Requests for comment/redundant-nudity-controversy

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus for the proposal to be implemented. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Entering tl;dr territory. I will give the very basic facts.--Coin945 (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I understand that this may not be the most appropriate place to submit my complaint, and I apologize for taking up your time, but I have been unable to figure out where best to send my inquiry because every attempt I have made has gone without any of the issues I'm requesting comment on, being addressed at all and I feel as though this is an issue which has been in need of discussion for some time. Please keep in mind that while I mention isolated issues, I submit this request in hopes that the scope will be considered beyond my personal instances because I have seen many other occasions where editors and even administrators have lost hope in Wikimedia, unable to enforce policy and guidelines due simply to being outweighed by those who are essentially enforcing the disregard for fair guidelines and policies. A study even went so far as to find that 30% of active editors who left Wikimedia attribute their leaving to other editors stubbornness and 23% directly attribute their living to being rudely mistreated. I won't bother going into too much detail unless asked, as I believe those discussions have already taken place and I have archived them in one location Very briefly, these are the issues I would like to discuss and I list them in the order which I think they are most important. For my request to be effective I ask that you please weigh them in this order.. Several weeks ago another editor by the username Coin945 was blocked from Wikimedia Commons simply for taking my side in the discussion of my own blocking. While attempting to discuss my own blocking, and unblock request, I was directly ridiculed; even ridiculed, defamed, and insulted when I attempted to discuss the merits of my request. (I'm not talking about me just having taken offense, I'm talking about users actually talking about me with descriptive foul language). Even though I have had a account amongst the various Wikimedia projects for several years and am an active reviewer on en.Wikipedia with numerous high quality contributions, I was accused of being an imposter as well as accused of knowingly violating copyrights. My history could have easily been checked by looking at my global contributions.. there was absolutely zero merit to this accusation; and my contributions to Commons were already attributed with proper valid copyright notices but were deleted and deemed in violation of copyright again without any merit. I was originally blocked, and indefinitely for that matter, after several days had passed between the time I had listed several hundred images for deletion. Its also worth noting that I was indefinitely blocked by the same administrator who had been repremanded on their own talk page shortly prior for having deleted the images without reviewing them. If the administrator who blocked me deemed that my deletion request was worthy of an indefinite ban they would have banned me and never deleted the images. The fact that they banned me only after they themselves were repremanded for deleting the images leads me to believe that the only motivation for being blocked was based on revenge. Each of these issues, in my opinion, violate numerous Wikimedia Foundation, and even direct Wikimedia Commons policies in their own right and were never addressed. I understand that what I did originally was controversial but I do not believe it in any way justified an indefinite block and all of the actions which followed. If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of a deletion request is to discuss the merits of the deletion.. there was never any opposition by the admin who deleted the images and later blocked me or anyone else. I'd also like to point out it was not that long ago that Jimmy Wales himself was taking the same actions and this matter has only gone without any appropriate debate since then. I reference an article from 2010.. May 2010, Jimmy Wales personally deleted hundreds of images deemed to be obscene content of little to no educational purpose. Several editors protested in anger over the deletions and some deleted images deemed to have some degree of educational merit were restored. Shortly thereafter he posted on Commons this statement: Wikimedia Commons admins [administrators allowed to edit the site, including Wales himself] who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support. **This includes immediate deletion of all pornographic images. 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.... I would have been in favor of a discussion about the proposed deletion first with a passionate written "speech" by Mr. Wales at the end to settle the dispute. The result of getting rid of nudity would still be the same but it would have been a neater situation, much like the King of Thailand saving the country from a military coup rather than the leader of the Khmer Rouge dictating their way.Assorg (talk) 10:36 pm, 7 May 2010, Friday (4 years, 4 months, 28 days ago) (UTC−7) There are many editors who support Jimbo's actions (I'm one). Such editors normally wouldn't bother posting in a forumdiscussion like this because there is no point (Jimbo doesn't need more acclaim, and the OMGFREESPEECH people are having trouble listening atm). If any serious coup/RfC were held, there would be plenty of expressions of strong support for Jimbo. Johnuniq (talk) 12:53 am, 8 May 2010, Saturday (4 years, 4 months, 28 days ago) (UTC−7) Gee, where do I sign up to be a palace guard? ;) I completely agree with Johnuniq. I wish Jimbo NEVER had uttered any comment about giving up any rights to anything, its one thing to voluntarily choose not to use power in any cases that come up, its another thing to actually make the declaration that he WONT use it or will give it up; I believe that any comments he made giving up rights or saying he wouldnt use them was a mistake. I dont believe the argument some have made at the village pump (proposals) that many editors wouldnt have started editing in the first place unless he had is a valid argument. We are here to edit an encyclopedia, we dont come to Wikipedia to have "power" in making new rules on how an encyclopedia should be made. Anyone who did come to Wikipedia for that reason is someone we dont need. Wikipedia would be drama free if all we were allowed to do was edit talk pages and articles and only Jimbo and the Foundation could do policy. Less editors sure, but many editors dont do actual editing anyways, they focus on policy pages and AN/I and drama filled stupid things. Wish Jimbo would start from scratch, I for one would abandon Wikipedia and follow him, taking the time to move all the articles I worked on/created with me.Camelbinky (talk) 11:05 am, 8 May 2010, Saturday (4 years, 4 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−7) From what I can see, Jimbo was in a damned if he does and damned if he does't situation. I dont think there was the luxury of time. The Foundation is physically located in the U.S. and U.S. laws can shut it down if it comes to that. While Im sure you can and maybe should argue for the restoration of certain images... there existance is known I think youre being too hard. Id rather see this than the existance of the whole project threatened.Thelmadatter (talk) 11:24 am, 8 May 2010, Saturday (4 years, 4 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−7) Most relevant policies, guidelines, and other official discussions Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use (section 4) Controversial Contributors, Not Vandals Wikimedia Commons Policy on Blocking Wikimedia Commons Policy on Deleting content deemed not-educationally-useful Wikimedia Commons, What Commons is not.. an amateur porn site User complains that bullying and name-calling are ruining the atmosphere of Wikipedia References

