors. The question is whether the extremely weak educational argument for this image outweighs the BLP issues. To my mind it clearly does not. The second flawed argument made whenever a DR is controversial is censorship. This card is played whenever Commons struggles to exercise any kind of judgement. If one's only argument for keeping an image is that removing it would be censorship then one has no argument at all. Commons is not an ark of all freely-licensed content, though I believe some think it is. We do not need to host everything. My third concern is that Commons is now being used to promote the sale of artwork and raise the profile of a relatively unknown artist. That Russavia is donating the proceeds of his auction back to WMF is irrelevant. We aren't an image repository for ebay (or equivalents) yet we are hosting a "making of" video that is being used to promote an auction of the associated portrait.
Pleclown above misses the point. This video is itself an attack, both a personal attack on Jimbo and an attack on Commons. For our continued hosting of this video gives ammunition to those who say we are broken. We should take care to pick our battles and defend truly educational media. Instead we have been shown to be fools who fall for anything and can be taken for a ride. -- Colin (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Colin, I disagree: offering special treatment to one of the founders of Wikipedia that is not available to public figures who are not as well connected in our community is the thing that would be "broken" -- i.e., lacking in integrity and fairness, and blind to the importance of operating in a dispassionate and responsible way. -Pete F (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think you have that backwards. If the painting/video was of any other public figure it would have likely been deleted by now. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- What if... It was a self-portrait of Pricasso himself? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think you have that backwards. If the painting/video was of any other public figure it would have likely been deleted by now. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
If I wanted to create an educational video about painting with a penis I would have chosen a subject that would consent to it before I commissioned it. Regardless, the video exists, its subject objects, yet we keep it because it is in scope. That's like condoning the conducting of medical experiments on uninformed people then arguing we should use the research because it is valuable despite the harm it caused. It's a universally bankrupt position. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Censorship
[edit]Cirt posted to the talk page a link to the book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. For some, this image/video raises freedom of speech and censorship concerns. Below is the response I gave when Cirt posted the same link to the Santorum deletion talk page. I think it is still relevant here.
- Commons is not a repository of all freely licensed media. If it were, then restrictions other than licence/copyright concerns might reasonably be regarded as censorship. In addition, this content is not being deleted by government. The terms of what we choose to host are a combination of WMF and community decision making. Just as any publisher decides what to publish, and also what not to publish, or curator decides what to handle themselves and what leave for others. This right to choose not to publish is a valuable as the right to publish, lest one be forced to publish government propaganda or false information. So be careful with playing the censored card, in case you are actually denying another his or her right to refuse. There is nothing stopping someone setting up another website to host this content. You have that choice. Rejoice in that choice. That's freedom.
I'm exercising my right to say "no". I don't think we should publish a video uploaded by one user/person in which another user/person is insulted in this manner. This is against our Terms of Use as well as the recently reinforced resolution on BLP concerns. Russavia may host the video on another site and that is his freedom. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- According to the opinion of former Mayor of Cape Town Helen Zille, the artwork is an expression by artist Pricasso of his freedom of speech. -- Cirt (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposal to close this DR due to alleged off-wiki actions by the nominator, side-discussions and fights about that
|
|---|
Propose to close due to off-wiki actions by the nominator[edit]As Smallbones has decided to canvass using his personal contacts with senior WMF management, and is actively attempting to invoke non-standard processes outside of Commons,[14][15] and get the WMF to start taking threatening action against participants of this discussion which would over-rule this DR, I propose this DR is now considered equivalent to withdrawn. From the outset this DR appeared a political action by Smallbones, his actions today make that appearance a certainty. If the WMF Board of Trustees wish to run this project directly, I suggest they start by handling the backlog of DRs and queries on OTRS rather than leaving to us incompetent volunteers. --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If Pleclown's finger isn't getting itchy right above "User:Fæ" just now then I consider his threat empty. Enough politics and nonsense. It is time this project grew up and moved on, without this video. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This video is wiki politics. It is literally rubbing Jimbo's face in it. Those voting keep are either playing that game (and so will say anything to keep it) or have been duped into being pawns in the game. So Fae's comments here should be seen for what they are. Further politics. Can we please rise above the "We can't and won't do any more than the bare minimum of policy" standard. Our opinions on this video matter. Policy and guidance is built on best-practice and community opinion, not the other way round. Any attempt to write some new policy would be discussed in full knowledge that this is a potential target -- catch 22. No, the community should establish which images and videos cross the line, and then frame policy (if required) round where the line rests. So here is where the community is saying enough of the silly games and frat-boy jokes. This discussion is about all aspects of hosting the video on Commons (which include the motives for uploading and keeping it), and not about Smallbones. -- Colin (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
These extraneous DRs are an attempt to derail this dicussion. They could be used as a perfect example of bad faith practice. It is sad to see people who would rather set blaze to the whole project rather than lose this obvious troll. 131.137.245.206 13:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
|
A look at this using logic
[edit]Jimbo has said that "It is harassment, it is trolling, and I am deeply disappointed to have to point this out to some people". This statement could be either true or false. I doubt it is false, as that would imply that 1)Jimbo does not know whether or not he is being harassed (most likely, this can't be the case) or 2)Jimbo is attempting to mislead us (which, aside from obvious reasons, can't be because he would not try to get it deleted if he didn't object to it). Judging by this, it's clear that the claims of harassment are true. Harassment is not allowed and, at least on Wikipedia (and hopefully here) should be deleted. Harassment is also blockable here on Commons, meaning that the uploader should be blocked. --Jakob (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure logic works that way, especially when it comes to vaguely defined terms such as harassment. --Conti|✉ 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Directly relevant opinions only beneath this heading, please. No more attacks.
[edit]The admin who closes this will no doubt want to see what editors have to say on the specific new point raised by this DR, namely "Violates the Foundation's revised BLP resolution [19]. In particular this video violates "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information and/or media, especially in articles or images of ephemeral or marginal interest"". So far as the revised resolution raises a new issue, that can reasonably form the basis of the opening of this new DR. There is little point in re-stating old positions that have already been considered in recent DRs, and there is even less point in re-stating old animosities. More editors with focused and reasoned opinions, please! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Side discussions about some other paintings that could have been made (but were not)
|
|---|
|
Jimbo's statement
[edit]What I have been wondering for quite a while now: If Jimbo is so very bugged about this, why didn't he bother to come over here for at least a short statement? One might get the impression that he doesn't really care as much as some people think we have to infer from his initial statement. --El Grafo (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh great, looks like I've started another round :-/ Sorry, that was not my intention at all. --El Grafo (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- +1 russavia (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that Jimbo has decided not to participate in the nth discussion of this subject means absolutely nothing. We can speculate all day (my guess is that after the backfiring of his great porn-purge his motivation to get personally involved on commons is approximately zero). Ultimately this like of thinking is unproductive. Let's just say plenty of people here have it on good authority that he is not thrilled about this whole mess. And there is plenty of on-wiki evidence for this (just go to his talk page). Denying that at this point is quite ridiculous. --Dschwen (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why? See DNFTT. He said "It is harassment, it is trolling, and I am deeply disappointed to have to point this out to some people" He's said all he needs to say, and it is deeply puzzling why we've wasted to many bytes falling for the troll and that some people still don't get it. That Russavia's been denied further recognition from his subject (and clearly wants it per the above +1) is about the only sane result in this sorry affair. It would be most surprising if he was naive and foolish enough to think participating here or saying more would help in any way. -- Colin (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- He's said all he needs to say? Really? Did you know that I would be well within my rights to sue the pants of Jimmy if I were so inclined. Remember that it is Jimmy who regards these projects as a workplace, and he has publicly accused me of sexual harrassment, without any solid evidence to back it up. In the real world that is called libel. And in the real world, we wouldn't have the peanut gallery and fanboys like we have surrounding this issue, it would be me and him. And things such as this ("I'm actually just a talk page troll.") would be introduced into evidence. As would the multitude of witnesses I would be calling who have been publicly defamed by Jimmy. And then we have his numerous boneheaded tirades against many in the Commons community, and against the community itself, because people in the community dared to question him. So cut it out Colin, Jimmy is far from innocent. Don't like what I have to say? Stiff shit. russavia (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you work here? Cool. --Conti|✉ 23:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- He's said all he needs to say? Really? Did you know that I would be well within my rights to sue the pants of Jimmy if I were so inclined. Remember that it is Jimmy who regards these projects as a workplace, and he has publicly accused me of sexual harrassment, without any solid evidence to back it up. In the real world that is called libel. And in the real world, we wouldn't have the peanut gallery and fanboys like we have surrounding this issue, it would be me and him. And things such as this ("I'm actually just a talk page troll.") would be introduced into evidence. As would the multitude of witnesses I would be calling who have been publicly defamed by Jimmy. And then we have his numerous boneheaded tirades against many in the Commons community, and against the community itself, because people in the community dared to question him. So cut it out Colin, Jimmy is far from innocent. Don't like what I have to say? Stiff shit. russavia (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I've hatted this - looks pretty close to material that was requested to be left out Smallbones (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Smallbones hatted this section. Tm has undone that and I agree as I'd rather someone more neutral did that if required. Imo, the motives/actions/etc of Jimbo and Russavia are relevant when discussing if this video constitutes a personal attack and/or BLP violation. Russavia's response above adds evidence of animosity between these two, which is highly relevant. -- Colin (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, I asked MichaelMaggs to take a look at it, and if any other admin comes along and wants to hat it again that would be fine with me. The material I hatted seems obviously disruptive. Smallbones (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm totally cool with Russavia adding angry comments. To expect otherwise in such a discussion would be strange. -- Colin (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
El Grafo, your question seems logical in first look; but can easily find the irony yourself. It is our responsibility to save a person from attacks; otherwise no one will come to to defend you when you are bloodily wounded and even thrown out of this place. Further, you can assume how difficlt it is for a victim to come here and comment. That is why we try to make alternate outlet to record complaints. For me, a single comment from the victim on his/her user talk page of any WMF project is enough, if he/she is a Wikimedian. Otherwise, a mail.
"Jimmy is far from innocent." - Please don't think we are defending him here because he is innocent. As I said above, it is not my job to judge him or support him. My opinion in this discussion is entirely on this matter only. Jee 04:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, it is nobody's "job" here to become self-appointed defenders or unnecessary interlocutors for Jimmy Wales or the WMF board. Any model or photographer with a complaint is advised to raise it either on Commons using any of the noticeboards, talking to an admin, creating a DR or by email request (or even on IRC). Our good practice is to keep email requests confidential unless the correspondent agrees to have helpful information released, so with any case of perceived harassment I actively recommend that as the best place for any complainant to start. Making indirect and somewhat cryptic public criticism via another website and as a result kicking off a damaging long term inter-project lobbying campaign that burns up goodwill and polarizes our Wikimedia family, is not a process for deletion we should recommend for anyone. Even now I would recommend that Jimmy Wales either writes to OTRS or Oversight with a complaint of harassment or makes this public on Commons if he is comfortable with doing so, just as we would expect any other Wikimedian or general member of the public to do.
