Commons talk:Sexual content/Village pump/2010-5-6

Moved from Commons:Village pump.

Cleanup policy

See also Commons talk:Sexual content.

Will likely be of some interest--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Trolling"? Changing policies for adminship? It seems to me that the founder should try to relax. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Does Jimbo have the authority to declare policy on Commons? -Atmoz (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even files that had been kept after DR are getting summarily deleted now, see User talk:Fran Rogers#Deletion spree. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Also this comment from Jimmy is relevant here - Alison ^❤ 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Commons needs to get back to its mission of cataloging images for educational use. There's been a major misunderstanding among some users that Commons is a carefully categorized database of erotica/fetish pictures (see, for example, this discussion), or that Flickr import is for uploading random artistic pictures of people. The existing project scope needs to be dutifully enforced. Fran Rogers (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a humongous backlogs of deletion requests. On your censoring spree, are you even checking if a file has been kept after DR? Or if it is in use? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling it "censorship" is poisoning the well. Editorial selection is not the same thing as censorship.
Anyway, the deletion request is clearly badly broken, as the above concerns voiced by Jimmy himself indicate. More drastic action is needed; the "educational use" requirement needs to be more zealously enforced. (And often times, a file is nominated for deletion for a reason other than being out of project scope (like licensing concerns), then kept; this doesn't exempt the image from being deleted for being out of scope. Such was the case with the image you mentioned on my talk page.) Fran Rogers (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Let us call a spade a spade. You are not editorially selecting images on the basis of quality, or of usefullness. You are targeting images that illustrate wikipedia articles about sexual practices. Which is censorship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that Commons was a collection of educational media, which includes human behavior, even fetishistic behavior. I'm sorry, I guess I was wrong; only ethnic nudity/fetish material needs apply. We have multiple pictures of just about every small town on Earth, but we can't even keep one photograph of one of the most typical human behaviors. That's censorship.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you do not care, see en:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the Wikimedia projects are going to be censored according to US-american norms just like Apple and Google are already censoring contents which might upset americans. It would really suit a worldwide project like Wikimedia to say no to censoring, and instead push forward to implement a content filter, so each user can choose on his own. We must realise that what americans do or do not find upsetting can be very different for people originating from other cultures. Nillerdk (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a content filter is the way forward. However, while we don't have one, I support a certain amount of deletion. --JN466 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I would agree that there is probably a reasonable amount of files which are of questionable educational value, I am concerned by users apparently taking Jimbo's comments as a green light to speedily delete masses of files. It also deeply concerns me that one of those users has declared that the "deletion request [process] is clearly badly broken". Broken in what way? That it doesn't result in files the user wants deleting actually being deleted? A process isn't broken just because it produces in an outcome one doesn't agree with. Yes, some pruning of the masses of explicit images should be done but I don't think someone who shows such little regard for existing deletion requests should be involved. I would accept that in some cases where targeted files have been the subject of deletion requests it might have been for reasons other than concerns about the project scope but I would suggest that in such instances users participating in the discussion will probably consider whether there are any other problems beyond what has been highlighted. What I fear is happening here is not a reasonable removal of images with little educational value but rather an imposing of the views of those involved in selecting files to delete. "Censorship" is an inevitable concern when masses of files are being deleted without discussion. I think this should stop, or at the very least, those deleting masses of files on the basis of Jimbo's recent comments should document such deletions somewhere central so others can review them without having to try to work out which are relevant from searching through deletion logs. After all, if what is really going on is a pruning of useless files, those involved should be more than happy to help others recognise that and not fear something else is going on. Adambro (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

en:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker is very concerning. Adambro (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/CommonsDelinker where Tiptoety is flaunting policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, we can't do anything against the decision of the boss, but why this file (at flickr, Google Pictures) was deleted? It was a CGI drawing, and a innocent one. And Jimbo says nothing about mass deletion of all non-pornography nude pictures: "We should keep educational images about sexuality - mere nudity is not pornography - but as with all our projects, editorial quality judgments must be made and will be made - appropriately and in good taste." Trycatch (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Jimbo has said "Existing policy can be enforced firmly and swiftly". Since existing policy says that an image legitimately in use on another WMF project is considered in scope, I hope no more images that are in use will be deleted with the incorrect suggestion as the deletion reason that they are beyond the project scope. Adambro (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'm getting angry for enforcing policy without wide-and-sufficient consensus, not for deleting ponrographic images. I'm really concerned that Jimbo's interventions to individual project is being serious. I think Jimbo should try to relax. – Kwj2772 (msg) 08:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• I propose to speedy delete all the images of Category:Christian crosses, as they are offensive for hundred millions people. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 09:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  No, we shouldn't stoop to that level. We don't vandalize art. Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Are we really going along with this? Jimbo makes one of his rare appearances here and says "we should delete porn regardless of policy, and anyone who dares think otherwise will have his adminship revoked", and five minutes later hundreds of images (some of which were in use so clearly in scope) are deleted at the sole discretion of one individual (with their own definition of what porn is). And let's not pretend this is about the project scope; he didn't say "let's get rid of all the images that are of little or no educational value" (we have thousands of private pictures or personal artwork, sunsets, cats, unknown locations, etc. that could also be removed), but no, this is only about "all pornographic images", assuming that none of these can be educational (and yet a lot of them were in use in article namespace on various projects).
  And what does it say about us admins, trying to do our job responsibly and following policies, trying to carefully implement policies through consensus, keeping in mind that hundreds of projects depend on us? Well, it quite simply suggest that we were not acting to serve this project, but rather our own perversions; or maybe that we are not mature enough to take decisions as a community, and we need some messiah to guide us back on the right path.
  I really feel insulted and saddened by this, and I sincerely hope this is not going to be the way decisions are made on Commons. We're all volunteers and give our time and energy to a project in which we believe, not to a project were we are reduced to blindly follow arbitrary decisions. –Tryphon^☂ 09:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it'd be a good thing for us all to aim towards making sure commons is accessible in schools around the world - if that necessitates some pragmatic changes, then I think that's probably, on balance, for the best. Now if we can figure out a sensible tagging system (I think there's one on the way! hooray!) then I'll re-upload my extensive blow job pic collection with... um... nobs on ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• This "policy" which is nothing more than an off the cuff statement, has already degenerated into vandalism. Two illustrative, non pornographic (but perhaps disturbing) images File:Doggirl in her routine shower.jpg and File:Doggril tries to escape.jpg have just been deleted. I don't agree with deleting Christian imagery, but much is just as prurient, offensive and non-educational as any illustrating human sexuality. All Jimbo has actually said is the existing policy (i.e. that already worked out by consensus) be quickly enforced. This vandalism spree needs to be stopped and reversed now! --Simonxag (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It goes from bad to worse. It seems Image:Prince_Albert_Piercings(expert19612005)..JPG used on de:Dehnen von Piercings and de:Prinz-Albert-Piercing, has gone. No discussion, just an interpretation of a remark from chairman Jim, and no evidence afterwards that anything was there, so it gets deleted from the Wiki project article and airbrushed out of history. --Simonxag (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy deletions, with consensus, based on the opinions of some people as to what constitutes "educational" and "pornographic" is increadibly upsetting. Tryphon said it best above. Why not put these people in charge of Commons and be done with it? The question was asked, but I don't believe answered -- does Jimbo have the authority to establish policy? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  I reject any attempt to speedy delete images on grounds of being pornography. Deletion requests, fine, but speedy deletion IMO should generally not be used for out of scope images. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Has to be an imposter

I'm not convinced that the comment was actually made by Jimbo Wales. It may be that someone hacked his account. Consider the content of what it says and how uncharacteristic and irresponsible what it says is. Not at all in alignment with how he would act.

• "...but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support. This includes immediate deletion of all pornographic images"

Clearly he would not direct admins and editors to use an extremely subjective personal measurement such as "pornography" or "prurient" and tell them to go outside the established deletion process in doing so. Also, he knows that his personal opinion should not override the board of directors and the established organizational structure. He would have dealt with it through them.

• "I am fully willing to change the policies for adminship (including removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue)."

Again, can we believe that he would go around the established processes and hierarchy and actually threaten to delete admins who do not agree with deleting images of sexuality? That would result an a mass exodus of people from the entire WMF. The real Jimbo Wales knows that the project is about collaboration and consensus, and stopped being about him and his opinions a long time ago. Whomever posted that on his page has to be an imposter.

• "I think our existing policies here on commons are sufficient to deal with the problem - with the minor exception that many things should just be speedy deleted and argued about later."

Saying that things can be dealt with within policy, when the preceding comments, and the following comment say that they should be done outside of policy does not make sense. He would not have said it like that. The end result of mass deletions of images used in articles shows how following user space comments that appear to be the opinions of Jimbo Wales, rather than established process or through official channels are damaging to WMF.

If the real Jimbo Wales had wanted to take action, he would have used established processes through the foundation, rather than creating chaos by offering personal opinions posed as a directive on his user page. Certainly Admins and editors are aware that real policy about something so comprehensive would not have been delivered in the manner of a drunken text message at 1:53 am, and would have been discussed and delivered through official channels instead. How many other directives and foundation policies have circumvented the Board and been delivered on his talk page?? Do you see my point? What we need is a comment from the real Jimbo Wales reassuring us that this collaboration follows established channels and processes.