David Condrey and I (Coin945) feel like we were mistreated on Wikipedia Commons. I will concisely explain the events step by step, and will link in the appropriate pages for you to read through.

1. David Condrey began researching for images of totem poles for the article [{Raven Tales]], which was the TAFI article of the day (a Wikiproject we are both a part of).
2. Through this process, according to David he stumbles upon the wealth of nude dick pics on Commons, and was so appalled at how pornography was passed off an "encyclopedic" that he had a mass DR (deletion request) for hundreds of these images. He used hyperbolic language in the DR to illustrate his feelings.
3. Before a discussion had even taken place, it was closed and an administrator (INeverCry) deleted them all.
4. As it turns out, many of these images were actually being used within Wikipedia articles. One in particular (a willy warmer) belonged to an administrator named Mabalu, who started deleting many of David's articles under accusatory raitonales that were later proven to be false such as the notion of copyright vio (they were actually original works) or false identity (his identity was proven via email confirmation).
5. Without a chance to defend himself, David was blocked, and wrote on the talk page of TAFI for help. That is where I came in.
6. I initially encouraged him to respond the only place he could - his talk page, but his post was ignored.
7. I then started a discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard, asking form an objective perspective to allow David his editing rights back as I felt the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy had not been upheld. No discussion was centered around INeverCry who actually deleted all those 600+ articles before a discussion had even taken place.
8. I started to get very weird emails on my talk page in a "you don't know who you're dealing with" kind of way, and after I we had proven Mabalu's defamatory claims were actually false, I myself was blocked from Commons, and the discussion was closed.

I think that pretty much covers it. David and I both think Common administrators abused their power and tried to silence anyone who got in their way.--Coin945 (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion refers to previous iteration of RFC.--Coin945 (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you have given us a long narrative. For what are you seeking comment? What are you trying to achieve by seeking comment? What solution are you seeking?  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Hi Billinghurt. I am requesting comment on the points outlined 1 thru 5 because they were never addressed. The merits of my block were never afforded a proper debate, nor were the actions that followed. Instead the only actions I saw were other users blocked for attempting to discuss it, and myself ridiculed and ignored. Is this the end all be all resolution that an editor should accept? Unable to find a more appropriate avenue, the only outlet I could find was to post the details of it here. David Condrey (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC) I would suggest that you restructure the RFC to allow people to step through the narrative more easily, maybe a better introduction covering the purpose, and some scoping to whom you are wishing to make comment. Currently it is getting a bit of "too long, didn't read" (tl;dr) especially when it is hard to know the relevance or pertinence to a general user. If you are seeking comments from specific people at Commons, you can use {{ping}} to notify their accounts, or of course you can leave a message on their local talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC) @Billinghurst: Thanks, I will try. I'm finding it difficult to explain easily. David Condrey (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Get the facts right

1. images were deleted after the usual DR running time of 7 days, assuming a good faith nomination of unused images which were properly tagged for deletion and uploaders notified.
2. Not a single image was tagged for deletion, not a single uploader was notified and lots of images were in use, some even in high use.
3. Block was not lifted because this user did not see (or did not want to see) the damage he had done to the project and to the admin(s) who had to restore the deleted images and place them back in articles.