- PS I am aware of this en.wp thread from six months ago, which directly asks English Wikipedians to come to Commons and lobby on his behalf using parallel concepts from sexual harassment against employees as a basis. Complaints of sexual harassment should always be taken extremely seriously, and for trusted users on this project to take action they must have a complaint to act on, but Jimmy's apparent encouragement to lobby and campaign was directed at English Wikipedia users rather than a complaint to those that hold trusted roles on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm confused how you can write "I agree..." in reply to Jkadavoor's comments that cite DefendEachOther and state he considers Jimbo's WP talk page comment sufficient. These are precisely the opposite to what you appear to "agree" on. There is no requirement for the subject to go through formal channels before we can act to remove an image out of human dignity or COM:IDENT, etc. Jimbo's statement is not "indirect and somewhat cryptic". It is blunt and forceful enough that Russavia feels "legally" upset about it. It is well known that Jimbo does not use his Commons talk page and his WP talk page is de facto the place for him to address either community. So we can't claim his comments were made in a manner in which the Commons community would not be fully aware of his feelings at the highest and most trusted level. This is one of the problems, "those that hold trusted roles on Commons" included, at the time, the very person who uploaded the image/video. -- Colin (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- meatballwiki.org is not a Wikimedia project and you are referring to a statement that does not appear to relate to Commons policies or guidelines.
- I referred to informal channels. IRC and OTRS are not channels guaranteed or authorized by the WMF, they are for volunteers to offer help and support.
- This thread on en.wp is the only evidence of a complaint from Jimmy Wales that has been provided. It is indirect as it was neither directed at Commons users or trusted users, it was not raised on this project, and it does not actually request deletion of this video, it only asks English Wikipedia contributors to use this video as an example "to go to commons and work to explain to the community there some of the concepts behind Hostile environment sexual harassment".
- It is well known that Jimmy Wales' user talk page is used as a platform for free speech of all types, some of which would be considered highly offensive or disruptive if raised on Commons. Jimmy Wales continues to be a community leader on the topic of how it is essential for our Wikimedia community to protect free speech, even to the extent of WMF lawyers being paid to ensure that free speech is not damaged through related issues such as weak DMCA notices.
- It is not clear that there is any expectation that trusted Commons users should take apparently lobbing/political statements made on Jimmy Wales' user talk page as requests for action here. I doubt that Jimmy Wales truly needs advice for which alternative channels are available if he does not want to write on his own Commons user page, however this has been given more than once since then.
- "the very person who uploaded the image/video" has lost their bureaucrat right for what I see as a direct result of related inter-project drama. Processes such as RFC/U are available, this is not the same issue as this DR.
- Thank you for being so persistent with sharing your views. You may wish to reconsider whether your tactics are helpful to the case you have been presenting, or whether your actions have damaged it with regard to your comments and fantasy examples that appear to deride fellow contributors to this discussion in ways that do not show respect for their dignity. --Fæ (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm confused Fae, are you saying that we should disregard common sense and let our actions here on commons only be guided by codified policy? --Dschwen (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, what a daft project this would be if we disregarded our common sense, or indeed our respect for human dignity when we logged in. However if policy and guidelines are inadequate then we should first work to improve them based on consensus and case studies rather than after knee jerk responses and potential misrepresentation of board resolutions in lobbying campaigns. As mentioned previously, "hard cases make bad law" and this is a key reason that I have not expressed a keep or delete opinion on this video either in past DRs or now—apart from the depressing fact that I get trolled off-wiki in an extremely nasty and personal way every time I take part in any discussion such as this; sigh, too late. I believe that our guidelines with regard to courtesy deletions neither reflect our current working practices (where we certainly do routinely delete images that may cause damage or distress) nor adequately explain to models and photographers with reasonable complaints how to best go about getting images removed without fuss, drama, permanent records of personal information on OTRS or in public archives on-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm confused Fae, are you saying that we should disregard common sense and let our actions here on commons only be guided by codified policy? --Dschwen (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm confused how you can write "I agree..." in reply to Jkadavoor's comments that cite DefendEachOther and state he considers Jimbo's WP talk page comment sufficient. These are precisely the opposite to what you appear to "agree" on. There is no requirement for the subject to go through formal channels before we can act to remove an image out of human dignity or COM:IDENT, etc. Jimbo's statement is not "indirect and somewhat cryptic". It is blunt and forceful enough that Russavia feels "legally" upset about it. It is well known that Jimbo does not use his Commons talk page and his WP talk page is de facto the place for him to address either community. So we can't claim his comments were made in a manner in which the Commons community would not be fully aware of his feelings at the highest and most trusted level. This is one of the problems, "those that hold trusted roles on Commons" included, at the time, the very person who uploaded the image/video. -- Colin (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A question to Darkweasel94
[edit]It seems your name and link to your adapted work is omitted in the auction listing whereas Manuel Archain's name and website are listed. Is it just accidental or on request as you feel displaying your name there is not comfortable? Jee 07:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am going to reply to you via email because I don't think this is relevant to this deletion request in any way whatsoever. darkweasel94 07:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Got mail. Thanks. You can waive your rights; but it should be mentioned that this is an adapted work from both sources displayed there (even without mentioning your name). I can guess; but we have to follow the formalities. ;) Jee 07:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Reaction by Mayor of Cape Town Helen Zille
[edit]- Comment - It is noteworthy to contrast the reaction by Mayor of Cape Town Helen Zille when she was informed that Pricasso created a painting of her. Here are some excerpts from a news article about that:
- "Mayor Helen Zille has shrugged off the news that her portrait has been painted by an 'artist' who uses his penis as a brush, saying it is his constitutional right to exercise his freedom of expression 'in this unusual way'."
- "This is a free country. A free society throws up these kinds of people, who exercise their freedom in unusual ways. And if this is how he wants to do it, I must accept his constitutional right to do so." -- Mayor of Cape Town Helen Zille
- "[Pricasso] has achieved a good likeness and I can't imagine how he painted it without brushes or conventional equipment." -- Mayor of Cape Town Helen Zille
- Cape Argus staff (7 May 2008). "Artist uses a different stroke on Zille portrait". Cape Argus: 3. South Africa: Independent Online.
- This is a fascinating case study to contrast the reaction of Mayor of Cape Town Helen Zille to a Pricasso portrait of her. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then why not try to bring that work here and leave poor Jimbo on his way? Jee 17:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then get them to provide a free image and video and let's not allow Commons to be used as a vehicle to harass someone for personal reasons. As to EV, how many people have become penis painters or interested in becoming penis painters since the release of this video? 131.137.245.206
- What about staring a penile art school to raise funds so that we need not depend WMF or follow their resolutions in future? Jee 18:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is unlikely that anyone painted the picture of the Mayor of Cape Town with their penis because of a personal dispute with the Mayor of Cape Town. This affects how harassing it is. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- The artist Pricasso wasn't in a personal dispute with anyone when he created his artwork. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, the uploader was. --Jakob (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are mistaken, I've never been in personal dispute with Jimmy; any dispute I am in with Jimmy is as a result of his accusing me of trolling and of sexually harassing him. russavia (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- May I ask you why you had the video made with Jimmy Wales as the subject?
- When he complained of harassment, why didn't you ask to have the video removed from Commons?
- Some people say that the video is educational, do you believe it is educational? Who will be educated by it, i.e. who's the target audience?
- You wrote "I've never been in personal dispute with Jimmy" before the video. Do you mean that literally? Smallbones (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion before. I don't have time to find the diffs but Jimbo has been pretty damning of Russavia well before the Pricasso affair. One of those "this represents all that is broken about Commons" type of statements. It is hard to imagine Jimbo's blunt language and public rebuke of Russavia was met with a saintly turning of the other cheek and a shrug. But who knows? -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are mistaken, I've never been in personal dispute with Jimmy; any dispute I am in with Jimmy is as a result of his accusing me of trolling and of sexually harassing him. russavia (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cirt, here the subject is not the artist's choice; nor he know that the requester's intentions. So it seems that the "honorable" artist here become a victim of the personal dispute of the subject and the requester. :( Jee 02:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- If the portrait created were artwork of Barack Obama, perhaps you would not feel the same way. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, the uploader was. --Jakob (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Cirt's example was intended to raise a contrasting case of the reception of the artist's work. They neither mentioned Russavia nor "poor Jimbo". This is a Deletion request for a video, so making claims about what Jimmy Wales' views might be, or turning this into another opportunity for barracking Russavia (for his failure to be a "saint") is off topic, hostile and needlessly polarizing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Imo this file fails our Terms of Use. Therefore discussion of Russavia and Jimbo is relevant and dismissing consideration of these aspects would imo be censorship. -- Colin (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bizarre use of "censorship" to defend the use of ad-hominim and defamatory comments such as proposing to paint Russavia's portrait in shit, I fail to see how your behaviour meets "You support a civil environment and do not harass other users" of the terms of use. If you wish to make serious assertions, then raise an RFC/U on Russavia or Jimbo. If you wish to make legal allegations, such as sexual harassment, then talk to your attorney or the police. This DR is about whether this video file meets our policies on Commons, the majority of your huge quantity of comments on this DR have done everything but address this topic. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- You clearly don't actually know what either ad hominem or defamatory mean. I suggest that you stop using both of them before you make a fool out of yourself. — Scott • talk 10:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your advice. In the context of the long term aggressive, offensively personal and bullying nature of what you openly write about Commons contributors on Wikipediocracy I intend to ignore it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'd certainly support an admin capping all of your comments in this section. That seems to be your modus operadi -- to so inflame the discussion that someone has to kill it. Nice try. Jimbo has claimed harassment from Russavia wrt to this video, and our terms-of-use forbid this. It is relevant for any closing admin to judge whether those claims are justified. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your advice. In the context of the long term aggressive, offensively personal and bullying nature of what you openly write about Commons contributors on Wikipediocracy I intend to ignore it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- You clearly don't actually know what either ad hominem or defamatory mean. I suggest that you stop using both of them before you make a fool out of yourself. — Scott • talk 10:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bizarre use of "censorship" to defend the use of ad-hominim and defamatory comments such as proposing to paint Russavia's portrait in shit, I fail to see how your behaviour meets "You support a civil environment and do not harass other users" of the terms of use. If you wish to make serious assertions, then raise an RFC/U on Russavia or Jimbo. If you wish to make legal allegations, such as sexual harassment, then talk to your attorney or the police. This DR is about whether this video file meets our policies on Commons, the majority of your huge quantity of comments on this DR have done everything but address this topic. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - It is interesting how some users have avoided commenting about the quotations by Mayor of Cape Town Helen Zille, above, which was the purpose of this section. It would be most intriguing to hear what people think of her particular quotations about having a portrait of her done by Pricasso and how her quotations may relate to this discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cirt, it is very unfair to take the full credit of this "great finding" and then blame us for not commenting about. In fact I had advised them five days ago to contact Pricasso, collect that work and replace the one here with lack of subject consent. It is very unfair.
