Commons talk:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Curious that given the delete votes outnumber the keep votes by abouit 2 to 1 that the images should be kept, SqueakBox 23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep that is strange. 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not a democracy nor is it a vote. There is nothing strange about it. We do not delete images just because it doesn't suit peoples ethics. -- Cat chi? 01:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Moreover the the project scope says: "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. [...], self-created artwork without educational purpose and such."
Nobody answered my question why Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg isn't educational enough. So I think IP is right that we need a "Wikipedia child porn scandle" that something will change.
--D-Kuru 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hypnosadist AKA User: does not endorse the artificial creation of a "Wikipedia child porn scandle", i think it will happen in less than 48 hours from now unfortunately. 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As per dispute resolution i've started talking to the admin[1] who closed this deletion request. hypnosadist86.53.57.148 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Drini was right when he closed the discussion. I have read the deletion request guidelines again and if I'm right they don't include If this media causes a damage to Wikipedia's image.
--D-Kuru 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. Wikipedias image is, to be blunt, "none of our concern". You (plural) are welcome to not use an image. Pictures of Islamic prophet Mohamed isn't used on IIRC, pictures of Nazi symbols is not used on for example. -- Cat chi? 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion re-opened, but the page is still protected.. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well lets list the main problems here until the main page is up. 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Our ethics that child porn is bad.
2. The possible damage caused to wikipedias image.
3. That final solution-chan is good enough to do the job.
4. "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. [...], self-created artwork without educational purpose and such."
the preceding unsigned comment is by (talk • contribs)
1. Irrelevant.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Irrelevant. We are not required to have one and only one illustration of a topic.
4. Irrelevant. This illustrates lolicon, a gerne of art, no matter how distasteful you and I feel it is. It is more than in commons' project scope
-- Cat chi? 14:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Although I am no expert on the matter, I also want to point out that this is actually a "bad" illustration of Lolicon, it is far too tuned down. The two images merely display a cartoony girl in swimming suit. It is nothing like the examples I found on google in a 0.09 second search. -- Cat chi? 18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes and look there is that, yes it is! a link to wikipedia. 19:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is that surprising? -- Cat chi? 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Comparing pics of penises with pics displaying child porn is bizarre and using that to justify the keep in spite of the clear consensus to delete is strange to say the least, SqueakBox 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Such closures are pretty commmon on commons. "Consensus" is clearly a keep if you do not take this like a democratic vote. -- Cat chi? 21:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"Consensus" itself is a concept related to counting votes/opinions. Samulili 08:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that concept is called a democracy and is unwelcome at commons. We weight the value of comments. If there is a single valid reason for delete, the number of keep votes become irrelevant. If there isn't a single valid reason for delete the number of delete votes becomes irrelevant. It is simple as that. -- Cat chi? 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Your reasoning is just wrong. Consensus - which you claim to base your decisions on - refers to the number of comments and is therefore related to voting - which you claim to oppose. Consensus [2] does not refer to value of comments. Samulili 19:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying this is a democracy now? You are dead wrong. -- Cat chi? 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad way of handling it, admins[edit]

Sorry, but deletion requests are not supposed to be closed ASAP. They must not be reopened, reclosed, etc. They should only be closed when there is clear consensus on what to do. If a discussion is still active, please restrict yourself to votes and comments... / Fred J 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's decision was out of the blue; I honestly no idea how he got word of the deletion debate. Regardless, I think White Cat should have either asked me to restore the images or taken it to deletion review instead of doing what he did. While "it has problems on en.wp" is not a speedy deletion, he could have asked me what problems they were (sourcing and authoring, but I believe the details should be left to the private channels). Anyways, lets move forward. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If I'm right White Cat is a woman and not a "he"...
--D-Kuru 11:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fred, although I only found out about this debate after the fact, it doesn't look like it was handled well.
Maybe someone can explain to me, why exactly is IDONTLIKEIT not "an accepted Commons argument"? How about ITMAKESMEFEELSICK? How about THISISNOTMYVISIONOFWIKIMEDIA? etc. As Jimbo said on his talk page, Commons is not a "radical free speech zone". Licensing is not the ONLY criterion by which we decide the suitability of things to stay here. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Mostly because of the large number of different cultural backgrounds involed mean that IDONTLIKEIT could apply to pretty much anything. Of course there is Commons:Project scope.Geni 11:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but it's hardly a definitive guide. It leaves a lot to personal interpretation (which IMO is the way it should be). What is Wikimedia? What should Wikimedia be? The collective belief/understanding about this is the sum of many individual opinions.
There is a difference between "I'd prefer not to include this, but if the collective thinking goes the other way, so be it" (which I think is what IDONTLIKEIT hints at?) and "It is intolerable to my sense of what this project is about, that this could continue to be included"... I think... but I don't think I've seen that difference expressed well. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
"It makes me sick"/"i dont like it" arguments are not welcome on commons at all. When a nom is full of "It makes me sick"/"i dont like it" arguments, it is no longer a healthy discussion and should simply be closed as a default keep/no consensus. A new discussion maybe started once things cool. This nom is full of one timer votes. Most of the voters are not active on commons. Some peoples only contribution is to this particular nom. I can't take such votes seriously.
There are plenty of cultures out there which will require us to delete a vast number of images. Lolicon is perfectly legal/acceptable in japan (and somewhat in the US according to the lolicon article). However in japan pubic hair is illegal (IIRC). In Iran any image of a woman not in a burka would be unthinkable culturally (and perhaps legally). in Germany nazi symbols are completely banned legally (not just culturally).
If ethics will be our rationale for deletion tell me one reason why I shouldn't delete anything I personally feel sick/immoral/unetical? How the heck am I going to close noms which has a main "I think this is immoral" rationale with no basis on anything else?
Commons is indeed not a "radical free speech zone", it is a free image repository. An image conveys no speech as it is graphical by nature. I completely disagree that we should start deleting image just because we dislike them.
Also I do want to point out that the images we had here were merely pictures of a girl in swimming suit. I honestly do not see whats wrong with it.
-- Cat chi? 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)