Atomaton (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• The files used in Wikipedias are/were by definition in scope and should be undeleted. --Jarekt (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Certainly. Nillerdk (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And restore to the projects. See the list at http://toolserver.org/~delinker/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not convinced that the comment was actually made by Jimbo Wales." - I am. I have every reason to believe it's him saying these things. I think suggesting this is from an imposter is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy if it turned out to be an impostor, but judging from previous inconsiderate command-like interventions by Jimbo, I don't think it is. --Slomox (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Besides the way how media influence Wikimedia, it's also a shame how this is done. Obviously, since there will never be a consensus for this, it needs Jimbo. Hopefully, there will be a good end out of this, but to be honest, seeing the complete lack of resistance, I doubt this will happen anytime soon. I'd recommend not wasting your time with this: Go out, breathe some air, look at the sky and the birds any maybe you'll have a good day. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we must resist. Mr. Wales did already admit that he doesn't have the authority to enforce his opinion without the Board. So policy still applies and steps must be taken against the uncontrolled deletion of files in use. Nillerdk (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you misinterpreted what I said. I said that if the Wikimedia Foundation wants to declare that it is ok for Commons to be a porn host, they can do that, and I'll not be able to continue. That isn't going to happen, though, and in fact you should expect a strong statement from the Board and/or Sue in the next few days.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The ramifications of this could be huge. His statement isn't policy, and any deletions should be reversed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, my statement is policy. Please don't wheel war about it, and please don't undelete things lightly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if I can agree with this new policy, there's something of an autocracy in the way it has been done. And I don't like this at all... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never even been involved in these debates over sexual content, but this bullzozer approach to the issue is shocking. Images are being deleted unilaterally before the Board has issued any statement or the community has had the opportunity to discuss how best to implement it. What a mess - it has been handled so badly. Concerns about censorship about the Americanization of the project are pretty legitimate and the responses/lack of concern from Mr. Wales is disappointing to say the least. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn you Jimbo, I was assuming you'd say "I'm not an imposter" and I'd reply with "well you would say that" but you went and ruined it. I recognise that you are the founder of Wikipedia, and Wikimedia, and thus Commons by extension, but I do not recognise your right to unilaterally declare policy. Especially not in this manner. If this is a legal position, so be it, but this seems more an issue of prurience and IDONTLIKEIT than anything. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) All WMF projects are on private ground of the WMF. Jimbo Wales is not just the founder of this but still member of the board of trustees. The WMF does not provide just free webspace to everything that is hopefully legal but follows a mission and gathers support for it from donors. Given this, we shall aim to support this mission and to take recommendations coming from members of the board of trustees seriously. This does not mean that community consensus is abandoned. But it means that we shall strive to support this mission and in consequence Commons as one of the WMF sites is restricted to educational content. Getting rid of material that is out of COM:SCOPE is not censorship as anyone is free to open elsewhere a free repository of non-educational material. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that. It is the unilateral determinations of what is in scope and what is supportive of the mission that is troubling. It is, as far as I can tell, an abandonment of the consensus principle. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand Jimbo Wales' recent comments as an appeal to be more strict in regard to COM:SCOPE as it was handled in the past. As far as I understand, there has been quite some press coverage of this issue since Larry Singer accused the WMF to host child porn (see here, for example). Even if this claim has been refuted by the WMF, this is now clearly a point which is debated in public news. Given this, it comes to no surprise that the WMF board is apparently preparing a policy statement in this matter. I understand Jimbo Wales' recent comments into that direction that we shall take care that Commons does not host hard-core porn media. A possibly problematic example is File:Deep.jpg which was so far two times nominated for deletion but kept. As far I understand Jimbo Wales, we are expected to delete such cases from now on. Even if we can long discuss how this still can be possibly identified as education as it illustrates some sexual technique, it remains questionable how much support this is likely to find in the press and in consequence by our donors. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Usually, anything in use in the projects is automatically considered to satisfy SCOPE. Part of the objection is that dozens of images in use in encyclopedia articles were already deleted. Dragons flight (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm appreciate that Jimbo is offering Commons assistance in moving forward with better ways to manage this sensitive content. I encourage everyone to not wheelwar or editwar and to stay calm in the discussions. From my reading of his comments, he thinks that current policy supports the deletion of much of the sexually explicit content but is in favor of drafting a policiy that gives better guidance to uploaders and admins on this point. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is an inappropriate thread and if the poster of it is not blocked or admonished for blatant disruption then that would be a shame. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocked? Seriously? I think tempers are high right now and a big dose of COM:MELLOW is in order, let people blow off steam a bit and don't fret. Relax, everyone. ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh ffs - this is Commons not some other daft project. "Edit warring" requires the actions of not one idiot but two. Let the idiots stay away from Commons and let us get on with the project and its tasks which includes the deletion of the regular garbage that comes by - otherwise "per Lar". --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we desysop triggerhappy admins?

Someone suggested that if I withdraw this "proposal" then peace might be restored on Commons. I doubt but if it works it is worth trying. As someone might notice this not really a proposal but a "Please think and check before you delete" but anyway this is hereby withdrawn. --MGA73 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up is a good idea. But speedy deleting without checking if it is used or if we have better images is really bad. I feel tempted to suggest that we desyop admins that delete files that is in use without checking.

We have had bad images for so long so there is no reason to act in panic. It will not ruin Commons if it takes a week to clean up.

Take your time, check one category at a time. Find the best images and delete only the worst ones. And before you delete please check if deleting the image will make other categories lacking images. Often images are in more categories and an image that is "useless" in one category could be "brilliant" in an other category. So please check before you nuke. --MGA73 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Support - I think a lot of images on commons need to be deleted, but an overhasty delete will help nobody und will generate further frustration. Normaly elected admins are responsible for the compliance of the rules (as they are the only ones who acctually can delete) -Schlurcher (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral - I support a reprimand, but not necessarily desysopping. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Please be aware that the cleanup project is a very special situation, and admins are requested and supported in efforts to be vigorous and get this done in a timely fashion. Anything can be undeleted later, if it proves to be really critical. There will be no desysoppings for those doing this work. It's a wiki, anything can be fixed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The delinking of the pictures is done automatically whereas each picture needs to be put back into the articles by hand. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think admins are requested and supported in efforts to be vigorous and get this done in a timely fashion is that easy to do, why don't you do it yourself? I'm an admin, and I'm not and will not be prepared to censor. Kameraad Pjotr 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment As I said I suppert the cleanup but I also thinks that admins should check if image should really be deleted. Deleting and undeleting makes us look like fools if it is not a few exceptions.