- Let me know you are still running short of more innovative ideas. I am more than happy to help you. In fact I feel pity on you. Jee 10:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nice, but what are your thoughts on her quotations, above? -- Cirt (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is fine if people think so; but it is up to them. I can't demand it from her. BTW, I read it at Pricasso's site; so I'm not sure about it's credibility too. Jee 10:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- What a politician says in public and what they think in private are often not the same. Same as any parent would react favourably when presented with a blob-with-stick-arms portrait by their three-year-old. Just social noise. Nobody disagrees that some subjects may be flattered by the act and some might want their own portrait painted. Nobody here is fooled by suggestions that this would have been a likely reaction wrt Russavia->Jimbo. -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Dismissing published statements about a point of view because you think they might have thought something else when in private is a nihilistic argument. On that basis we should dismiss all evidence of published statements on the bad faith suspicion that anyone might have thought the opposite. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you "assume good faith" wrt politicians? You must be constantly let down. You know the old joke about how to tell when a politician is lying? Their lips move. -- 11:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)
- Colin, thank you for sharing your views on politicians. Note that Jimmy Wales is a politician, even having an official role in advising UK government on policymaking, a summary of his political career can be found at Jimmy_Wales#Political_and_economic_views. If you wish to discuss this further, or just continue to make jokes about politicians, this DR is not the right forum. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- My comments are in reply to Cirt's request. Your advice to me is noted and, as always, ignored. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Colin, thank you for sharing your views on politicians. Note that Jimmy Wales is a politician, even having an official role in advising UK government on policymaking, a summary of his political career can be found at Jimmy_Wales#Political_and_economic_views. If you wish to discuss this further, or just continue to make jokes about politicians, this DR is not the right forum. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you "assume good faith" wrt politicians? You must be constantly let down. You know the old joke about how to tell when a politician is lying? Their lips move. -- 11:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)
- Dismissing published statements about a point of view because you think they might have thought something else when in private is a nihilistic argument. On that basis we should dismiss all evidence of published statements on the bad faith suspicion that anyone might have thought the opposite. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Cirt, but I find no value in her comments. Should anyone be surprised some people don't mind having their face painted with a penis for the brush? I am sure there are people who would like to have their actual face painted with that penis. Please don't bring up "what's the difference between a penis and finger" argument again, because it too is devoid of value. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why is it devoid of value ? Can you be more specific about why you find it objectionable -- as compared to a finger or paintbrush? -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments on closure
[edit]I was sorry to see that my request, above, that people refrain from attacks and stick to providing opinions on the issue raised by this DR, has been largely ignored. I would ask everyone to bear in mind that the admin closing this DR (whether me or somebody else) will be required to do so on the basis of his/her best understanding of Commons policy and the newly-revised WMF statement. If there are no substantive comments on that new statement, both sides in this argument run the risk of getting the "wrong" decision from their point of view as the admin will have nothing other than his/her personal understanding of policy to go on. This is not a vote and the decision will be taken on the basis of policy not on the basis of the raw numbers.
Issues that would be worth commenting on include:
- Does the new WMF statement change anything?
- If you think the answer is no, why did the Foundation make the change? Did they think that we were doing anything wrong before, such as misunderstanding or not implementing their previous statement? Were we?
- To what extent can we/should we act specifically based on what the WMF has to say, given that they are not providing us with any specific direction and are leaving details of policy to the community?
- If the statement has not changed anything, has anything else changed since the last DR that would suggest a different result here? Bear in mind that the last DR was not long ago, and that this one will be closed with a different result only if new arguments are brought to bear or if the facts have changed. This is not just a forum for repeating what has already been said at great length last time.
--MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know how one can say it better than John: "I agree in principle with the free speech aspects, but recognising the WMF board resolution, and based on my analysis of unpublished art of living people on Commons, I believe Commons should limit the number of these media files, and extend courtesy deletion whenever the media is not sufficiently notable. This media depicts a living person, who objects to it. The painting has only a small amount of notability in its own right, as there are a few stories about it, but they are minor rags, and the 'making of' video isnt notable in its own right. Maybe someone could extract the educational parts of the video that don't depict Jimmy Wales and upload them, or we can ask Pricasso to provide another video of his art with either the subjects explicit approval or a subject that is not a living person."
- Further note Phoebe's explanations to readers questions:
- [20]: "As Maria noted, this was prompted by a community request on the board noticeboard, which of course anyone is welcome to participate in. And as I noted, we saw a need to clarify what we intended in the earlier resolution."
- [21]: "(just for the record: I'm not particularly against this amendment, I actually never assumed that files would be treated differently from texts anyway in this kind of stuff. Just plain curiosity.) - Lodewijk" - "Neither did the board, which is why we passed the amendment -- because there seemed to be some confusion on the matter :) - Phoebe" Further: "My take on the resolution -- not formally speaking for the board -- is what I said on Commons: that the board feels Wikimedians should exercise equal care when dealing with all portrayals of living people on our various projects. So while the resolution is not meant to drive to a very specific change and was not in response to any single incident, it is meant as a statement of principles that we can use to guide the development of process and policy -- and as with our past resolution about images of individual people, I think we should examine our policies and decisions in light of these principles."
- [22]: "As careful readers have noted, this is just a small update to the 2009 resolution, meant to clarify the Board's original intent. We did not change the other parts of the text or tackle the process-related parts of handling BLPs, which remains a hard issue -- although one that has been addressed by various policies and processes, such as our fantastic OTRS team."
- Still doubts? Jee 12:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- For the closing admin, I would be cautious about cherry-picked quotes such as Jkadavoor's above. For example in the quote from John Vandenberg, this misses out " Like Fae and others, I am quite concerned about the WMF board resolutions first use being to remove an image of a WMF board member, as I suspect the many contributors are commenting here only because it is Jimmy, and they will not bother to exert any effort on other living people in similar predicaments." If account is made of statements such as these, the original statements should be read rather than selected portions or paraphrased versions. As for the question of "still doubts?" put forward, I would hope that anyone closing this DR with a deeper understanding of the aims of this project should have doubts and misgivings in reacting to WMF board resolutions and then deleting individual media relating to WMF board members, rather than using them to improve our policies for the long term. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Everywhere I have given original links. If an admin is so lazy; please don't blame me for it. :) Jee 13:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Back to work; have no more time for this stupid nonsense. Take any decision, dear admins. Jee 13:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Jkadavoor for being so passionate in sharing your opinions. I would not be courageous enough to use terms like lazy or stupid to describe views given by other participants in this DR. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then what should I call this? It survived two DRs and three admins (at least) reviewed it. I'm not blaming any; but we should be more careful. Jee 14:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Jkadavoor for being so passionate in sharing your opinions. I would not be courageous enough to use terms like lazy or stupid to describe views given by other participants in this DR. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fæ has put his finger on it. To make a "Pricasso amendment" to a board resolution just to get one media file deleted that pricks Mr Wales' vanity while everyone else can suck up whatever their haters put up here would in itself be an excellent topic for satire. Andreas JN466 21:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- For the closing admin, I would be cautious about cherry-picked quotes such as Jkadavoor's above. For example in the quote from John Vandenberg, this misses out " Like Fae and others, I am quite concerned about the WMF board resolutions first use being to remove an image of a WMF board member, as I suspect the many contributors are commenting here only because it is Jimmy, and they will not bother to exert any effort on other living people in similar predicaments." If account is made of statements such as these, the original statements should be read rather than selected portions or paraphrased versions. As for the question of "still doubts?" put forward, I would hope that anyone closing this DR with a deeper understanding of the aims of this project should have doubts and misgivings in reacting to WMF board resolutions and then deleting individual media relating to WMF board members, rather than using them to improve our policies for the long term. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The previous DR closure by Mattbuck (himself highly opinionated on the matter, so should not have been the closer) completely ignored the BLP issue. This is was raised by AFBorchert and others seconded his comments. If I may be permitted to select quotes (bearing in mind the closing admin must most certainly read the full work)
- "at least as soon as we learn that the victim feels harassed for understandable reasons, we should act"
- "this portrait is taken without consent"
- "this article [on Pricasso] 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). "
- "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."
So what has changed is a clarification has been made to remind us all that BLP issues apply to Commons too. From the full text:
- "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information and/or media, especially in articles or images of ephemeral or marginal interest"
- "Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same."
Those voting keep claim educational uses for the video. These are essentially negligible, verging on ridiculous. They claim the artist is notable, however he is only barely notable and this particular work is certainly not. They claim if the painting were done with a brush there would not be an issue -- that is true and completely misses the point so can be ignored. They claim this is politics and drama so should be rejected, but that is not a valid concern for DR. They claim deletion is censorship, but Commons never had any mission to host all free material. In fact an alternative subject for the portrait could easily have been chosen, so there is no need for Pricasso's work on Commons to cause any fuss. The subject has complained and is clearly not being treated in a way that respects his dignity, nor that treats him with patience, kindness or respect. Does a complaint or offence-taken automatically cause a delete? Of course not. There are politicians and others who are ridiculed in satire and caricature and when such form part of our culture (notable publication, for example) that may be recorded here for educational use. This image is not satire or caricature. Nor is the end-result (the portrait) offensive in and of itself. It is the "making of" that literally rubs Jimbo's face in it that causes offence, and is perceived by the subject as sexual harassment. So when we take these factors "into account" we are left with marginal reasons to host the video and a good reason to reject it.
The board resolution gives us room to decide how to implement, apply to policy and enforce it. However, I don't believe there is any option for us to ignore it. It is now time to delete and move on. -- Colin (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The changes which are made to the BLP resolution are minimal:
- Media are required to be accurate
- Things relating to people must be neutral and verifiable
- Human dignity and privacy should be taken into account with media of "marginal or ephemeral" interest
- 1 is irrelevant, as is 2. It's a painting, it's a fairly accurate representation, it is as neutral and verifiable as it can be - it does not show Mr Wales in a compromising situation or anything of the like, it's just a picture of his face. So the argument comes down to 3, does this impact Mr Wales's dignity and/or privacy, and, if so, is it of ephemeral or marginal interest.
- Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we accept it is of marginal or ephemeral interest. This certainly did not infringe Mr Wales's privacy - it is a derivative of a freely licensed work that Mr Wales himself released. If the original photo did not infringe his privacy, the painting certainly won't. Dignity... that is the rub. I will say, that having a video of your portrait being painted using a penis as a brush is not the most dignified of positions to be in. But it doesn't seem that bad to me. If there were gratuitious rubbing of the penis on the photo, that would to me be different, but what we are seeing is an "artist" using his "brush" to paint.
