Commons:Deletion requests/File:Symbol of Girllove.svg

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

File:Symbol of Girllove.svg

[edit]
Also adding File:Girllove pedophilia symbol.png as per discussion below on COM:PRP grounds.

Inappropriate per WMF resolutions on Child Protection. Just plain wrong to have it here or on any WMF server. I did not know or look what this was when I was vectorising files requested at the Graphics Illustration Lab at en.wp. I damn well should have looked, but I didn't - just another image of which I do lots - 10 minutes I should not have spent. Mea culpa. Mea rubor. Anyone restoring/reverting it takes responsibility for having uploaded it as far as I'm concerned. Please don't. I have replaced with 1px x 1px blank image in interim. Please respect my wishes and don't restore my contribution to this just because you can. Thanks, and sorry. Begoon - talk 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the thing: I think it should be deleted, and that's the reason for this discussion.
I don't wish my contribution to be kept here because of the associations I now understand the image to have, so I have uploaded a "new blank version" and asked that my previous version be deleted and not used. Not using my contribution to this file, is, in effect, a separate personal request from me and I am well aware of all the COMMONS:NOTCENSORED and "educational" arguments that could and probably will be used to keep the file.
In the event that it is kept, I would be grateful if one of the people wishing to keep it would also recreate it, from a source other than the file I uploaded, and upload it themselves, so that I have no further involvement in its existence.
To be clear, I am requesting deletion - but I am adding a personal request which I am aware I cannot enforce. I will, however, be guided by this community's decision on this matter with regards to deciding on my future participation, since I would not wish to be part of a community which denied such a request from a user who had made an honest mistake which was troubling his conscience, and I cannot imagine a genuine reason it would do so, other than "because it can". I've no interest in debating that, and I have now done as my conscience demands.
This is the only reply I am likely to make in this discussion, since I hope I have now sufficiently clarified my request. Thanks. Begoon - talk 07:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even in case that this DR should result in a keep, we could remove all association to you from the image page. --Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, and for your !vote - but just to be even more clear - I do not wish to hide my association with this upload, I am not ashamed of making a mistake.
I wish for the file which I vectorised to be deleted whatever the result of this discussion, since the file is freely available for use by anyone, and I do not wish it to be a file which I vectorised which is used for the purposes which this file is likely to be used for. That thought is utterly abhorrent to me. Let someone who does not feel that way provide the file if the decision is to have a file here. That's easy to do, and common human decency, knowing my strongly felt wishes. IAR exists for a reason.
There is probably no way to make somebody who doesn't understand that do so, but I hope that most people reading this discussion will understand. If the community decides to keep a file available, well I strongly disagree with that decision, but if the community decides to keep this file, after my clearly reasoned and expressed wish that it not do so, then that would be too much for me to justify continued involvement with said community. That's not a position I can move from. Of course, that's my decision, and the community will make theirs. I can live with mine.
I really won't respond again, because I don't think there's any more I can say, and I'm certainly not here to litigate about it. As to restoring it in the midst of this request, well, that action disappoints me enormously - but I won't edit war over it. Sadly, I expected that someone would do that - Commons lack of compassion and respect for user wishes in matters like this is, unfortunately, becoming legendary - I just hate to experience it first hand. The file is not used anywhere other than a user page and frankly that action falls exactly into the "because we can" category I mooted above.
I've made my decision, so I'll step away and let you all make yours. Begoon - talk 15:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that, even if this page were deleted, were someone to simply re-upload the same vectorization of the image without mentioning you that you would still want it deleted because it is the vectorization you did of the image?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm voting strongly to delete. That's point one. I think that image should be deleted regardless of any involvement by myself. I don't believe it's an appropriate image for this project to offer, whatever its provenance.
In the scenario you describe, whilst I would be very disappointed that the community chose to host such an image, I would technically have no way to check, since I have no copy or details of the file and do not intend to keep one. If the uploader said it was their own work, based on another given source, I would have to accept that was the case. As DC says below, a different filename would keep someone else's upload and the logs separate from this.
I believe simply reuploading a copy of this file in that way would be an extraordanarily dishonest thing to do, but that would not then be as much of a weight on my conscience, since I would not technically know (even if it appeared visually so identical that it was very, very likely), and would not have consented. Obviously I'd much rather not even have to suspect, and a responsible community of which I could be proud would help me with that as much as it could - but no solution is ideal for me except permanent deletion and not hosting a replacement.
As an interesting, academic aside, it often morbidly fascinates me to see how people divide themselves on issues like this - either looking for ways to "do the right thing" and help a "colleague" who has made an honest mistake, or ignoring that aspect entirely. Usually I've needed to watch that from the outside, but one gains a whole new perspective in situations like this. In that way I'll end up learning something useful from this mistake after all. I guess the glass is really always half full... Begoon - talk 18:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do make a reasonable point against uploading the svg file, so I am boldly pursuing an alternative of uploading the png version of the file and, in extra deference, making it about as explicit as I can that this is a pedophilic symbol so that no one else misconstrues the nature of it. Mind you, that is a good reason for keeping the image as this is intended to be a secret symbol for communication between people who may abuse children and thus allowing people to recognize its purpose is important, as well as insuring people don't stumble upon it elsewhere and use it unwittingly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also have restored the file -I suppose it should stay until the deletion discussion is over. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to images of Nazi signs, this image page has no warning to re-users about its meaning. This may results in inadvertent use, which might people get into trouble.