God did not create the universe in one day so why is it important that we clean up today? Why not do it like this. Day one - make the rules and make a notice. Day two - delete the illegal images and link to the rules. Day three - start cleaning up in legal but unused/not educational images and link to the rules. Day four - finish the cleanup started in day three. Day five - check if any of the remaining "in use images" can be replaced with someone that is better. Day six - check for mistakes. Day seven - enjoy the result. --MGA73 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Day 8, start work on other categories which have low resolution useless images. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose Admins are volunteers like all other users, their time is limited like yours and mine. You generally should feel free yourself to replace used deletion candidates and any other used images by better images. Delinking deleted images can globally be done by bots. Empty categories are no argument at all to keep an image for that deletion has been decided. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• No. I trust Commons administrators to use good judgment. And if an occasional error happens then it can be discussed with them directly. We want to empower them to do their work and not make them overly cautious. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The sysops that delete files that are in use while invoking reasons of scope, are in violation of policy, and should be stopped; also "Commons is not censored" is still policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I think that voting on this is not going to resolve anything. Amada44 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This was only considered as a support to MGA73 not as a voting on this. But it helps express the opinions so I added a comment to mine. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Not all the deleted images have even been restored yet. I wonder if any are actually porn: they seem to be all documenting piercings and alternative sexuality, whatever annoys this particular admin: it really would be just as reasonable to delete Christian related images. I'm worried that a policy is being developed here that sexuality images can be deleted willy nilly except perhaps if they're actually in use: editors need a range of material to make choices from and if an item is gone it's gone and nobody can see whether it was useful or not. The damage done is far greater you might think: I've done some work on the English Wikipedia human sexuality pages and the biggest problem is editors' moral in the face of a tide of vandalism (and censorship). Ironically, the Wikipedia sexuality pages are the main source for most internet users for neutral sourced factual coverage of any of this stuff. This in a world where AIDS has just become the number one killer of women of child bearing age over and above any other cause: there isn't going to be a cure or a vaccine; knowledge is all we've got. The government slogan goes Don't Die Of Ignorance and what do you think the consequences of this assinine campaign are going to be? --Simonxag (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Proposal fails to address the severity of the issue, and the proposal is poisoned by the use of the charged term "trigger-happy" to describe the legitimate speedy deletion of questionable images which fall out of the scope of Commons. Perhaps the people who are 'trigger-happy' in restoring these images should be desyoped. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 19:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  In fact, this entire proposal is loaded with terms. "Panic" implies that people are acting in haste, which is far from the truth. I think administrators are tired of pandering to the "anything in the name of not-censored" crowd, and are merely acting in response to Jimbo's activities. This entire proposal is an unenforceable, populist, knee-jerk reaction to a possible board decision. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  Bring on the board decision and let people change the policy according to it, then we can talk about deleting. Not the other way round. Until those deletions are backed up by policy, they need to stop. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  Those deletions are backed up by policy, have been backed up by policy, and continue to be backed up by policy. The fact that a group of Commons admins have chosen to ignore that bit of policy for their own convenience is irrelevant. This proposal is meaningless, and unenforceable no matter the outcome. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  Deleting images which are in use as "out of scope" has NEVER been backed up by policy. Neither has deleting images because Jimbo says so. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, and FWIW, the "administrators" you are talking about are right now a group of about 3-5 people. Not really a significant number, considering the number of administrators on this project and the number of people participating in the discussion. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  You want more administrators on board? I can guarantee you that a lot more tahn 3-5 people are in concurrence with this. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  Right now I see more people opposing the idea than I see supporting it. I am seriously considering having my admin bit removed voluntarily if this should change. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Support - While I see the need for cleanup in general, I disapprove of how it's done. Jimbo said to get rid of pornographic images and suddenly a few people start deleting everything that is remotely sexual. I am still missing a policy or guideline on what to delete. Right now it's only a bunch of people deleting stuff at their sole discretion and they are backed up by Jimbo's threat to de-admin anyone who restores those images. I am truly shocked by the new "Shoot, then think" attitude being propagated here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I would first remind that group of admins that theirs is a minority position, that all the previous attempts in creating a sexual content policy and its predecessors has been shot down. I would remind them that their hand has been strengthened by Jimbo's intervention but to take it as carte blanche to go on a deletion spree has the effect of weakening Jimbo's moral authority (see threads below) and with it their own long term goals. Rather than taking Jimbo's comments as dictat to achieve short term gains I would advise them to use it as a bargaining chip in getting a version of the proposal they have been agitating for.KTo288 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, this proposal is worded in a clearly disruptive and inappropriate manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Thousands of work hours are already wasted and multiples will follow. :( I am very disappointed of this censorship action here. Jimbo, you made a wrong decision. --Saibo (Δ) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose: Administrators can be trusted to make decisions about what falls outside project scope. The suggestion that it would take "a week to clean up" with something beside speedy deletion is absolutely insane. It's difficult to find a lazier Wikimedia wiki than Commons with regard to deletion discussions. To say that they languish is putting wildly mildly. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support This enforcement of US-American standards threatens to make commons irrelevant. Why would wikipedia projects store their media here, if an article in Fox-News causes mass deletions? Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Any new project scope policy could be enforced without this shameful haste, licenses to kill and opening of a witch-hunt season. Trycatch (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose: We do not need to turn this into a civil war. Right now, tempers are running high on all sides, and a lot of people are doing and saying things they will probably regret later. Unless there is a sign that someone is either being abusive of other users or blatantly using this as an excuse to remove obviously acceptable content (e.g. "In Saudi Arabia you can't show a woman's face, so I'm deleting all pictures of women's faces"), de-sysop'ing should not enter the picture. Do remember that we can always restore images later. I think a lot of people right now are in honest doubt about the right thing to do, and should be assumed to be acting in good faith. The proposed policy at Commons:Sexual content needs a lot of clarification. Right now, it is, in many respects, unclear and self-contradictory. I presume that the Board will back Jimbo in the general direction he wants to take this, so it seems to me that the constructive thing to do now is to try to hammer out a coherent policy quickly, rather than form a circular firing squad. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose: We do not need more drama but a clear policy. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose AFBorchert (above my post) put it quite well. Killiondude (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support as has been said several times above, any file that is in use on a Wikimedia Wiki (for purposes other than vandalism) is by definition in scope, any file that can be realistically used in a current or likely future Wikimedia or other educational project is also within scope. Where there is any disagreement over this we act like civilised human beings and discuss the matter. One ambiguously worded statement from one person, no matter how important they were in founding the project, does not (or at least should not) overrule policy that has been arrived at by consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Bloody ridiculous Per AFBorchert. Worth bearing in mind that "edit warring" (bloody silly en wp tradition) is not the actions of one idiot but two idiots. I've slept for 2 hours in the last 28 or so so bear this in mind. Improved policy is required but deleting passing garbage is the job of Commons admins (who actually do some work here). So it goes wrong occasionally - that is life. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Removing non-educational porn is good thing. But it should be stopped speedy-deleting files in use. Since there is a policy not to censor contents uploaded to Commons. Deletion policy does not define "Out of Scope: cleanup non-educational file" as a speedy deletion criterion. It might be regarded as policy violation. Administrators should respect the existing policy. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Jimbo started wikipedia, and if he started this operation, I am confident he has good reasons. Teun Spaans 21:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Per ChrisiPK. --myself488 ^talk 17:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Commons evolving as a dictatorship or something like that ?