- Now, supposing it does infringe on Mr Wales's dignity, what about the interest? I would certainly argue that the Pricasso is not of ephemeral interest - the en.wp article features references over a roughly five year period. Marginal also seems in doubt, as the references include the BBC, Independent, News.com.au, Reuters as well as more local news and academic publications.
- I would also say that while the board does not take this into account, I believe we should also consider replaceability. Here we have a notable artist who has graciously given us a video of himself painting, and using a free image as source so as to avoid copyright issues. We can probably count the number of notable artists who have given us such media on the fingers of a single hand. Especially when we consider the unusual technique, I do not believe this image is easily replaceable, and to delete it would be doing our mission a disservice. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not convinced we should be supporting the notion of using a free image depicting an identifiable person in this manner. If people who consent to their images being uploaded to Commons begin to discover they can be abused in this manner may just re-consider their participation in this project. If the uploader had indicated this was a form of satire of a public figure for their views then we might be having the same discussion as the Santorum images. The uploader has never indicated the intent was satire even if others have begun to accept it as such after the fact. 131.137.245.209 16:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I more or less echo what mattbuck says (as I've done in an above comment), but want to add that COM:IDENT, which has been policy here for longer than the revised resolution exists, already has text about "human dignity", and people raised it repeatedly during previous DRs, so I'm sure it was taken into account by all closing admins. So, what do we have here? Educational value: very high; replaceability: low; intrusion into people's privacy: very low; intrusion into people's dignity: medium at best, but surely depending on prudishness with which one looks at it. darkweasel94 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Darkweasel94 says "Educational value: very high". I think your "educational value" meter needs its batteries replacing. Try tapping the dial with your finger to see if the needle returns to zero :-). Seriously, you really need to recalibrate that judgement if your opinion on scope is to taken seriously. Reasonable arguments are useful, but this just makes a mockery of our judgement wrt scope. Consider instead the recent battle over licensing for x-rays, which illustrate countless high-viewer medical articles -- not one person here helped and nobody cried censorship or keep just because they are educational. Those medical images are highly educational yet the community here took no interest in helping find a solution. -- Colin (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I ask myself, will the deletion of this video change anything, if many other websites host it? It will be still available on the Internet, only not on Commons, so it means the readers of Pricasso biography won't be able to see the penile art technique and so to see the deleted video won't be replaced with a new one, non-controversial, because there is no interest in that and no money to pay for it, so Commons loses quite valuable content without the possibility to replace it. Russavia was already punished for uploading the controversial portrait and video – he lost his crat-tools, because some of us thought (and still think) he ordered it to ridicule Jimmy Wales. Now if we delete the video we will punish Russavia again, but we will also punish the artist and Commons as well. Is it necessary? You, Michael, ask Does the new WMF statement change anything?. Yes, but in this case not for Jimmy Wales, because his face was not changed for worse on the portrait, the portrait is OK and the technique is controversial, but acknowledged. The new WMF statement changes a lot for Pricasso, if he ever would like to delete the video where he is seen completely nude. Out of human decency Commons would have to reconsider deleting it or making his private parts invisible. I wish mister Wales had just laughed at it from the beginning. Seleucidis (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- A most interesting comment, Seleucidis, thank you for your most astute analysis. -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- We do not delete media for punishment, we do not remove tools for punishment, just like we do not block for punishment. --Dschwen (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think Seleucidis hit the nail on the head with the "because there is no interest" comment. This is no great shame or loss to the world. Russavia should have considered using a subject that consented. The "punishing Russavia/artist" concern has no bearing on any decision. The artist still has his WP article and still has his portrait and still has lots of publicity. -- Colin (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The original intent for the commisioning of the painting and video is still relevant despite the subsequent loss of privileges by the uploader. Many of the reasons for keep are somewhat valid but undercut by this issue of intentional infliction of harm. Commons should not become the stomping grounds of anyone with a personal axe to grind. Accepting this video is like accepting stolen goods. Even diregarding the legal aspect, you might not be the one stealing but you are enabling the activity. 131.137.245.209 19:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- No evidence, none at all, has yet been presented for this assumption of bad faith. Only "everyone says that he acted in bad faith, so it must be so". If you're a fan of such lynch-mobbing, fine. I'm not. darkweasel94 19:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- What would account for evidence? Prior animosity and the nature of the video make that patently clear to most people. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- On closure
- Background This is the third DR on this video
- In the first, User:Beria closed stating that the video was in scope and "All the other discussions do not fit in a DR". She must have discarded many !votes as the sum was 29 to 28 in favor of deletion.
- In the second, User:Mattbuck closed, saying "I don't see that anything has changed since", the first DR, i.e ignoring anything but the scope argument again, even though the !vote was 11 to 10 in favor of deletion.
- Those decisions, based on "only scope matters" were obviously wrong. We have many rules that state the opposite and a history of rejecting a narrow legalistic argument like this, e.g.
- Ignore All Rules, the 1st rule on any Wikimedia project, which applies here as much as anywhere
- Don't be intentionally obnoxious, which appears to be specifically written for this case
- Our terms of use (linked at the bottom of every page) which requires
- Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.(and) Lawful Behavior (note that there are many laws potentially prohibiting this type of video. The subject specifically mentioned sexual harassment)
- Commons:Photographs of identifiable people which says "Common decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law."
- The first Board resolution on BLP, which is a rock solid requirement for all WMF projects.
- Does the new WMF statement change anything?
- The new Board BLP resolution in a narrow sense does not change anything. They just repeated themselves by in effect saying "we really do mean this" and "oh by the way, this really does apply to images."
- So the criticisms I listed above do apply, or more narrowly "Taking human dignity" into account is required "when adding or removing ... media, especially in articles or images of ephemeral or marginal interest"
- The Board was stating a general principal, but I do believe they must have had several examples in mind where obvious mistakes had been made, and this video was likely a prominent example. Why else repeat themselves and stress that BLP applies to images?
- So in a broader sense, a lot has changed. We can easily interpret the Board as saying: "Commons, get your act together and apply the rules in a sensible way."
- If you think the answer is no, why did the Foundation make the change? Did they think that we were doing anything wrong before, such as misunderstanding or not implementing their previous statement? Were we?
- Obviously they think that we were making obvious mistakes in ignoring obvious cases where media was being used for obvious harassment.
- To what extcan we/should we act specifically based on what the WMF has to say, given that they are not providing us with any specific direction and are leaving details of policy to the community?
- On Wikimedia projects we are not bound by "procedure for procedure's sake" I stated this upfront and nobody has challenged it. When the application of a resolution is so obvious, and when it simply repeats rules that have been in effect for a long time, there is no reason to wait for a policy to quote. Commons should, of course, incorporate this resolution into policy.
I would like to suggest that a senior admin, who has not been involved in this before, close this. If this DR is too controversial or that is too much responsibility for one person to take on, then I suggest that 3 admins do it together, if that can't be arranged then perhaps 3 bureaucrats. The issues are pretty clear here. It will all come down to whether the closer wants to throw out !votes that want to take into account human dignity. The current count of !votes is 23 to 15 in favor of deleting.
Smallbones (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- DRs are not votes, closing admins dont take only the votes in consideration. And, for the record, since I was already cited here by Jkadavoor when he tried to dismmis my husband vote, I would expect you to know I'm a woman, and since you care so much about other people rights, you might start by addressing they by the right pronoun. Béria Lima msg 20:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't know your gender. I've changed the single "he" to "she." Smallbones (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- DRs are not votes, closing admins dont take only the votes in consideration. And, for the record, since I was already cited here by Jkadavoor when he tried to dismmis my husband vote, I would expect you to know I'm a woman, and since you care so much about other people rights, you might start by addressing they by the right pronoun. Béria Lima msg 20:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Attempted close 12/18/2013
[edit]I have reverted the closure of this DR by Sven as being premature, although evidently done with the best of intentions. It was only earlier today that I attempted to encourage editors to focus on the issues involved, and over the last few hours some interesting opinions have been posted for the first time. Cutting off the start of a proper discussion before most users will even have seen it is not, in my view, good practice. Also, I am not aware of any procedure whereby an admin closes without a decision and then goes off to select a group of (unnamed) admins to make that decision without further community input. I'm all for trying out new procedures in response to new situations, but attempts to introduce such new procedures may (as here) run the risk of reversion when others do not agree. We have, admittedly, had situations in the past where a group of 'crats has got together to discuss the closing of a particularly contentious discussion, and that could happen here if the community would like the 'crats to do that. Please say if you do. Otherwise, I suggest the DR should remain open for at least a further few days to ensure that editors have the opportunity to contribute to the useful discussion that has started today. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose it is, at this time, a moot point, as the people that I have been speaking to are not available until Sunday. Thus far, other than myself, I have recruited Matanya and Trijnstel, both stewards and local admins that have been entirely uninvolved in these proceedings. The other people that I have asked, and have yet to secure definitive answers from, are all people that, aside from being Commons admins, have additional advanced permissions (local, like CU and OS, or global, like Steward and Global Sysop). I want to be the least qualified person in the closing group, and if I could get five people at the Steward/GS/OS/CU level of community trust, I'd be happy to bow out and let them handle it entirely. My intention in this was to build a group of people with enough community trust that, after five DRs, (three that ran in full, two speedy closed), this can finally be put to rest one way or the other. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) As this DR has seen 'crats
revertingeach other and the uploader was a 'crat, the proposal of a literal Star Chamber of pure 'crats does not seem to offer many benefits compared to having just one of our more experienced, respected and non-controversial administrators prepared to review this (and the previous DRs) and make a reasonable determination against policy, the aims of this project and the resolutions of the WMF board. I could name several who have not taken part here, are not bureaucrats, have no history of negativity/devotion to Jimmy Wales, and are widely respected, but would not want to embarrass them by pinging them. --Fæ (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is not quite accurate to say that Michael Maggs has reverted me, even if that fits your narrative. --Dschwen (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies, I was going by the public page history alone and my use of the term is not fully accurate. If there is another word to describe the sequence of edits I will happily use it, in the meantime I have struck the word "reverting". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact it is flat out wrong: Michaeldsuarez reverted my edit. And rightfully so if the discussion is reopened. So the word reverted is accurate, just everything else is not. --Dschwen (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- And just to make sure you understand what is going on: MichaelMaggs reverted Sven_Manguard. --Dschwen (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact it is flat out wrong: Michaeldsuarez reverted my edit. And rightfully so if the discussion is reopened. So the word reverted is accurate, just everything else is not. --Dschwen (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies, I was going by the public page history alone and my use of the term is not fully accurate. If there is another word to describe the sequence of edits I will happily use it, in the meantime I have struck the word "reverting". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is not quite accurate to say that Michael Maggs has reverted me, even if that fits your narrative. --Dschwen (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- For the love of god, Fæ and Dschwen: both of you stop fighting. You're acting like small children. This whole DR has been filled with people making petty insults and other battleground behavior - that's why I put a closing template on it in the first place. Enough is enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Getting a few trusted users to close this together seems like a good solution to me. --Conti|✉ 23:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The people that have agreed thus far to be part of the closing group are:
