Semen2.jpg file was deleted by Szczepan1990 after a community vote, initiated on June 23rd.:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Semen2.jpg
In a few hours' after the deletion, a user initiated an undeletion request and despite a few voices pro and one heavy opposition (and not even a word of comment to add to that), the file was undeleted after 20 hours (!). I broke the vote back to the previous status, because of his doubts over the process. After revert file was undeleted again and ShakataGaNai blocked me for a week.
Such files are very delicate in terms of building a (preferably positive!) image of the project, i think. If a user (Richiex, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Richiex) converts Commons into a self-pseudo-pornographic picture gallery with own private parts, this calls for immediate reaction. Additionally, files that have their equivalents of a better quality ought to be removed in my opinion. If my statement is called vandalism... Multichill wrote in my talk: "Dear Szwedzki, please see the deletion guidelines. You deleted several pictures which are in use at wikipedia articles so clearly in Commons:Scope.". Oh yeah: "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. There are plenty of other projects in the Internet you can use for such a purpose, like Flickr and others."
regards szwedzki http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Szwedzki
Tell you what: realise that, while you disagree with them, others may have a valid point of view, and we can look at an unblock. Your opinions on what sort of penis image Commons should host shouldn't be clouding your judgement.
-Giggy (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Giggy)
On 8/9/08, szwedzki suidisz@gmail.com wrote:
Semen2.jpg file was deleted by Szczepan1990 after a community vote, initiated on June 23rd.:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Semen2.jpg
In a few hours' after the deletion, a user initiated an undeletion request and despite a few voices pro and one heavy opposition (and not even a word of comment to add to that), the file was undeleted after 20 hours (!). I broke the vote back to the previous status, because of his doubts over the process. After revert file was undeleted again and ShakataGaNai blocked me for a week.
Such files are very delicate in terms of building a (preferably positive!) image of the project, i think. If a user (Richiex, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Richiex) converts Commons into a self-pseudo-pornographic picture gallery with own private parts, this calls for immediate reaction. Additionally, files that have their equivalents of a better quality ought to be removed in my opinion. If my statement is called vandalism... Multichill wrote in my talk: "Dear Szwedzki, please see the deletion guidelines. You deleted several pictures which are in use at wikipedia articles so clearly in Commons:Scope.". Oh yeah: "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. There are plenty of other projects in the Internet you can use for such a purpose, like Flickr and others."
regards szwedzki http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Szwedzki
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I agree to your deletions, but not to the way you did it. We have a huge dump of shitty porn images out of scope on commons noone needs. But if there is a undeletion request closed by an admin you and every other sysop will have to respect this decission. If you feel like its wrong simply start a new deletion request. Your block seems a bit hard & long to me, so if you really promise to follow our deletion guidelines infeauture I belive it'll be no problem to unblock.
Regards, ABF
szwedzki schrieb:
Semen2.jpg file was deleted by Szczepan1990 after a community vote, initiated on June 23rd.:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Semen2.jpg
In a few hours' after the deletion, a user initiated an undeletion request and despite a few voices pro and one heavy opposition (and not even a word of comment to add to that), the file was undeleted after 20 hours (!). I broke the vote back to the previous status, because of his doubts over the process. After revert file was undeleted again and ShakataGaNai blocked me for a week.
Such files are very delicate in terms of building a (preferably positive!) image of the project, i think. If a user (Richiex, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Richiex) converts Commons into a self-pseudo-pornographic picture gallery with own private parts, this calls for immediate reaction. Additionally, files that have their equivalents of a better quality ought to be removed in my opinion. If my statement is called vandalism... Multichill wrote in my talk: "Dear Szwedzki, please see the deletion guidelines. You deleted several pictures which are in use at wikipedia articles so clearly in Commons:Scope.". Oh yeah: "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. There are plenty of other projects in the Internet you can use for such a purpose, like Flickr and others."
regards szwedzki http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Szwedzki
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:25:18 +0200 ABF wikipediabaeren@gmx.de wrote:
I agree to your deletions, but not to the way you did it. We have a huge dump of shitty porn images out of scope on commons noone needs. But if there is a undeletion request closed by an admin you and every other sysop will have to respect this decission.
So, this admin didn't respect rules - 20 hours it's too short for any decission.
If you feel like its wrong simply start a new deletion request.
Good idea.