There's something very problematic happening currently on Commons. I can accept the fact that we may need to make a choice between nude and sex files we want to keep or delete. But I surely don't accept the way it's done sometimes ! There's a clear abuse of power from some admins and also (maybe) from Jim Wales himself ! Let me explain : people like Tiptoety are currently deleting nude or sex files unilateraly without asking any DR process. And when I asked him how and why he could do such subjective speedy deletions, he argued that Wales asked the admins to do that ! I see 4 big problems :

1. Wales is the founder of Wikimedia, but as far as I know, he's not the autocratic boss who decides everything that happens, especially in terms of rules or deletions ! So his words are not orders to follow !
2. What he stated is not so strict and he actually "support" admins who'd delete files he himself would like to be deleted (not an order!).
3. Wales says "many things should just be speedy deleted and argued about later"... How can you argue about files that have been deleted and therefore can't be seen by those who may want to discuss about them !!!
4. If we now accept that admins may procede to speedy deletions on their own behalf whenever they want or think a picture is useless, DR processes have no meaning... and the concept of neutrality (one of the main rules of Wikimedia) is in real danger !

Even if there may be many solutions to find in order to deal with nudity and sexuality on Commons, that's not how we'll improve Commons. Current solutions appear to be worse than the problem to cure ! Pandora's box is opened ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review the latest version of Commons:Sexual content... note carefully the wording Jimbo used. I read that as that Jimbo is seeking board endorsement of this clarification of the scope of commons (note I say clarification, not change) and the ramifications to the deletion process here. It is unfortunate that it had to come to this but the resistance in some quarters forced his hand, I think. ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But don't you think it's a real danger of losing neutrality on Commons ? I'm quite afraid to see that admins could do anything they want ! There would be no mean to stop abuses. And even with such "delicate" subjects (nudity and sex), I think we all have to be less strict (both supporters of those files like me and people who seem to want the deletion of 99% of them!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, now that I've read more carefully, I can understand. But I still have some few questions :