- Matanya, local admin and Steward
- Trijnstel, local admin and Steward
- Jameslwoodward, local admin and CU
- Elcobbola, local admin and CU
- Sven Manguard, local admin and way, way over his head
- Magog the Ogre, local admin and CU (may need to withdraw if timing does not permit)
I have invited two other users that I have not heard back from, both of which "two letter advanced userright" holders. A third person, a local admin that is well versed in DRs, has reached out to me, and I am awaiting confirmation from them that it's going to work. I will bow out if it winds up as eight people, as I consider myself the least qualified among the group and there needs to be a definite conclusion, so an even number wouldn't work. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have personally only a few prior interactions with Trijnstel and Jameslwoodward; all other names are new to me. But I have full trust on them as the community (the entire WMF community as two of them are Stewards) had already showed their trust in them in many occasions. No worries. :) Jee 02:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment IMO any admins who closed or voted on this DR or related DR(s) should leave the closure to others. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Trijnstel voted at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia (de-Bureaucrat); but it is not a problem for me. Jee 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree de-'crat and DR vote are different. I support russavia as a 'crat but not this video. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't done any numerical analysis, but I saw plenty of people that took the same side on this issue fall on separate sides on that issue (i.e. there are a fair number of people falling into all of keep-file/keep-crat, keep-file/de-crat, delete-file/keep-crat, and delete-file/de-crat). If Trijnstel says she can act in this matter without bias, I am willing to believe her. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- She, not he. --Túrelio (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) Ehhhh, Trijnstel is not a him... Trijnstel is one of the most capable admins I know. She is more than competent enough to deal with this matter and I would trust her with everything. She is always fair and she has a good sence of judgment. I believe that she is most capable to deal with this request. I won't like to see her doing so because she is to sweet for dealing with mudfights. Natuur12 (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- He he, being also a CU, she's tough enough. --Túrelio (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't done any numerical analysis, but I saw plenty of people that took the same side on this issue fall on separate sides on that issue (i.e. there are a fair number of people falling into all of keep-file/keep-crat, keep-file/de-crat, delete-file/keep-crat, and delete-file/de-crat). If Trijnstel says she can act in this matter without bias, I am willing to believe her. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Trijnstel voted at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia (de-Bureaucrat); but it is not a problem for me. Jee 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry Trijnstel. Fixed. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, I forgive you. ;-) Trijnsteltalk 19:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I should mention that the five of us (right now it's five, at least) will be getting together over email on Sunday to close this. So don't be surprised if nothing happens until then. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- @ Sven Manguard. Why didn't you invite Michael Maggs? He keeps an eye on the voting here and he is up to date with what is going on here and a lot is going on here. I certainly suggest to you to invite Michael Maggs to take part in taking the final decision. Seleucidis (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC) I don't know if I was allowed or not, but I have invited Michael Maggs. Is it OK? Seleucidis (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Who gets to decide
[edit]I haven't been following this discussion for a few days now (ever since it became so personal and off-topic), so I'm quite surprised to see that a ginger group has been formed to decide the outcome of this DR. So the questions I have now is… who gets to decide who's part of the group and who's not, and how do people get invited to be part of it, what's the exact process behind the invitation/nomination, and where does this group take its authority from. Thanks, odder (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- It appears to be a Star Chamber with a core of personal contacts of Sven Manguard. I note that Michael Maggs has just been invited to take part but not me or thee for some reason. It would be interesting for someone to list out any history of roles on the English Wikipedia for this self selected group, and past interrelations with the en.wp Arbcom. Considering that Jimmy Wales sits on Arbcom and Russavia has a problematic history with that committee it would be best if members of the Star Chamber with strong connections (which I believe includes Sven Manguard) recuse themselves to avoid any later challenges of vested interests or bias. It might be a good idea if those with strong connections to the WMF Board (such as WMF employees) also were to recuse, though that might be harder to ensure as some might put people like me and Michael Maggs in that category. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do not take bait. Do not feed. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with all comments, above, by Fæ (talk · contribs) in this section, on how best to proceed going forwards. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Repeating Colin, Do not take bait. Do not feed. Smallbones (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Surely a group of admins is better suited to close this than a single admin? --Conti|✉ 22:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, no disagreement with that viewpoint. --Fæ (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- So what's the problem? The choice of admins? --Conti|✉ 23:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fæ seems to believe that anyone connected to ArbCom could, hypothetically, possibly be connected to a hypothetical underground anti-Russavia conspiracy; therefore, those people should be excluded form the closure discussion due to the slim chance that that hypothetical scenario is somehow real. I.e. paranoia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- So what's the problem? The choice of admins? --Conti|✉ 23:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, no disagreement with that viewpoint. --Fæ (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I assume good faith on the part of Sven and all those he has contacted. I do not know any of them very well, but I do recognize among them many people who have demonstrated through their work that they care about the long-term health of Wikimedia. I do not think there is a "perfect" approach to this, but I commend Sven for taking action and for presenting his reasoning transparently. I'm looking forward to hearing the perspective of this group, and I am confident it will be illuminating and set out a useful precedent for consideration in future cases. -Pete F (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Suggesting we take a precautionary approach to avoiding later challenges, is not the same thing as assuming bad faith from Sven Manguard, who I am sure has the aims of this project as his motivation. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fae, I didn't mean to imply that you (or anybody else) was assuming bad faith -- though I see how my comment could appear that way. I have confidence in this group, but I understand that you and others might not. -Pete F (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Now the result is crystal clear; so some started their last attempt to fire the closers. Hmm; better WMF start a new project and leave Commons in to the hands of those ... :( Jee 03:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Jkadavoor No one hired anyone to do anything with regards to this discussion, so they can't be fired. I'm just asking some questions about a situation that appears quite surprising to me — for example, why didn't we let the bureaucrats close this discussion? Everyone knows who they are, those who voted in here could simply recuse themselves, and there wouldn't be any need for a ginger group. If you feel that's reason enough to convince the WMF to start a new media repository project, I'm sure the Board will be glad to hear you out. odder (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Normally, DRs are closed by whatever admin happens to show up - this one will be closed by a group of admins that happened to show up. I seriously don't see your problem. darkweasel94 10:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that these admins have just shown up—clearly they have been appointed, and I want to know on what basis, and on what authority. odder (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Odder, I saw nothing wrong in your question above or in this suggestion. But Fæ's continued attempt to discourage any admin/crat to review this discussion is disappointing. In fact MichaelMaggs made a suggestion above saying "We have, admittedly, had situations in the past where a group of 'crats has got together to discuss the closing of a particularly contentious discussion, and that could happen here if the community would like the 'crats to do that. Please say if you do." You can see Fae discouraged that move saying "As this DR has seen 'crats reverting each other and the uploader was a 'crat, the proposal of a literal Star Chamber of pure 'crats does not seem to offer many benefits compared to having just one of our more experienced, respected and non-controversial administrators prepared to review this (and the previous DRs) and make a reasonable determination against policy, the aims of this project and the resolutions of the WMF board. I could name several who have not taken part here, are not bureaucrats, have no history of negativity/devotion to Jimmy Wales, and are widely respected, but would not want to embarrass them by pinging them." It seems his only intention here is to destroy this discussion and force to withdraw without making any conclusion. :( Jee 10:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, in your zeal to make a point, you appear to have contradicted yourself when repeating my words; should you take a moment to read the words you have cut & paste, I stated that there are plenty of admins that are suitable and experienced enough to close this DR. Please put a stop to your unnecessary campaign to portray me as a gay Machiavellian wizard that can manipulate the whole of Commons using my astonishing mental power and charisma. Commons is not intended to be a repository for new creative writing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Normally, DRs are closed by whatever admin happens to show up - this one will be closed by a group of admins that happened to show up. I seriously don't see your problem. darkweasel94 10:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Another side issue
|
|---|
|
- Odder, I think your suggestion is very good. In fact, I tried to discuss it with them earlier. But from their silence and Dschwen'n opinion, my understanding is that they will not step in unless the community ask so. Nemo's case seems a good example of it where the admin closed the discussion after consulting the crats. I think that is a good procedure, but don't know whether it is needed here as we already proceeded some way.
- Anyway I'm going to my Christmas vacation; so will not disturb you any further. :)
- Happy Christmas to Fae and all. Jee 10:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Happy Christmas to you and your wife Jee. You might guess I'll be having a particularly gay family Christmas, celebrating 26 years with my husband (our anniversary being today as it happens). --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow! Happy anniversary! That is a great news. (We will be at Kadavoor with our parents till Dec 27.) Jee 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Happy Christmas to you and your wife Jee. You might guess I'll be having a particularly gay family Christmas, celebrating 26 years with my husband (our anniversary being today as it happens). --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Sven Manguard's reply to the "Who gets to decide" section
[edit]Since there seems to be a definite lack of good faith here, I'm going to lay everything out clearly, in one place:
- The selection criteria I used
- Everyone that I invited had, at the time I invited them, made zero edits to any of the five DRs that had been filed on the Pricasso files
- Everyone that I invited had, at the time I invited them, had more than one community vetting (Commons adminship plus one of Commons Crat, Commons CU, Commons OS, Global Sysop, or Steward)
- Everyone that I invited had, at the time I invited them, not approached me asking to be part of the team
- Everyone that I invited had, at the time I invited them, not indicated that they have a strong per-existing viewpoint one way or the other
I am sure that I missed people. I wasn't choosing people based on personal taste, but rather because they were the first people I ran across that met those four criteria and agreed to be part of the close. Is it a perfect system? No. Was there any system, including single admin closing, that wasn't going to be massively controversial no matter what the outcome? Also no.
- My prior relationship with the other participants
- Matanya and Trijnstel - I have had no prior interactions with these users of any note (at least that I remember). They were in the IRC commons admin channel when I put out a call for people to help me close, and since I knew that they were stewards, I pinged them by name. I will note that I didn't even know Trijnstel's gender before this process (oops, sorry again).
- Jameslwoodward - I probably have had meaningful interactions with this user, but I don't remember them. I invited him because his name consistantly showed up in DR closings, and I wanted to make sure that I was asking people that were steeped in this process.
- Elcobbola - Before seeing this user's CU request (which I did not participate in), I had never heard of this user. I invited him on the recommendation of another person in the team, who threw a bunch of names out as other possible members.
- Magog the Ogre - I nominated him for Commons RfA, and I supported his CU bid. In between those two events, I had no meaningful interactions with him. I nominated him for Commons RfA because there are only a tiny, tiny number of people that work with files over on English Wikipedia, and I saw him doing good work there. I've never met him in person, and I can't say I've done any significant socializing with him. I invited him on the recommendation of another person in the team (same one as above), who threw a bunch of names out as other possible members. Prior to that recommendation, I had considered nominating Magog the Ogre, but decided against it precisely because I knew that there was the potential for it to be perceived as me gathering together a bunch of friends.
