Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv

Video

Seriously, you're going to keep this video available to the public on your server? Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

• Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

I recommend those participating in this discussion read the book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate by two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Anthony Lewis, it's a most informative work related to the issues involved here.

I hope you find the book an enjoyable read,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Off topic

So we encourage freedom for speech? Jee 17:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC) What does your diff have to do with freedom of speech, or with this DR? Except that, of course, like every other diff, it is an instance of exercising one's freedom of speech. But surely you picked that diff for some more specific reason? darkweasel94 17:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC) So you can't see how people tried to close his mouth, and refuse to hear what he has to say? Jee 17:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC) @Darkweasel94: That's a clear case of intimidation. It's not even subtle. Sure, you're within rights to claim that it's irrelevant to the DR discussion, but defending it as "of course, like every other diff, it is an instance of exercising one's freedom of speech" is simply wrong. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC) I did not intend this to be read as a defense, not at all. I simply tried to see a link between that diff and freedom of speech. darkweasel94 07:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Just how many people does russavia threaten each day? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASaffron_Blaze&diff=111693505&oldid=111157912 Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to close the main project page from further editing until the close is posted

A few days ago I tried to halt discussion on this page, as the seven days had passed and a closing was forthcoming. That change was undone. The reason why I chose to take the unusual step of stopping discussion without a formal close statement was because a number of users were sniping at each other, and I felt that the likelyhood of another user coming along and adding an insightful argument that hadn't been brought up before was much lower than the chance that people would continue sniping at each other. The past few days have proven my prediction correct.

There are a number of users on both sides of the argument that are so riled up that the are unwilling or unable to disengage. They have to respond whenever someone from the other side posts anything, and more often than not, it gets nasty.

I'm not going to lock the page without consensus, but I'd very much like for people to agree to this, so that the fighting can stop.

Thoughts, Sven Manguard Wha? 23:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Conti|✉ 00:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Maybe people will blow off steam elsewhere instead in the meantime, but that seems better to me than the current situation. --Avenue (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Smallbones (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose DRs should be left open for discussion until they are actually closed. If you have a tentative close in mind (keep or delete) then I would suggest that you close it off tentatively with whether it will be deleted or not, with a note that a rationale is going to be forthcoming. russavia (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose per Russavia, but as a compromise, start reverting/removing any further off-topic threads. --Jakob (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If you (the team) are going start reading/reviewing the discussion, it is better closing it. New comments after your start will not get any attention; they will disturb your review process too. Jee 05:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose As standard pratice in Commons administrators never lock DR before closing (be it by keeping or deleting). If someone writes after a decison is made then thats what diffs are for or, for example difference between revisions. Tm (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The re-opening was four days ago now, and the discussions - at least the sensible ones - have run their course. I would support your proposal to close now if that is what the closing admin group agree to do. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Support, as it would be ridiculous to expect any further new aspects now. --Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Túrelio, look at my latest edit. This is a new aspect, is it not? :) russavia (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

O.k. As there was no consensus for DR-closure, it doesn't matter anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a hidden ad in the DR. I'll ask that the whole discussion be closed now, as I feel that it is just being used as a forum to attack people and to be as disruptive as possible. Smallbones (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not a DIFF link, that's just a link to the edit tab of the page. Could you please be more specific as to what was removed with a DIFF link? -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

ad shows now Smallbones (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The diff link looks OK to me now. No idea how that external link got in there, but Smallbones was right to get rid of it.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it is part of the original posting [1] - and it concerns the auctioning off of the painting itself we are speaking of. Specifically it says "the artist kindly donated his time and talent to help to illustrate his article". Now as I've said on the main page, I think it's utterly irrelevant whether Russavia suggested, commissioned, or otherwise influenced the production of the painting, but it's a source and he's got a right to cite it, and you shouldn't be censoring his comments to prevent him from defending himself. Wnt (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

 Comment - I agree with this comment by Wnt (talk · contribs), above. We should not be censoring comments of other users in deletion discussions, especially when trying to come to a consensus from the community discussion about whether or not to censor other images and media. Censorship in a discussion about censorship seems illogical. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the vehemence of the discussion on deletion, I expect that there will be some sort of appeal or something similar. I'll just ask that folks give it a rest until after the new year. Smallbones (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but.... is that it?

I was expecting a bit more than a single line of explanation from a deletion reason. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

For one, I am looking forward to deleting all parody of any notable person where there is any interpretation of it being attack material. There are no special exceptions for WMF Board members so precisely the same courtesy must now extend to everyone else. --Fæ (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems rather petulant and likely to be disruptive. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Except the video isn't a "parody" and the rational given was the subject was an "editor" rather than a "notable person". I would indeed hope the same courtesy would extend to any editor here, board member or otherwise, per our Terms of Use. -- Colin (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2013