1. How was File:Mammary intercourse with dildo.jpg connected to one of the 5 cases of "actual or simulated acts" ?
2. Isn't the word "lascivious" too subjective to be applied ? (I know the law states that but I really wonder if they really thought about it).
3. How ejaculation is understood by the law ? Strictly speaking it seems to fail in none of the 5 cases.
4. Isn't exagerate to say that any smiluated act is outlawed ? Such as this one ?
5. What about non-human masturbation ?!
6. How can we be sure that some admins would not "cheat" and delete even pictures that are not falling in the incriminated cases ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that what is being proposed would effect the neutrality of our content. Rather, the standard already in place are being enforced in a timeframe that makes sense. For example, it does not make much sense to have lengthy discussions about whether the person meets the age of consent or if the person gave consent instead of having the admin do an outright deletion of the material if the uploader does not provide good information. The policy HAS been to delete this type of material but we have been inconsistent in managing it and this has added to the confusion around the matter. For specific exceptions, we can discuss the matter and if an educational use exists on a wiki then the community can give the go ahead for it. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you see, your comment actually makes me think even more that there could be some problems/abuses. When you write it does not make much sense to have lengthy discussions about whether the person meets the age of consent or if the person gave consent instead of having the admin do an outright deletion of the material if the uploader does not provide good information, this comment applies to... nudity ! And the "new" rules deal with sexuality, not nudity (at least not all nudity) so this kind of debate will still occur about non-porn nude pictures ! And if you saied that, it means that some admins may potentially make a sex-nudity shortcut in their mind and procede to the speedy deletion of non-porn nude ! You see what I mean ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I trust our administration to use commonsense. There is a massive difference between an art materpiece and an amateur upskirt shot done by an unknown user of an unknown person. I trust our administrators to see the difference. And if an error happens then the admin can be contacted and it reversed. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. I'll try to trust them too (but I have had many proofs in the past that some can be very subjective about some subjects). Anyway, in case I've been misunderstood I prefer strict rules and an officiel photo censorship about sex (because it is) than the hypocrisy and incoherences we had for a (too) long time ! It's clearer now ! Not 100% clear because of some few borderline cases and the risk of abuse about nudes, but far clearer than it used to be ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I reposted the other questions on Commons talk:Sexual content --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember an interview Jimbo did with BBC in which he likened his position at wikipedia as something akin to that of a constitutional monarch, a figurehead divorced from the day to day running of things. So by that count Commons and the other wikimedia projects have always been an autocracy. However one of the strengths of a constitutional monarchy is that although the monarch retains powers these powers are by tradition never used (well okay I'm only familiar with the British one but the other ones seem to work the same way). Rather the strength of the monarch lies in his or her moral authority born of the respect of citizens and ministers to the monarchy. The use of such authority is enhanced by rather than diminished by being indirect, a quiet chat over tea and biscuits, a personal observation on a matter rather than instructions to act. If Jimbo can decide today to expunge smut from Commons, tomorrow he might decide to eliminate pictures of people with beards, or whatever he's irked by at that time. Commons can survive the elimination of all the so called sexual images, it will probably survive the lost of trust and respect that this episode has sparked, but it will no longer be the project I fell in love with.KTo288 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

@Lar, yes, sir, yes, I note you say "clarification, not change". And, indeed, "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia". Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NOT helpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not helpful for your attempts to rewrite history, but helpful for people who arrived at the former commons after it had been enclosed. If you don't want your hypocrisy pointed out, don't post lies. Or oversight my comments, again. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I view this whole episode almost laughing hysterically at how everybody is complaining about dictatorial authority being asserted here. IMHO, some pushback is not only useful but prudent. For those not aware of the situation, Jimbo Wales did something similar to this on English Wikibooks a couple of years ago when a major segment of Wikibooks content was removed. It centered around two particularly sensitive areas of content, one of which is related to this current issue about "porn" and the other not really so much but should be just as alarming.

One "wikibook" that was deleted was the Jokebook. I'll be the first to admit that some of the jokes that were added to that collection were off color, racist, and distasteful. Some of the jokes, on the other hand, were quite funny and provided a sort of humorous outlet for relief among the Wikibooks contributors. By simple fiat (not really policy) the book was deleted without even so much as a RfD/VfD discussion taking place by none other than Jimbo Wales. He did later try to explain his decision, but it was after the fact.

The other major area of content was the video game guides. Essentially, a fairly significant part of Wikibooks had become a whole bunch of video game walk-throughs.... sort of like is now found on the Wikia video game sites. I would dare say it comprised about a third to half of the actual content on Wikibooks, and about half of the content edits (not necessarily discussion edits) by contributors to the project. Again, a directive came through that essentially all of this content was to be removed, and some of the larger guides simply had their main navigation pages removed right away. For myself, I think Wikibooks is a weaker project as a result of pushing away these contributors, and I hate to be "see I told you so" on this point.

For myself, I do think some of the sexually explicit images on Commons did need a second look through to see if they were acceptable to the community and if it really contributed to the larger mission of supporting the other Wikimedia sister projects. Perhaps some stricter policies could have been enacted here, and at least the issue raised in a significant manner that includes noting some of the legal environments and consequences to hosting this content, or even perhaps discussing how some significant contributors to the WMF may or may not be put off by some of this content. It is unfortunate that major policy changes didn't happen through consensus building but rather by top-down fiat. For myself, if a policy change is useful and beneficial, going through normal channels is a much better way to resolve the issue rather than engaging in a god-king type of fiat decision.... particularly for something that may result in substantial content removal. As far as I know, Jimmy Wales still carries quite a bit of weight around with comments he may make about a topic, and any sort of policy suggestion he may make will certainly be very seriously considered simply because of who he is. Why it had to be done as if it is official policy already doesn't make sense and shouldn't be happening. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should close Commons

I thought Commons, and Wikimedia, was made for everyone in the world. Reading some comments here, it seems it is not: according to who I'll not name, it seems to be made only for White American people, ignoring the 96% of the World who are not American, and I can't agree to that. If it is really the case (I wonder), it is clear I will use all means I can imagine to destroy the Who In't won't say the the name foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArséniureDeGallium (talk • contribs)