- - -
- I will not go into specifics about the substance of my interactions with Jimbo Wales and Russavia, because it serves no purpose to bring up old battles. I will, however, say that I would describe my relationship with both of them as "recently non-existent, but historically rocky". The most recent conversation I have had with Russavia must have been several months, possibly years, ago, in public Wikipedia-en IRC channels (which I don't log). The most recent conversation I had with Jimbo Wales was several weeks ago, when he sent me an email asking for clarification about a comment I made on Meta, and I sent him back my reply. Before that I had not spoken to him in well over a year. I have had no contact with either party about this incident, and would most certainly not describe my relationship with either of them as "friendly" or even "cordial". At the same time, I would not describe my current relationship with either user as "antagonistic". I view them equally in my eyes, placing them both in the group of "people I'd prefer not to talk to, but won't actively avoid if they reach out to me". All of this is to say that for the wrong reasons, I have no favoritism for either of them personally.
- Why I chose not to invite [name here]
Look at the above criteria. Look especially at the first point. When I said "zero edits", I meant exactly that. I was looking for people that not only didn't vote, but also didn't leave comments, or even close down sections that had gotten out of hand.
Since his name has been mentioned, I'll address MichaelMaggs specifically. He had, admirably, tried to crimp down on the unnecessary personal attacks and off topic flame warring that had taken place on this page. However that still meant that he had made edits on the page. That means that at least a few people, those whose discussion he closed, might view him as "part of the problem". He also closed the third DR (although it was a procedural speedy close). Again, same issue. Considering that there's a massive amount of mistrust and bad faith on this page already, I decided that it was worth not including otherwise good candidates, in order to make sure that the close itself was difficult to assail as being biased.
- Why I did it this way
This image and video set has been the subject of five DRs, spawned several other related discussions, and is one of the most heated discussions I have ever seen on the project. It has to end. We can't keep having DRs every few months that gengerate into people discarding any pretense of civility or good faith and just outright attacking each other. It's bad for the participants, it's bad for the community, and really, it's pointless. Mind you, the outcome of the DR itself isn't pointless, but the repeated DRs and especially the vitriol are. I wanted to close this DR in such a way that it would be difficult for, three months down the line, another DR to be opened and this to start up all over again.
To that end, I wanted a closing that would be difficult to discount. Of course, no matter which way the group would up closing, there was going to be people that disagreed, but there's a huge difference between disagreeing with a close because you have a different interpretation of the policy and disagreeing with the close because you viewed it as one person's supervote. The first is unavoidable. The second is entirely avoidable. I wanted to assemble a team of people to close the discussion that were so highly regarded by the community, that were unarguably uninvolved, and that were willing and able to look at this with all of the drama stripped away, and make a decision weighing the arguments and policy considerations without getting lost in the noise. In short, I wanted a team of closers that was near unimpeachable, so that there could be a close that was near unimpeachable, so that we could all move on.
I realize that I am the odd person out in this group. I did sail through an RfA on Commons, but shortly afterwards I got sucked into the launch of Wikidata and for a year spent a majority of my time there and not on Commons. I don't have multiple community vettings. The only possible qualification that I have is that I was willing to put my own reputation on the line to do this close. I was willing to reach out to a bunch of people, many of whom had actively avoided getting involved in this because of the drama that it has caused, pitch this close, and get their buy in. And if any of the five of them asked, I would step down and let the five of them decide this without me.
I don't have an opinion on this DR one way or the other. What I do have is fourteen pages of notes on the DR, assembled over two days, going through ever major argument made in this DR, from both sides, looking for an answer. Some of that I will be happy to make public after the close. What I do have is a desire to get this right, not only the result, but also the closing process. It's not because I care about the image, or whether it stays or goes. It's because it is painful to watch the community tear itself to pieces, and I would like to believe that it is possible for me to aid in the healing process.
If you choose to believe that this method of closing is improper, and that I have assembled a team of yes-men or a cabal to perform a super-vote, if you choose to believe that I am beholden to one side or the other, or that I have strong connections to the Foundation or some other party, if you choose to believe that I have already made up my mind and that this is all just an elaborate ruse, you are free to think that way. I will not, however, let it stop me from closing this to the best of my abilities.
Thank you for your understanding,
Sven Manguard Wha? 21:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Sven. I also don't really know the people on your list but think your method of selecting them seems fair. -- Colin (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sven, so long as this DR is closed based upon existing Commons policies, there should be no problem. And if you look at the comments at Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Caricatures_and_cartoons_of_identified_or_identifiable_people, you will notice that some of those who are arguing for this file to be deleted (User:Saffron Blaze and User:Jkadavoor) are arguing there along the lines of "I think using files as a test case is not the best way to make policy". Keep in mind that you are not here to create policy via this DR, that is something that is left for community discussion and consultation, and it has yet to occur. If you want a previous example, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Masturbating_with_a_toothbrush.jpg may be something for people to look at, where a similar multi-admin closure was utilised. russavia (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was speaking about the rash of other DRs that spawned after this one came up. People were obviously trying to link their issues to this one. You obviously missed that bit of context. Until this is sorted we won't be able to develop sound policy as it will always be in the way one way or another. So let me be clear.... this needs to get sorted and if it sets precedent I am quite fine with that. In fact I welcome it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why would you have a problem with people using the same WMF resolution that is being used here in an attempt to delete this video to raise other DRs on other issues covered in the resolution? You admitted that there is no policy-based reason for other DR's, even though User:John Vandenberg is spot on with his comments that the resolution is poorly worded, and that it has implications which the community has already rejected in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Streisand effect, and is also discussing (and likely rejecting) in other DRs. What are the possible implications if this file is deleted based upon non-existent policy, and also what are the implications to the WMF? We don't really know, because the community at large has not discussed the resolution itself at any great length. Or is the resolution all just about this file, and this file only? Of course, it was presented to the WMF board that way. And that resolution is what they gave to us, even admitting that they didn't change the wording, which totally neglects to recognise Commons and its role within the community that the WMF supposedly cares about. Hence why it is facetiously referred to as the Pricasso Amendment.
- I was speaking about the rash of other DRs that spawned after this one came up. People were obviously trying to link their issues to this one. You obviously missed that bit of context. Until this is sorted we won't be able to develop sound policy as it will always be in the way one way or another. So let me be clear.... this needs to get sorted and if it sets precedent I am quite fine with that. In fact I welcome it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Now, this file has been in stable use at eo:Pricasso since August 2013, so there is no issue as to COM:SCOPE. We are not now asking our admins to editorialise on how other projects use media? That is not in their remit as Commons admins. That goes to address several of the delete comments.
- It is all going to boil down to the "dignity" clause of the Pricasso Amendment? Does the public figure that is Jimmy Wales really suffer loss of dignity really from having a video of a well-known artist paint his portrait with his penis? He does not like it, but it was never presented as being endorsed by Jimmy (inline with the licencing requirements). Now, let's say that I did suggest Jimmy to make a point about Jimmy, I am struggling to find a legitimate reason, that doesn't have a basis in vindictiveness and pettiness; something that I am not, and no-one has made a legitimate case that shows that I am.
- User:Saffron Blaze, it is very disappointing that you acknowledge that there is no Commons based policy that guides us in any of the DRs, including this one, and it is even more disappointing that you think that deleting this file will allow us to move forward as a community in drafting actual policy; quite the contrary, it will be an even bigger thorn in our side.
- If admins delete this file based purely upon a poorly-worded and rushed WMF resolution, then what are the implications to admins and the WMF when Santorum's legal team is contacted over the refusal to delete images from Commons which definitely paint him in a negative light? Will admins who close those discussion become legally liable for that failure to delete images? After all, we agree to abide by the WMF TOS and resolutions with every edit on WMF projects. Or will the WMF step in and do office actions? That is highly unlikely. Do we really want to go down the road to censorship like this?
- The only thing which would be codified is that lèse-majesté, imagined or real, against Jimmy Wales as a public figure is forbidden on these projects. russavia (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia, I'm somewhat agree with you. If I were, I will not make this DR now. The Board Resolution is much important to me than this and I don't need another victory in this case. But I appreciate Sven's attempt to end this case for ever, if possible. Jee 06:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia, all this pontification is immaterial when the starting point is intent. Your intent with this video was to embarrass someone based on personal feelings and not motivated by anything that had the ideals of this project in mind. That you use those ideals now as a defense of your initial actions is what is disappointing. There are many reasons this video could have been deleted for existing policy and guidelines but it just as clear that deleting it for reasons not explicitly stated in a policy or guideline is actually not against policy. Your argument has devolved into one of "keep" based on procedural grounds when the issue is so much more important that that. This is a sad commentary on your care and concern for this project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Sven; we are preparing to go home, so eager to see our parents, siblings and their children altogether. Happy Christmas! Jee 05:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks from me, too. You are obviously taking a well thought out and objective approach that I hope will have full community backing whatever the decision you reach. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
To ensure that the community understands fully how policy is being applied and/or developed by this deletion request it would be good if the closing group could set out the closing rationale in significant detail. More work, I'm afraid, but very worthwhile. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ummm, excuse me User:MichaelMaggs, what do you mean "developed". DR's are not for the development of policy by fiat; development of policy has, and always will be, the remit of the community-at-large. DRs are driven by policy, not the other way around. So, I sincerely hope that you do not mean what your words imply, so I would ask you to clarify exactly what you mean by "developed" in the context of what you wrote, because I have a hard time interpreting it any other way. russavia (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- User:MichaelMaggs, let me clarify what I've written above. It would be totally ok for an admin on this project to close any DR within the confines of policy; that is what is expected by the community-at-large and any admin acting outside of policy would expect to be raked over the coals by the community. However, it would not be problematic for admins, especially as a collective, to recommend policy change and perhaps provide talking points for further community discussion. This is exactly what was done at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg as a collective close. It would be totally unfair on the community, and especially on the closing admins, to give those closing admins responsibility for development of Commons policy, or to imply that they are able to set commons policy in such a venue. This is how I have interpreted your words above. russavia (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I could have been clearer. I didn't mean the development of totally new policy but development of the way policy is applied in a particular factual situation. 82.132.216.222 09:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep Whether it is well deserved or not (I will make no comment one way or the other), the perception that Jimbo Wales is a dictatorial ruler, that he makes harsh and arbitrary judgements, that he applies policy unevenly based on his personal viewpoints, and that he is treated with cult-leader-like reverence by Wikimedians are all frequent themes of discussion both within and outside of the Wikimedia community. This is a legitimate social commentary, and therefore is within Commons' scope. User:Sven Manguard at this DR.
