This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.
Recent admin actions and e-mail address not set
On the Wikimedia Commons it is essential for administrators to have an e-mail address set. This allows other users to easily get in contact with them if they dispute an action and don't want there message to be seen on the wiki. Please set one immediately.
Also, according to m:Steward policies, and as you are not an elected sysop on the Wikimedia Commons, you are not permitted to make decisions and you must check local policy (which you have clearly violated since there was consensus on keeping the image). Thank you. Lcarsdata 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the outdated email address. I have asked for a new confirmation email to be sent to me. Funny, shows how long I have been around. :)
As to the image deletion, no apologies there. If Commons policy says it should have been kept, then Commons policies are wrong. Please help me work for a careful adjustment of policy.
Let me be clear on this: any policy which contemplates using Commons to support pedophilic abuse of a Wikipedia community mascot, when the image was uploaded by a throwaway account with a clearly trolling agenda, is a bad policy. This is not about censorship, I notice other lolicon images about which I have no problem. But this is not a radical free speech zone. Images have to serve the reasonable needs of the other projects. How to precisely fix whatever has gone wrong here, I am not sure. But let's have that discussion separately.--Jimbo Wales 17:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Jimmy. I'm sorry I didn't weigh in stronger at the deletion request, but I did feel the images were above and beyond our project scope and enough of a problem that they merited special treatment. Cary Bassdemandez 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lcarsdata. This was not a valid reason for deletion. To me this image was just a girl in a swimsuit. "Suggestive" is subjective and differ from culture and person. But it's probably not worth the trouble, is it? -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it is probably not worth the trouble to be sure. No reason to get excited I think.
The main thing, though, is that this was not just a girl in a swimsuit, or if that is all it was, then the artist failed miserably in his aim. The entire point of Lolicon is to generate highly sexualized images of little girls. I understand the need to illustrate the concept (though I doubt if original research and artistry is the best way to do it), and this is not about that.--Jimbo Wales 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Then we disagree on what is "highly sexualized". -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
To some should never ever be a reason to delete something. A not minimal part of the world population feels that all depictions of girls not like Image:Wikipe-tan (burqa).png are sexual. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, wait a second! I didn't create burqa-Wikipe-tan to illustrate this point! ::grumbles:: ;) Cary Bassdemandez 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the pedophilic Lolicon/Wikipitan image, Jimbo. I tried arguing that it was OR, and that pimping the WP mascot was a bad idea, but the discussion was shut down before any kind of consensus was reached. You did the right thing by getting rid of it. - Kathryn NicDhàna 00:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
One way to fix some of this would be to elect Jimbo as a sysop here, so his actions were pro forma correct. But I think I support the spirit of the actions more than the need for pro forma correctness. Still, I'd be happy to nominate! ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The above (it was pointed out to me offline) may have been a bit too subtle a way of saying I disagree that "the forms were not obeyed" is a valid reason to oppose the action, we don't normally ask GodKings to stand for election. :) But I WOULD nominate, if only for the bragging rights! ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is necessary and overly bureaucratic. The discussion should not be whether it was appropriate for Jimbo to use his steward powers to delete an image, but whether the deletion itself was appropriate. Process is not important. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
He wasn't using his steward powers, he was using his Jimbo powers. A mere steward be de-stewarded. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
State laws overiding but isn't WikiCommons a depository?
I have some concerns over the loliwiki-tan thing. no one in their right mind could have associated it with a mascot of wikimedia. I dont tend to troll circle-jerk sites but any adult cant really find that imagery in the same way as child porn. Their has mean murmurs in the UK about classifying some of the images as child porn but seriously making a drawing with a couple of jigsaw pieces?
My second concern relates to how commons actually views the upload of images? If I give a GNU license, i expect that anybody would be able to use my images. If the images can be used in wikimedia projects all very well, but my license covers the whole of the net far outside of wikimedia. " Images have to serve the reasonable needs of the other projects." I dont get the reasoning. Is it about bringing wikimedia into disrepute? or is it that commons uploads should relate to our wiki projects and not the right of anybody else to use our legal, legally licensed images? Mike34 08:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [Mail]
Mike, you should read the Commons:Project scope. We basically use the Wikimedia projects as the main point by which we evaluate the suitability of files uploaded here. Could it useful to a Wikimedia project one day (or better yet, right now)? Commons is primarily - but not only - a resource for Wikimedia. We have no obligation to keep everything that merely has a valid license. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
gotcha k - its just a repository of pics of cats and dogs. those pictures might be useful in other projects. what projects need 25,000 pictures of cats and dogs? what is it we are creating? Mike34 12:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I didn't participate in this deletion debate, but have been following the problem for some days now. While I understand your irrevocable right to do such actions as deleting without providing many details, I'd like to point out a couple of things:
Deletion debates are supposed to last for at least seven days. You broke this rule. Rules are not static but as you very well know, if things are not well, you change the rule, not the procedure.
By a) closing a deletion debate before time was due and b) providing an excuse as "e-mail me for details" instead of clearly explaining on the wiki what you may be answering by e-mail are IMHO acts of little transparency.
A lack of transparency in such actions, even coming from you (or maybe exactly because of that) can potentially undermine users' confidance in you, Commons in general, and Wikimedia projects even more general.
While I don't expect a personal response to this, I'd appreciate if you were a bit clearer in this action of yours in particular by explaining better why you broke a Commons rule, and in any potential future actions of the same type in general.
Just a note--the debate was closed twice before Wales's deletion by Commons admins, and had been reopened by them reluctantly for the third time when he closed it. They made it clear that their decision was made. The lack of transparency began with the off-site creation of the image and the 3 insistent new anons who helped override objections at lolicon before the image was even uploaded. -188.8.131.52 06:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I cant actually see why anybody would waste time uploading to commons. If we are just about wikimedia projects we can post in those with our own rights. Deleting sucks and commons (although mirrored) just isnt very cool. I'd rather licence every pic through wikipedia WHEN IT IS USEFUL than have all this. it sucks Mike34 13:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
@PatríciaR.You should rather say "has undermined users' confidance in you(Jimbo Wales)".I'm not adding anything else or i'll be qualified as a "pedophile troll".--Pixel ;-) 03:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't been literally trolling the pedophile/child pornography related articles this week like 20 new users have, a third of whom have managed to get themselves blocked already and one of whom was using a zombie computer, then you aren't a pedophile troll. -184.108.40.206 06:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!