I have to say I partly agree. But I also think it may be better for the projet... and we also have to keep in mind that Wikimedia is hosted in the US so I suppose it has to follow their laws... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And as a precaution, we should definetly close Commons. It's the only way to conform to these "policies". --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 17:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You're exagerating... There's not only sex on this site ! Comons is still useful for all other subjects ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

lol Mike R (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not joking. This is where the Commons is: beeing a slave of the man I won't name, or having its right to decide about its future. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if I hate the way it's done, we have to be objective : Wales's will has a legal background, so I guess it's easy to go against Wales's will but not the hypothetical legal problems WMF may have if we continue like before. It's really sad IMO but it may be reasonable after all. But again, I really am angry about the way it had been done. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh come off it. This isn't our project. It is property of the WMF. Killiondude (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] Commons is not "the property of the WMF". It is a collaborative project, designed (as the name suggests) as a resource for the whole world, and organized and licensed accordingly. One can debate whether current contributors have 'more ownership' of the project than readers/future contributors, but all have a share. The WMF supports it and its sister projects with free hosting, freedom from ads, and centralized funding of interface and feature requests; and is the designated protector of its trademark. But Commons was designed to be ownable by its community, and to be forked and modified by any group that might want its own copy, for any reason whatever. –SJ+ 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

To say that it is owned by WMF is legally correct, but completely misses the point that is being made (whether one agrees with the point or not).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arséniure, or as they said in the 16th century ende heur te gebieden ende gebruycken als slaven, moet ghehouden worden niet als Prince, maer als een tyran[..]maer verlaeten ende een ander in zijn stede tot beschermenisse van henlieden voor overhooft sonder misbruycken ghecosen werden. Kameraad Pjotr 18:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we should not accept Jimbo coming in and declaring what our policy should be. IF this were grounded in legal opinion, as endorsed by Mike Godwin and the WMF, THEN I could accept it. But right now I do not accept that Jimbo has the right to declare what we should do. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] Jimbo's actions seem to have lost us at least one admin (The Evil IP address) Kameraad Pjotr 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'am about to create a page: Commons:Scuttle Commons. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I created it for you. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I overwrited your creation. v--GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain if you hadn't removed the image AND said "overwrited". But you did. You are going on the list. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And the emeritus Chairman had deleted it?!? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The implicit argument being put forward here is laughable and racist in a very disgusting way. The truth is, if Commons were for "White Americans" only, or, as long as we are being childish and insulting, let's say it is for "White American Men" - then it would be a free ground for all manner of pornography. Remember that a few years back an executive of Ebay was imprisoned for 7 days because a single porn video appeared for sale on Ebay in India. Remember that in the Arabic/Islamic world, virtually all the content under discussion these days is illegal. Look at this before you move to a knee-jerk understanding of this issue as "American prudishness". Unless you have a really global perspective, you will make errors that are deeply offensive - and deeply offensive to me personally for the primary reason that they are factually wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain more? From what I understand, your argument is that because some people in the world are not as liberal, free-speech wise, as America we should compromise our principles? To me that doesn't seem a good way to work, although I accept I am not an expert in anything other than Neveron, and knowledge in that field is completely and utterly useless. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A few years ago, an Iraqi girl was raped and she and her family were murdered, because her family was not "White American". In Afghanistan every day unarmed citzens are murdered because they are not "White American". But you are obsessed by a prison term of 7 days and art. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Where arguments are lacking insults find their way into discussions. I remember last time when mass deletions of porn material without any educational use was discussed and people screamed "German Censorship!". Now it's "Americans". Tomorrow it's "Asians" oder "Africans". Farewell in your nutshell. @ Mattbuck: I know it's hard for some of us to distinguish between free-speech and arbitrariness. --Martina Nolte (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The primary reason that several weeks back I became involved in the Common's discussions about sexually explicit content is my work with the strategic planning process for WMF. During the strategic plannings discussions, I became aware of the problems with the lack of diversity among WMF readers and editors. As I considered the topic, I came to the conclusion that WMF hosting an unlimited amount of sexually explicit content could be "one" of the barriers for WMF being more diverse. The manner that we display nudity and sexually explicit content makes it difficult to avoid. Currently, our policies and practices do not allow for special care when displaying the content (for deletion discussion, categorizing, or links to our sister projects, ...). So, people may unexpectedly see it. In my opinion, the current approach to managing the content is insensitive to many people in the world of many nationalities and religions, and people that access WFM projects through settings where sexually explicit content is inappropriate or not allowed. So, I see a policy that better manages the content as potentially making WMF projects open to more users. And therefore disagree entirely with the underlying premise of this thread. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting point, thank you. I would love to see a longer essay on the subject, with some of the qual and quant data. –SJ+ 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not hosting uneducational pornography is not an excuse to claim racial bias. This thread is inappropriate and should be closed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I accept the argument that sexually explicit images can be educational about sexual practices. I am not offended by such images. I consider "not censored" a good and valuable idea. But we should give users, in particular parents, libraries, schools and other organisations providing computer access to minors, an easy option to filter out this material, both in Commons and Wikipedia and other projects. I agree with FloNight that this will aid diversity. --JN466 20:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I also believe it is inappropriate, and does the standing of this project no favours whatsoever, to have underaged admins involved in administering hardcore pornography. --JN466 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that again please. If you are going to forbid underage admins, or forbid underage admins to do certain things, then the project is really lost... Kameraad Pjotr 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the desire, but the potential necessity. It is entirely possible that the law in the US may require it and we have been misinterpreting that law. If such is the case it would be regrettable, as calendar age is not the only measure of maturity. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going from bad to worse. We can be inclusive of societies by accepting their censorship norms. It clearly starts with sexual material. Where exactly does it stop? --Simonxag (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Kameraad Pjotr 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