If the multi millionaire cofounder of Wikipedia were not notable then half of Wikipedia should be deleted. If Wales does get a knighthood in the New Year we may have to reopen this DR. BTW if raising DRs based on the same principles underpinning this DR is now to be called disruption, then the ONLY purpose of the WMF resolution was to target a WMF board member, I doubt that is true. Fæ (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting that we've now established the principle that public figures with (active?) Wikimedia accounts get a higher level of protection than other public figures. darkweasel94 20:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, what we have established is the community will not accept this being turned into a hostile work environment where people can settle scores using our ideals as a shield. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite. — Scott • talk 21:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Julian Assange is a public figure. Jimmy Wales is not. You know how I know that? My mother knows who Julian Assange is but has no idea who Jimmy Wales is (despite the fact that I work for the Foundation). Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Public Figure is not a black and white issue. There is a spectrum of how public any one individual is and in what context. So while I agree JW is far down that spectrum, particularly once outside this community, let's not get into a meaningless debate as to whether JW is or is not a public figure. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read a comment that was as out of touch with reality as this one for a long time. I applaud you, @Kaldari. odder (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Kaldari, by your logic, if we were to go to one of those few remaining outposts of people untainted by technology somewhere in the south american rainforests, and clarified that they did not know who Barack Obama or Miley Cyrus were, they would no longer be public figures? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I sat a dinner party not too long after this debate reared its head again. As part of the conversation I asked everyone whether they knew who Jimmy Wales was. Not one of the group knew who he was. Perhaps 12 highly educated and intelligent people with diverse backgrounds might be out of touch with reality, but I doubt it. Kaldari point may have been a stretch but it wasn't completely off the mark even if it wasn't relevant to this outcome as indicated in the closing remarks by the panel. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• mattbuck, by your logic, is the tribal elder in that rainforest village also a public figure? Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If we argue with "locally vs. globally well-known", two questions: (a) do you know who Michael Häupl is, and (b) after reading en:Michael Häupl (or a version of that article in a language you understand better), would you agree that he is a public figure? darkweasel94 00:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Let's start another debate whether everyone in public office is a public figure. I said this issue was immaterial to the outcome and will leave it at that, as this is becoming less than useless and rather tedious. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The commentary above illustrates why Mattbuck is right that this one-liner is not a good close. Right after the close of this specific case nobody knows if the file was censored because Jimbo Wales is not a public figure, or because Wikipedians have special rights, or because we just don't host works of art that might offend anyone. So all we know is the simple act of deleting something for their own unknown reasons according to a hidden vote, and the vague claim of harassment ... and the certainty that the censors will be back for more tomorrow. Wnt (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Are the ones you provide the only three reasons why it would have been deleted? Obviously forgetting the one given in the close. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank the admins who close this. This circus has been going on for far too long. Merry Christmas to you! Yann (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I also thank the closing admins, although I am puzzled about the secret ballot thing. --Jakob (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

+1 Could this be swapped from secret to open in line with the norms of this project? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the votes were clearly kept secret in order to avoid further harassment of the kind represented by the deleted file, that is a request unlikely to ever be fulfilled. Move on. — Scott • talk 21:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost everything people do on a Wikimedia wiki is public, and I fail to see — given the standards set by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees (see voting transparency resolution), and the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, to give just two well-known examples — why this case should be any different. odder (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The clear difference is that neither of those two examples are poisonous environments where harassment is not only tolerated, but actively encouraged or even participated in by members of senior management. — Scott • talk 22:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, even if we start from the premise that Commons is such an environment (which I do not perceive it as, not at all). The Board of Trustees governs all of Wikimedia, including Commons, and they do not appear to have moved to secret voting due to harassment by Commons users ("senior management") or anybody else. darkweasel94 22:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to those brave enough to close this. I see no merit in personalising the decision. Let's move on. -- Colin (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Time to consign this episode to the history books and do something better. — Scott • talk 21:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of making unpleasant sarcastic remarks about Commons volunteers on Wikipediocracy, you might make the same proposal there? :-) Fæ (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're awfully keen to remind everyone how much of a dedicated Wikipediocracy reader you are. If you have a problem with that forum, why don't you go there and raise your concerns directly, hmm? And no, as a fine example of the rampant corruption and idiocy on Commons, this incident will be a fruitful subject for discussion for some time to come. Smiley face. — Scott • talk 01:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to your public allegation of rampant corruption, could you provide some names and evidence please? I would be only too happy report any real cases to ANU or the police, but I must have evidence rather than just vague defamation. Fæ (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL — Scott • talk 02:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fae, The little "den of maggots" that is Wikipediocracy raised close to $1000 for a charity that is helping the homeless in West Hollywood, thanks to the gorgeous Alf.laylah.wa.laylah who provided the initial spark. Has your "volunteering" for WP and Commons at any time had a similar effect in the real world? DracoEssentialis (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would consider writing on your site, or at least taking it seriously, if your members did anything to actively put a stop to the tactics of intimidation and the years long campaign of personal homophobic harassment I have been subject to from a couple of your most prolific contributors, mostly behind the scenes, such as this earlier today. Fæ (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

While all those "Wikipediocracy vs. The World" discussions are always amusing, this whole discussion is turning into something rather silly very fast. "We donated $1000, your argument is invalid!" has to be up there with the most cringe worthy comments made on this page yet. Can we get back on topic, please? --Conti|✉ 12:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)