- I am actually quite interested to see how User:Sven Manguard will close this, given his comments at this current DR, especially given as it is not used in mainspace on any project, but this video is. russavia (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is unfortunate and ill advised for Sven to have weighed in on that case. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am actually quite interested to see how User:Sven Manguard will close this, given his comments at this current DR, especially given as it is not used in mainspace on any project, but this video is. russavia (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, to the extent that the community can decide anything for itself, there is absolutely no requirement for this to be previously codified in policy or guideline, and never has been. No Wikimedia site works that way. They wouldn't have got off the ground if they had. All policy and guideline pages "are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal". Yes that text comes from en:wp and the reason is, frankly, that Commons policy and guideline pages are underdeveloped and amateurish. To give an example. Courtesy deletion is a well established if seldom used practice yet we have no policy for it. I prompted Mattbuck to create a page for this but it is still under development. While our policies may give reasons to delete an image, no policy requires us to keep any image. And nor should one. So that argument is false and simply wikilawyering and clutching at straws.
Secondly, I am appalled that some feel the basic expectations of civility and respect required by our terms of use or the WMF resolution have to be written down in Policy as though we were a bunch of children. Sure we can argue over whether Jimbo's dignity is affected without sufficient educational benefit to offset. Sure we can argue over whether Jimbo's complaint of harrassment indicates our terms of use have been breached. But let's not argue over whether these principles matter at all, just because someone hasn't written them on a page with "policy" at the top. Weighing these things will always be a judgement-call even if/when policy mentions them, and it is that judgement that the above DR comments and the closing admins must endeavour to achieve wisely. -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- On your first point, Commons:Deletion_policy is the policy that this community has developed. That you wish to extent English Wikipedia "ideals" to this project is something that in itself needs discussion in this community. That Commons:Courtesy deletions is under development is a good thing, but it can not yet be used on something as contentious as this issue whilst it is still under development.
- On your second point, the resolution does not stipulate that files have to be deleted, but merely that respect and courtesy be extended to people with complaints about images about themselves (and it has always been that way). It would be enough for this community to say something along the lines, "We acknowledge that you are not happy with the file, nor do you endorse it, but it is in full compliance with all licencing requirements, moral rights (which belong to the actual photographer), all personality rights, it is in use so it is in scope, you are a public figure, blah blah blah, but we will respectfully not be deleting the file."
- Now, I noted that WMF board member User:Sj has piped into the Santorum images DR with a en:cost-benefit analysis of those images. It would be interesting to do such an analysis on both this file and deleting it on a basis which is not grounded in actual policy/guidelines. Anyone care to give it a shot? russavia (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The courtesy deletion policy doesn't apply here anyway - it would apply if you, russavia, wanted to get this deleted. darkweasel94 10:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting this is a courtesy deletion case. My point is simply that we delete images our of courtesy. Have done for years. Yet have no policy on the matter. The single sentence wrt courtesy deletion in our deletion policy page was added by me a few months ago. So Russavia's argument that we can't delete stuff unless policy tells us so, is simply false and has never been true. The opposite, that we cannot keep stuff where policy clearly forbids it, is valid, though sometimes things aren't always as clear as some make them out to be. Russavia's point about en:wp ideals is more deliberately not getting the point for rhetorical purposes. Nice try. Our policy pages are truly crap and unfinished. We function, to the degree one can call it that, despite of them sometimes, not because of the. They document the commonly occurring issues that the community feels it wants to write down so they don't keep debating/discussing all the time. I sincerely hope that one user commissioning a penis painting of another user whom they have had disputes with [yes you have] and then uploading the video to rub their face literally in it.. I hope this is rare. -- Colin (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Umm, no, I have never had disputes with Jimmy, I've asked him to supply OTRS once, gave him a couple of user rights here on Commons, and responded to a posting he made on COM:AN, and asked him to comment on a proposal to make it easier for child porn to be reported. That is the extent of my interactions with Jimmy. The whole dispute thing was the invention of User:Newyorkbrad who read some crap on an external site, and when I challenged him on this, he said that I was being ingenious and I should go look at Commons. When I proceeded to challenge the meme that Newyorkbrad pushed, the solution was to indef block me from en.wp. Oh, and I defended Jimmy once on Quora.com when he was being hounded by trolls. Now, if you have evidence of disputes, show me where these disputes are please. Otherwise, if all you have is the above, I must be the nastiest, pettiest and most vindictive son-of-a-bitch ever to walk on the face of this planet. russavia (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting this is a courtesy deletion case. My point is simply that we delete images our of courtesy. Have done for years. Yet have no policy on the matter. The single sentence wrt courtesy deletion in our deletion policy page was added by me a few months ago. So Russavia's argument that we can't delete stuff unless policy tells us so, is simply false and has never been true. The opposite, that we cannot keep stuff where policy clearly forbids it, is valid, though sometimes things aren't always as clear as some make them out to be. Russavia's point about en:wp ideals is more deliberately not getting the point for rhetorical purposes. Nice try. Our policy pages are truly crap and unfinished. We function, to the degree one can call it that, despite of them sometimes, not because of the. They document the commonly occurring issues that the community feels it wants to write down so they don't keep debating/discussing all the time. I sincerely hope that one user commissioning a penis painting of another user whom they have had disputes with [yes you have] and then uploading the video to rub their face literally in it.. I hope this is rare. -- Colin (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The courtesy deletion policy doesn't apply here anyway - it would apply if you, russavia, wanted to get this deleted. darkweasel94 10:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- 28 April 2013: Russavia, this statement is so horrific that I am more convinced than ever that commons is ethically broken. You should be ashamed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC).
- 8 June 2013: The video is uploaded. 198.211.103.38 05:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Evidence of prior disputes
[edit]Above Russavia asks for evidence of dispute between Jimbo and Russavia leading up to the commissioning of the painting and posting here. This is relevant as the subject claims he is being harassed and trolled by Russavia.
- In a discussion on Bell Pottinger, Russavia lectures Jimbo here "As to your reviewing of articles, I would remind you that WP operates on the basis of consensus, and it would be amiss for you to be intervening and doing anything with articles outside of process, so I do hope that your reviewing will not involve re-instating anything outside of community determined consensus.". Others disagreed and noted Jimbo had "the same right as any editor to "intervene" in articles", for which he agreed and thanked them. This language, while sounding formal, is hostile and insulting towards Jimbo, and clearly evidence of a non-cordial relationship.
- In a discussion on child protection policy Jimbo wrote "I was asked whether this is a global policy. It is. I was not commenting in detail on this specific case, about which I know too little to comment. But if there is an idea at commons that they don't have to abide by this policy, they are mistaken." On Jimbo's Commons page, in this edit Russavia says "JW is not being forthright in making certain things clear to editors....It is disappointing that JW will not come to Commons to discuss this, but is instead misleading editors on enwp as to what the go actually is.". On Jimbo's talk 99 Russavia then wrote "your comments to editors on this talk page are misleading". Jimbo replied "I should join a conversation in which you falsely claim that I am misleading people? No thanks.". Russavia replied "Even though it is likely unintentional, your comments above have mislead people"'. Further he asked Jimbo to "stop insisting, either directly or indirectly, that WP:CHILDPROTECT is project-wide policy.". Jimbo replied "I am afraid you are simply mistaken. WP:CHILDPROTECT is policy across all Wikimedia projects. You may not like it, but there you go.".
- On Jimbo's talk 100 Russavia posts a comment about the project turning into "Prudeapedia" followed by some sexual banter. Jimbo replies "Russavia, I think the term 'Prudeapedia' may not be the most helpful way to conceptualize people's desire for good editorial judgment.".
- On Jimbo's talk 131 Russavia defends his keep DR closure of a picture of a woman flashing her tits. Jimbo replies "Russavia, this statement is so horrific that I am more convinced than ever that commons is ethically broken. You should be ashamed.".
- On Jimbo's talk 133 Russavia twice asks Jimbo to comment on some elaborate penis categorisation scheme. Utterly ignored. Looks like Jimbo is no longer talking to Russavia. Note that Jimbo initiated the conversation on penis naming on commons here. I'll leave readers to judge whether Russavia response there was overly helpful or insultingly patronising.
The video is posted.
- Someone informs Jimbo of the video. Russavia claims this person is trolling Jimbo but Jimbo replies "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.". Jimbo goes on to close the discussion with his claim that "It is harassment, it is trolling, and I am deeply disappointed to have to point this out to some people".