At the beginning I was enraged. Later I was angry. Then troubled. And finally curious. So I did a search on Google, and found this. I think it's no coincidence we're seeing changes being made, now of all times, and so swiftly. I guess policy has a way of changing fast when words like imprisonment and jail are heard in corporate head offices. W00pzor (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi W00pzor, the story you are linking to seems to have triggered the recent development. See my summarizing comment above. But as far I understand this, it is less a question of legal requirements but more a question of how Wikimedia is seen in the public and in particular by its donors. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Martin van Maële images in Category:Pedophilia that apparently prompted Dr. Sanger's complaint have not been touched. --Emufarmers (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye to you, "Wikipedia is not censored". All hail the new era of Benevolent Grand Chairman Jimbo censoring content according to the tastes and dislikes of the general American audience. Also, this. --Melanom (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

These antiamerican polemics are completely missing the point. What world do you live in for heavens sake? You guys should really ask yourselves if all this drama, all this verbal poison, all the hate, all the Cassandra cries about the end of commons and the "free" world is really is really worthwhile. All this for a couple of crappy shots of dicks and cunts uploaded by a few pubescent morons. Way to keep some perspective here. --Dschwen (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

antiamerican polemics - Are you out of your mind? a couple of crappy shots of dicks and cunts uploaded by a few pubescent morons - Either you are just propagating blatantly false propaganda, or you have utterly no clue what you are even talking about. Hint: Take a look at all the files that have been deleted so far. Jimbo Talk page is a good place to start. --Melanom (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please check this out. --UAltmann (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like somebody is trying to make a point, if clumsily. Some people, on the other hand have been deliberately damaging important Wikimedia projects. --Simonxag (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• User:Kameraad Pjotr has abused his ops in protecting the page after restoring his preferred version with outright vandalism and attacks in it. His user page makes it clear he is doing this as a Conflict of Interest and a direct violation of Point. He believes the WMF is censoring Commons and is abusing his admin ops in furthering his accusations. I have requested both his immediate desysopping and a block for blatant disruption here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  Please refer to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship and work through the process if you feel this way. As far as I know Jimbo Wales does not have the power to desysopp an admin. Things are a bit heated at the moment and calls for desysopping by any side doesn't help.KTo288 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  Jimbo, as founder, retains the power to desysop outright abusive admins, especially those violating CoI and Soap in order to disrupt policy pages to make attacks against the Foundation. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  You could just as well say that any bureaucrat has the power to desysop outright abusive admins; but they generally take the more politic approach of discussing perceived abuse (since the perception is often stronger than any actual abuse). In this case, I don't see Kameraad Pjotr attacking the Foundation, and his minor disruption of one page was soon reverted. –SJ+ 06:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Kameraad Pjotr has already (sort of) resigned, which is rather unfortunate.
Users on both (or more) sides should stop unnecessarily escalating the current conflict. We have enough to do to find a feasible way how to deal with these controversial images. There is no need to create additional conflicts between (or against single) users. --Túrelio (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is most unfortunate. –SJ+ 06:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What an unfortunate mess. From the start, this issue has been handled with all the grace of the proverbial bull in the china shop. While I don't think that actions such as those of Kameraad Pjotr are helpful, their frustration is understandable. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at the reaction to all this. As the main proponent of the removal of pornographic images on Commons I feel somewhat responsible. Everybody, please stay calm. Things will get worked out. Commons has many amazing educational images and the sexual images are only a very small percentage of the 6.5 million image files. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to have missed the point as to what has gotten people upset. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And I must say Stillwaterising, that you have been calling for war. So I am a bit amazed how amazed you are at the reactions. Nevertheless, it is a good idea to stay calm. Amada44 (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"The main proponent"? SWR, you are nothing of the sort. People have been concerned about this problem for years. You are someone that has appeared here recently, raised a big ruckus and acted disruptively, making resolution of this issue more difficult rather than less. You need to change your ways or you will be removed from the discussion. Not because of your views, but because of how you express them. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that one month ago, Stillwaterising hadn't even made 30 edits, (s)he/it has been rather effective in getting things done. I dislike the results, but a "need to change (s)he/its ways" isn't obvious. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good taste

I am just beginning to read the 2010-05-06 Jimbo Wales message and the reactions. At first sight, what sounds problematic in Jimbo's message is that it lacks a workable definition of what "good taste" is, when he says appropriately and in good taste. Is an old Greek vase decorated with pornographic paintings within good taste ? I think everybody should be able to have his own likes and dislikes, without this having to interfere with how a large project like Wikimedia Commons is run. I think it is impossible to find consensus on something like "taste". Teofilo (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be the Justice Potter Stewart standard... AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)