Besides, while Nazi imaging is history and thereby educational, pedophilia/childlove is not and hosting such a sign is something alltogether different.  Delete --Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A warning/description should be added indeed, this I completely agree. However pedophilia advocacy is, unfortunately, a real ongoing phenomenon, and as such its documentation has educational merit. That something is horrible does not mean we must put it under the carpet. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Courtesy delete per Begoon's request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Begoon has reasonable concerns regarding being associated with the upload. I think we can simply delete the old versions of the image and delete any info in the logs or revision. Now that Cyclopia has re-uploaded the image that should be sufficient. Presumably, Cyclopia has no qualms about being known as the uploader, and I have altered the description to be clear about its usage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being it understood I am the "uploader" in the sense that I reinstated it for the purposes of a deletion discussion, and not because I have anything to do with the matter, then no qualms. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that the file is deleted, as requested by Begoon, with an explanation of this in the log. If someone wants to recreate it from the source, they can upload it under a new name (i.e., "Girllove symbol") to avoid confusing log entries. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - per nom, and per User:Túrelio above - Alison ❤ 01:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Does anyone has any evidence of this symbol being used for the purpose as in identifying people as "girl lovers" (or whatever it is paedophiles call themselves). If there is documented evidence of it being used as such, we should be keeping this as clearly educational and in scope. Issues relating to the uploader, etc can be rectified quite easily, so my question isn't being related to that issue at all. russavia (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just go on the image page and click above on "Google Images" to get an idea, even without the need for going deeper or visiting individual websites. For an overview of several symbols of that kind, see http://ffkfightingforkids.weebly.com/logos-used-by-peadophiles.html. --Túrelio (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but here's the thing Turelio. I believe they are hoax images, and in a 4chan way they are actually quite "funny" hoax images. en:List_of_Unilever_brands#Ice_cream shows that this "Girl love" image is the Unilever icecream brand logo (but reversed); which would give you the line "Hello little girl, would you like an icecream?". There's no evidence of them actually being identified with paedophiles; at least not from anything that would resemble a reliable source, so it's a  Delete from me. russavia (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I favor deletion anyway, this alleged FBI sourced material declares this symbol to have the assumed meaning. --Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Well if that FBI bulletin is legit, that sucks, because I recognised the logo as resembling Streets icecream (the Australian Unilever icecream brand), and that Aussie on the snopes forums also thought the same way as me. So it could be a case that they are legitimate. If that's the case, then we clearly have a need to host this logo as it is inscope, and it is our mission to host educational materials. The description could be fixed to annotate it inline with that FBI bulletin (if it determinable that it is legit). wikinews:FBI document reviews symbols used by pedophiles and the Wikileaks information page would indicate that it is legitimate. Hosting this logo does not mean that we endorse what the logo portrays (I certainly don't). However, is the logo itself low on the threshold of originality? That might be an issue which we need to look at. I've struck my delete vote until we can ascertain it's copyright status. russavia (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the file is also hosted on Turner Entertainment, meaning it was likely reported at one stage by CNN. russavia (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that one of the sources cited in that FBI document is "Pedophile Activism, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childlove_movement". Using this document to verify the legitimacy of this symbol is a very questionable notion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt the symbol's authenticity. Since it seems to have gone unnoticed, I did upload the png file at a separate location so we can go ahead and  Delete the svg. As the version I uploaded clearly indicates its meaning in both the title of the file and the description there should be no future confusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete the SVG. But the issue of COM:TOO still applies here; we need to know where it was created in order to ascertain whether it meets that threshold. This would easily pass TOO in countries such as the UK and Australia, etc, but may not meet it in the US. Also the author "Apakal" is not registered on en.wp and another editor was the uploader. So I would also apply COM:PRP to File:Girllove pedophilia symbol.png until we are able ascertain such information. russavia (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Authorship and copyright status are unknown:
--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's a  Delete on File:Girllove pedophilia symbol.png as well. If the author is willing to submit to COM:OTRS with legal name, etc, I am sure this could be looked at, etc. russavia (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I do wonder if the image could be considered to not satisfy the threshold of originality. It was noted that Unilever has a remarkably similar logo so this seems indicative that the underlying does not require a terrible amount of originality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the author of this logo is from say the UK or Australia, it would more than meet COM:TOO. Without true authorship information, we can't ascertain its copyright status, and hence under COM:PRP it has to be deleted. russavia (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to a Wikipedia mirror site that captures the now-deleted image page on Wikipedia this post was the original source for permission: [1]. See the following parts of the conversation for clarity: [2] [3].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - per nom, who I consider to be a friend and never would knowingly have put him in a situation that made him uncomfortable. I did indeed ask for the vectorization, and it was uploaded to the appropriate article, but now is only in my keep folder, mentioned above, which looks awk-waaard to say the least. It was removed from the article, and out of deference to Begoon's obvious discomfort, I have removed it from my keep folder, delete away as per nom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kintetsubuffalo, I wouldn't want people to misunderstand why you had the symbol representing pedophiles with a preference for female children in your gallery of favourite images. Thanks for supporting this deletion and removing the image from your page so that it is not in use anywhere on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per consensus/COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Symbol_of_Girllove.svg&oldid=99582359"