That's just from Jimbo's talk archive. -- Colin (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- All this is irrelevant. An artist painted a painting. I don't care why. Carlos Latuff draws lots of things that are vastly more insulting, intentionally insulting, to living people, and guess what? He has a reason, an axe to grind. Maybe he even has sponsors or an audience who pay him, rather than doing it for the love of art alone, who knows? We don't say oh no no, we only take political cartoons from people who have no opinions on politics! We take them all and be glad for it. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Completely disregarding that in this case the one with the axe to grind was not the artist. Russavia has not once indicated he did this as satire or parody. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Unless that's his tool in the video, Russavia didn't do this at all. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure he did. Russavia commissioned it, paid for it with the sweat of his brow, provided the source material. Pricasso didn't even know who Jimbo Wales was until Russavia sent him the image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- User:Saffron Blaze, please stop dribbling shit. I did not commission it, I did not pay for it, and believe it or not, Being a sometimes visitor to Wikipedia, and recognising Jimmy as "that Wiki guy", the artist kindly donated his time and talent to help to illustrate his article, and to demonstrate his fun, and most unusual, painting style to a wider audience. He even told Kevin Morris all of this, but in his fabulous piece of crap that Kevin put on the Daily Dot, he conveniently left all of that out. And you, being the mindless sheep that you are, believed it and only believe that. russavia (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia, please refrain from the personal attacks. As to the facts. You worked hard to develop an article of Pricasso (that is the sweat of your brow). You contacted Pricasso with a mutually beneficial offer; he provides the works and you would provide additional work to complete the article (that is commissioning). In particular you offered to feature Pricasso's work on Wikipedia. You arranged for Pricasso to license the works freely. You offered the photo of Jimmy Wales as the subject of those works (that was your mistake). You lost your bureaucrat tools because people here on Commons decided you showed a complete lack of judgment in commissioning this work in the way you did. The logical conclusion to this is you should not benefit from your actions by having this file remain on Commons regardless of how educational it is or whether it is in use. If you cared about the project you would agree to delete this and have it replaced with one of yourself or someone else who would not mind such. The loss of this work would only be a minor loss in the grand scheme of things but allowing you to prosper from the continued insult this work clearly offers would be a real affront to the ideals of this project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- en:WP:V - verifiability, not truth. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Now that is fucking funny Mattbuck!! What a pearler! russavia (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just for argument's sake, suppose Russavia did commission it -- so what? At the beginning, I suggested that Latuff might even have paying customers. If the artist is biased, if the person who pays him is biased, what's the difference? He's notable, he drew some art, someday if you feel like it you can write up an article critiquing his motivation, the themes in his work, whatever, but it has no effect at all on what I think. We have a painting and a video to evaluate - isn't that enough, without piling on the intangible motives of multiple third parties? Wnt (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- That one is simple... because sometimes why a work was done is just as, or more important than, the work itself. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's just stupid. The vast majority of the works Commons acquires are uploaded by people who have no idea why they were made, or often even what they mean. We don't go back and try to figure out what motivated each artist. Nor can you explain how we decide when the motivation is "bad" and when it isn't. I mean for Chrissake we have Nazi propaganda on here, and we do it because in the end what is important is that people know what has been drawn, not that they have somebody pretending to be omniscient deciding whether it is good or bad to look at. Wnt (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sort of a reverse Godwin on that one wnt. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's just stupid. The vast majority of the works Commons acquires are uploaded by people who have no idea why they were made, or often even what they mean. We don't go back and try to figure out what motivated each artist. Nor can you explain how we decide when the motivation is "bad" and when it isn't. I mean for Chrissake we have Nazi propaganda on here, and we do it because in the end what is important is that people know what has been drawn, not that they have somebody pretending to be omniscient deciding whether it is good or bad to look at. Wnt (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- That one is simple... because sometimes why a work was done is just as, or more important than, the work itself. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just for argument's sake, suppose Russavia did commission it -- so what? At the beginning, I suggested that Latuff might even have paying customers. If the artist is biased, if the person who pays him is biased, what's the difference? He's notable, he drew some art, someday if you feel like it you can write up an article critiquing his motivation, the themes in his work, whatever, but it has no effect at all on what I think. We have a painting and a video to evaluate - isn't that enough, without piling on the intangible motives of multiple third parties? Wnt (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Colin, before I comment on anything above, I just wanted to ask you whether you stand 100% behind your assessment, links, etc that you have presented above? I would hate to have to correct you on anything, anything at all. If there is an misinformation or disinformation above, I suggest you correct it, because to have to respond to any such things only wastes my time, and makes the person putting forward the points look kinda silly. russavia (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia, I've no problem having my mistakes pointed out. If there are errors in the above then please clarify. You asked me for evidence and I've provided some to the best of my abilities and time at this busy time of year. There may well be some chummy conversation between you and Jimbo that I've not found or that puts the above in a different light. Being corrected for honest mistakes doesn't make one "look silly". Edit warring in Esperanto in a desperate attempt to prove one's point,... now that is funnier than any pantomime. -- Colin (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, Colin, if you are going to make wide-ranging statements that I am in dispute with Jimmy, the best thing to do is to make sure you have solid evidence of it. What you have above is either not evidence of any disputes, and in one case an absolute fabrication. You know, that you are able to have disagreements with people, but not be in "dispute" with them. Such as User:Túrelio's comment above that we should give Jimmy special treatment on these projects. In my opinion, the WMF and Jimmy already are, and have been for a long time, afforded special treatment that is not afforded, and rightly so, to other people and organisations. Ask User:Túrelio if in his opinion, if I disagree with him that I am now in dispute with him. The only thing which even comes close to me being in a dispute with Jimmy, is where you state that I defended myself, but this is a total fabrication. I didn't defend myself, and Jimmy was talking to a ghost. That you, like a mindless sheep, have preferred to listen to Kevin Morris of the Daily Dot and his blog post is your problem. russavia (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry russavia, I haven't clue who Kevin Morris is or what the Daily Dot is either. Frankly, I don't care either because I make up my own mind on issues. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I too have no idea who Kevin Morris is or what the Daily Dot is. There's been a lot of stuff written here about external websites and off-wiki campaigns. Complete rot. I have enough problems keeping up with what happens on Commons/WP without reading trash too. It may make me a bit naive at times but I'd rather be naive than biased. I've given my evidence that you were in dispute with Jimbo prior to the artwork creation/upload. There's nothing in what you have written since that changes my mind. I have no idea what you are talking about wrt "total fabrication". Perhaps someone less potty-mouthed and more rational can explain. I seriously wonder why this bully is an admin, never mind why Commons hasn't blocked him just as WP had the sense to. -- Colin (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, Colin, if you are going to make wide-ranging statements that I am in dispute with Jimmy, the best thing to do is to make sure you have solid evidence of it. What you have above is either not evidence of any disputes, and in one case an absolute fabrication. You know, that you are able to have disagreements with people, but not be in "dispute" with them. Such as User:Túrelio's comment above that we should give Jimmy special treatment on these projects. In my opinion, the WMF and Jimmy already are, and have been for a long time, afforded special treatment that is not afforded, and rightly so, to other people and organisations. Ask User:Túrelio if in his opinion, if I disagree with him that I am now in dispute with him. The only thing which even comes close to me being in a dispute with Jimmy, is where you state that I defended myself, but this is a total fabrication. I didn't defend myself, and Jimmy was talking to a ghost. That you, like a mindless sheep, have preferred to listen to Kevin Morris of the Daily Dot and his blog post is your problem. russavia (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Esperanto
[edit]Russavia claims this video is automatically in scope because it is in use. It is present on the Esperanto Wikipedia because Darkweasel94 added it, and it remains present there only because Russavia is now edit warring to keep it there. Esperanto is a constructed language and its Wikipedia is outside of the top-30 by size. Like the "it's educational arguments", on this page, the "in use" argument here is pretty ridiculous and make us look like fools -- Colin (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- No Colin, the person who removed it, removed it whilst this DR has been going, and it is their ONLY edit to any project. So it was obviously disruptive in that regard. All I did was reverted the article back to its stable state that it has been in for the last 4 months. User:Darkweasel94 obviously has acted independently; I see they are an admin on that project) and has written the article and has included what they deemed to be relevant media to the article. It is not within our remit to dictate to any project what media they can or can't use. That my friend, is the reality. russavia (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I will note that User:Zhuyifei1999 removed the video after Colin posted this, and I have reverted it, to bring the article back to its stable state. Whilst we don't editorialise what media other projects will or won't use, it really does make look bombastic when editors dictate to use what en.wp uses. Will the same thing occur now on nl:Pricasso and pl:Pricasso where the Jimmy portrait is displayed (and in the case of pl.wp it was on the article whilst the article appeared on the main page), enforcing what en.wp choses to do on other projects? C'mon guys, you know that such things aren't on; leave it up to editors on Esperanto Wikipedia to determine what media they will or won't use. russavia (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's certainly (much) better options, russavia. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but we let eo.wp editors decide such things on their own, we don't dictate to them what they can or can't use. Start discussion over there, and editors will likely tell you why they chose that for their article. I, personally don't know why, but that's not for me to judge, nor should it be for anyone else to do likewise. russavia (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The one who removed that video, seems to speak Esperanto, and therefore IMO he is an eo.wp editor (if not a sock). Otherwise, I give up. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Highly unlikely that an editor would make their first edit on any project to such a page, and for such a reason, whilst this DR is ongoing. Plus, did you know that Google Translate has had Esperanto for some time now, so it wouldn't be all that difficult to make 1 or 2 word comments in Esperanto, as they have. Don't give up, fight for what you think is the right thing to do, but there has to come a point where on our projects we let projects decide on their own. russavia (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The one who removed that video, seems to speak Esperanto, and therefore IMO he is an eo.wp editor (if not a sock). Otherwise, I give up. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but we let eo.wp editors decide such things on their own, we don't dictate to them what they can or can't use. Start discussion over there, and editors will likely tell you why they chose that for their article. I, personally don't know why, but that's not for me to judge, nor should it be for anyone else to do likewise. russavia (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- For the sake of transparency, let's look at the history:
- During the first deletion discussion of the portrait (14-20 June) Darkweasel94 voted keep (17 June) and commented on the in-scope/actual use issues. During this discussion, on the 19th June he created the Esperanto article.
- During the first deletion discussion of the video (14-19 August) Darkweasel94 voted keep (16 August) and wrote ""Notable" is not a term from Commons policies. The term we use is "useful for an educational purpose", and that's automatically fulfilled if it's in actual good faith use on a Wikimedia project. Is that the case? For the portrait itself see , for the video see . (Disclosure: the latter article was written entirely by myself.)" Then someone pointed out that Darkweasel94 had added the video to that article less than two hours before making his "in use == keep" claim. So the next day Darkweasel94 agrees to remove the video during the discussion.
- Now, I'm not aware that Darkweasel94 has a special interest in Australian painters, I thought public transport was more his theme. So let's not pretend this is some random Esperanto editor who by chance wrote an article on Pricasso and included a video to illustrate the painting technique (something en:wp is happy to do with an JPG). Darkweasel94 is certainly heavily involved the the Pricasso deletion debates, even creating File:Pricasso derivative?.jpg to illustrate the discussion. The "in use" case is busted spectacularly and now we have the lame situation where a disgraced ex-'crat from Commons is editorialising and edit warring on two occasions to keep a video he commissioned and uploaded on the only minority Wikipedia that has it. The article-traffic figures for that page are generally less than 3 hits a day -- really the only people looking at that article are folk from this debate. If Russavia is concerned it is being removed from that article in a manner that is inappropriate, he should contact an admin on that project to review it (not Darkweasel94, obviously). -- Colin (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's certainly (much) better options, russavia. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Seriously guys. How is any of this relevant? I can't write much detail now because I'm only on a smartphone, but two "educational value" DRs have already been closed as keep when the file was not in use, so it's totally irrelevant if it is in use now. May I ask you not to import this dispute into relatively peaceful wikis? Thank you very much. darkweasel94 15:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Em, it is relevant because you and Russavia have multiple-times claimed that being in-use is a reason for keeping it. When in fact the two of you have and continue to ensure it is in-use. I have no wish to tell actual editors of Australian painters on Esperanto how to edit their articles. Russavia has the cheek to say "leave it up to editors on Esperanto Wikipedia" yet is edit warring there himself. -- Colin (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm criticizing russavia just as much as everyone else. No point in edit warring there just to be able to call it in use/not in use because Commons has already decided that it is educational even if unused. Also, eowiki has pending changes everywhere and nothing of the edit war has yet been reviewed, so the stable version has it anyway. darkweasel94 16:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Em, it is relevant because you and Russavia have multiple-times claimed that being in-use is a reason for keeping it. When in fact the two of you have and continue to ensure it is in-use. I have no wish to tell actual editors of Australian painters on Esperanto how to edit their articles. Russavia has the cheek to say "leave it up to editors on Esperanto Wikipedia" yet is edit warring there himself. -- Colin (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The closing is coming, likely tonight
[edit]The group has reached a decision on a close, and will post it soon, likely tonight. Thank you all for your patience. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- The end is nigh, all ye repent of your sins and pray to Jimbo that you may be forgiven! -mattbuck (Talk) 19:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The undersigned have agreed to close this as deleted. The vote may or may not have been unanimous, and we agreed in advance among ourselves (as a condition of taking on this task) that we would not disclose individual votes.
The principal determining factor in our choice was that the video can be reasonably interpreted as (sexual) harassment of an editor. Files which have the implication of attack (of which harassment is a form) are outside of Commons' scope.
- Эlcobbola talk 11:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 11:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- matanya • talk 11:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sven Manguard Wha? 11:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Trijnsteltalk 11:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)