Confirming and refuting real life claimsEdit
In this comment on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#missing legal competence by age? I voiced an opinion over the appropriateness of you refuting or confirming whether a contributor was a minor. I suggested it would be best for long term interests o the project if you were to leave such determinations to the volunteers on the OTRS team.
In addition to the reasons I offered there, I suspect it is bad for their morale to learn you were doing their job.
All photos in Wikimedia Commons Category:Igor Janev are nominated for deletion! Why?Edit
After talk with J. Wales on Wikipedia talk, as a special measure: All photos in Wikimedia Commons Category:Igor Janev are nominated for deletion. How democratic way of conduct of business in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
Please don't needlessly attack our adminsEdit
Jimmy, in relation to comments you left here to Jim, I am disappointed that you have used your first edit in 4 months on Commons as another attack on one of our admins. Everything that occurred in that DR was purely investigative work on the image in question, and any admin would have been correct in closing it as a keep, and would have clearly been incorrect in closing it as a delete.
On Commons we are not in the habit of deleting images which are clearly freely licenced and in-scope, and there is often great investigative work done by editors in order to ascertain the copyright status of images; if they are copyright violations we are not in the habit now, nor will we be in the future, of keeping images just because.
Your comments are even more troublesome because Jim isn't even the admin who closed the DR in question; he was providing his opinion to another editor in an outside of DR capacity. I don't know how you came to learn of the DR or the image in question, but your comments were clearly inappropriate in these circumstances, and they have the admin you have all but browbeat questioning their continued participation on this project. This isn't acceptable.
- Russavia, your attack on Jimmy is also very inappropriate. Jimmy's comment was prior to the initiation of that DR. It was Эlcobbola who converted that malformed DR to an original DR. And I didn't see Jimmy's advice to help a person who don't know how to start a proper DR is inappropriate.
- Most surprising to me is that none of you (many of you have Flickr accounts) attempt to contact Celisa B.M.Serra and clarify the matter in question. It took only a few minutes for me to get an answer from him/her. :)
- Please be wise and gentle. JKadavoor Jee 07:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, in this case, it really does seem like Jimbo owes the guy an apology or at least an admission of wrongdoing. I can imagine it would be a bit upsetting for someone who has contributed to a site for a long time having the head of the site accuse them of serious incompetence or misconduct for not acting immediately on a questionable complaint from someone who has never contributed here before. That said complaint was promptly proven to be mistaken shows James was justified in his pensive response. Jimbo seems to be letting his feelings about Commons color his perception of any prominent contributors here, which is not the way someone in a leadership role should conduct himself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy, on your English Wikipedia talk page, the usage of a Commons-hosted file (File:Nude woman with niqab.jpg) on a Russian Wikinews piece is under discussion. Whilst the usage on that news piece is problematic, the question was asked how this image could possibly be in scope of Commons, to which you answered:
"Indeed, asking that question and expecting a serious answer from commons is a pretty doomed approach. :-)"
This comment, and rightly so, saw you being rebuked by User:Trijnstel, a Commons admin and project steward. Instead of talk page trolling (which is how I perceive your comment), then perhaps you would like to come to Commons and have a civilised discussion about it.
This image is clearly within the scope of Commons, as it is the work of a notable Dutch photographer. That in itself, is all that Commons would require to determine whether it is in scope. Commons is simply a media repository which serves not only Wikimedia project, but the entire internet community via InstantCommons. The image could be used to illustrate the works of this photographer, and it is indeed used on the Vietnamese language article for this artist. This usage on one of our projects cements its scope. How other projects utilise it is completely up to those projects, although I, myself, wouldn't condone it being used on the news article as it was.
The photography certainly is a provocative piece of art, and I am sure that upon viewing it people will have many emotional thoughts on it. You stated that it could be seen as racist; perhaps, this piece of photographic art is lost on yourself? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. User:The Devil's Advocate states it brilliantly here, and I agree 100%, when he says:
"I recognize it is a strong socio-political statement by someone notable for creating provocative art, but I also recognize it as something that only should be used within the appropriate context. Plopping it into a generic article about Muslim dress seems like an attempt to demean, mock, or otherwise attack certain religious sects."
- It doesn't matter whether I'm an admin, a steward or just a new Commons user. And I won't comment on the image or its use, but I think it's unbelievable someone with such a high position in the WMF (board/founder) can say such things. We - the admins/volunteers on Commons - are also just volunteers like everyone else on the Wikimedia projects and try to do our best. A little understanding would be nice, but I think asking such a thing from Jimmy is a pretty doomed approach too. Trijnsteltalk 22:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Trijnstel, you not only missed the smiley, but you missed the question to which he answered too. "How is that even in scope for Commons? Wait, don't ask..." was from Crisco 1492 who had contributed a lot of works here, including a lot of nude arts. So probably he was not talking about the nudity in that picture; but about the insulting tone as somebody commented later ("Plopping it into a generic article about Muslim dress seems like an attempt to demean, mock, or otherwise attack certain religious sects.--The Devil's Advocate"). As Crisco 1492 is currently living in Indonesia, he may probably easy to understand how insulting it is to his neighbors. The failure of Commons here is not hosting sexual contents; but the failure to distinguish what is demeaning and what is not. Jee 03:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Jee: I didn't miss the smiley (it didn't look like a joke to me), but I've seen Jimmy posting similar comments before and I just wished he would simply respect Commons and its volunteers a bit more. And I didn't miss the comment of Crisco 1492 either, but the answer of Jimmy wasn't directly related to that point. Trijnsteltalk 15:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)