--Denniss (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Denniss:

1. What was the reason for the ban? For nominating the images, or for being an impersonator? Because those were the reasons listed and neither one have any merit.
2. The facts are that the same user who deleted the images in the first place did not chose to put in place a ban until after they had deleted the images, and were reprimanded for having done so. If a nomination for deletion is worthy of a ban, then it would have been done prior to deleting the images, rather than after.
3. Nominating a deletion is not a deletion, rather .. bringing them to discussion for deletion (I imagine that's what the definition of 'Nomination' is). So it what why is nominating them for deletion worthy of a ban? If the administrator who deleted the images did not agree that they should have been deleted then they shouldn't have deleted them.
4. When a 3rd party stepped into the discussion to dispute the matter, they were immediately banned as well.
5. The actions of various parties involved in the debate after the fact, conducted themselves in a very poor manner, which I can easily point out more than one policies that were blatantly disregarded.
6. While a small minority of the nominated images likely should not have been deleted, the vast majority of them very well should have / should be.
7. Only after the debate started, I was accused of copyright violations on my own contributions without any valid cause, on images which had already been clearly notated with the appropriate and valid tags. Was even accused of not being the person I came to be.. tho anyone could easily have seen that I've been an active member of Wikipedia for several years..

David Condrey (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion should not be grounds for a ban. In my experience as an anatomy editor, WikiCommons is full of gratiutous, poor-quality and pornographic images. EG. Recently, per a request for a picture of the 'anal canal', I go to Wikicommons, expecting relevant images, eg from textbooks that actually illustrate the anal canal. Instead I find numerous highly distasteful pornographic images, and only a single relevant high-quality image with labelled structures. Editors using WikiCommons should not have to pass the 'stomach test' in order to use it. And yes there are a huge amount of poor images or selfies of human anatomy that editors have decided to 'gift' to us, that presumably the uploader has thoughtfully decided to use on one or two pages, thus making deleting them very difficult. As an editor 'passing through' WikiCommons how can I be expected to participate and individually nominate extensive amounts of pictures?? I don't want to review these images, let alone participate in a huge amount of discussions point by point about why they are unsuitable. And to think that one may be blocked just for proposing this?? Hence I very much sympathise with David Condrey. --LT910001 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The ban seems to be totally out of order, and I also sympathise with David Condrey. Also being an anatomy editor I've experienced the same issues that LT910001 has. There is a ridiculous amount of useless pornography on commons which needs to be deleted. Some of the images that were tagged were done so superfluously, but I should hope the administrators instead used their judgment to decide what is being used properly instead of banning someone for trying to work for the best of the commons. Although I don't wish to I can invest some time cleaning up which images are actually of value and which should be deleted in the list above. CFCF (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• David Condrey is not banned. He is indef blocked, talk page and email access open, and unblock was offered, and the offer, on the face, was rejected.[1] (at the bottom of the page, and notice the dates. David did not respond at all until March of this year.) The original cause for the block was resolved long ago. The block stands because of subsequent behavior.
• As is explained above, nominating files for deletion, per se, is not grounds for a block. However, nominating almost 700 files for deletion, without tagging the pages or notifying users, or researching usage status, and giving an improper deletion reason, can be. Here, David and others give arguments that show a lack of understanding the purpose and function of Commons. Some of those files might be indeed deletable, but because he exercised no caution, the massive deletion done by INeverCry was undone. David was not blocked because of that. Does anyone actually read block logs? The accusation of impersonation was an error, but an error that was also understandable. David may not be aware of it, but impersonators sometimes edit for a long time before being found! All this was resolved, but David is continuing to attempt to get something done at meta, which will not touch Commons. He has an open path to being unblocked.
• Commons can be brutal. However, there is no ban. The "third party" blocked was not banned, either, he was blocked for one week for ignoring a warning from an admin. I've reviewed what happened there. The block was proper.
• The original block reason was the alleged impersonation. I'll repeat: he was not blocked for making a bad nomination. But he could have been, and he refused to agree not to repeat the error. Hence the independent decline of his unblock request was proper. David could fix this immediately. I have suggested this on [2].

• This RfC should be closed. There is no meta or global issue here. --Abd (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)