Your block seems a bit hard & long to me, so if you really promise to follow our deletion guidelines infeauture I belive it'll be no problem to unblock.
OK. Situation needs a debate (BAR?). Thank you.
regards szwedzki
Ok.... So why don't I pop in and explain my thoughts and therefor my actions. As I've said about 100 times, I'll happily explain anything I do. So here goes:
Initially it all started with a user making note on another admin's talk page about [[Image:Masturbating man2.JPGhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbating_man2.JPG]] being deleted. I checked and the file was deleted by User:Szwedzki with the message of "amateur pr0n". Now I'm a fan of deleting penis porn as much as the next admin, but as the original user pointed out to me - this file was in use. The base logic (or Rule, if you will) behind deleting penis porn is that it will never be used, so there for it is out of scope. This image being used, makes it in scope - As there was no {{Personality rights}} or License issues - there should be no valid reason to delete the image. So I restored it. At this point I left User:Szwedzki a note about it was probably just a mistake (AGF and all). We've all made mistakes.
About an hour later (I believe) that same user posted on my talk page that [[Image:Semen2.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Semen2.jpg]] had also been deleted. I saw that there was a proper DR (not that I agreed with how it had been handled, but the proccess is there for a reason), and directed the users to [[COM:UDEL]]. The user posted his request there explaining the rationel, which included the fact that the image in question had been used for nearly 2 years (give or take). I supported the undeletion, along with Johnny-mt and Nilfanion. All 3 of us are admins. Rocket000 then restored the image. Yes, the UDEL was completed extremly quickly - but the image was (again) previously in use and no outstanding issues other than people didn't like the content.
Shortly there after I noticed that Rocket000 has restored the image a second time, which I thought was unusual so I investigated. I found that Szwedki has deleted the image with the commentary "funny undeletion:)))" along with leaving a message on a closed UDEL ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/C...). I also saw that Szwedki has deleted 3 other files recently and all of them were restored. I found on his talk page that after my note of concern, User:Multichill and User:Rocket000 had left notes of concern.
Seeing is how Swedski had been idle for the last two weeks, I assumed there was something very wrong - like his account had been comprimised. Regardless of if his account had been comprimised, he was having a bad day, or simply was going rogue - I thought it was best to shut things down. So I proceeded to block Szwedki for a week. Yes, I know that is fairly long for a first block - but I'll fully admin I'm a bit heavy handed with the blocks. Though my thought proccess is that admins should have less leeway for purposeful abuse than normal users. Deletions of any image cause alot of damage - CommonsDelinker sees to that. Additionally, I know a block can't hold an admin, we can just turn it right off. I was hoping that a block would act as a wake up call since posts on the talk user's talk page didn't seem to be getting any response. I don't want to see a good admin get desysop'd because they had a bad day, or they were misunderstanding how things worked.
-Jon [[Commons:User:ShakataGaNai]]
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:57 AM, szwedzki suidisz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:25:18 +0200 ABF wikipediabaeren@gmx.de wrote:
I agree to your deletions, but not to the way you did it. We have a huge dump of shitty porn images out of scope on commons noone needs. But if there is a undeletion request closed by an admin you and every other sysop will have to respect this decission.
So, this admin didn't respect rules - 20 hours it's too short for any decission.
If you feel like its wrong simply start a new deletion request.
Good idea.
Your block seems a bit hard & long to me, so if you really promise to follow our deletion guidelines infeauture I belive it'll be no problem to unblock.
OK. Situation needs a debate (BAR?). Thank you.
regards szwedzki
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:36:53 -0700 Jon wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
Ok.... So why don't I pop in and explain my thoughts and therefor my actions. As I've said about 100 times, I'll happily explain anything I do.
[...]
but as the original user pointed out to me - this file was in use
It's not an argument, images "in use" (!). Images "in use" were often uploaded and linked on other wikis by the same user.
Yes, the UDEL was completed extremly quickly - but the image was (again) previously in use and no outstanding issues other than people didn't like the content
Three opinions pro undeletion and one strong oppose, completely ignored by Rocket000, decision after 20 hours. Extremely or curious?
[...]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShakataGaNai#A_block_on_User:Szw...
Sweet. You're not my teacher and you're not my father or buddhist master. The answer is simple:
Step 3 - Is it in Scope? You say YES, I say NO.
Rest of your answer to Wpedzich is bitter sweet - i could ask you - "you were having a bad day or simple were going rogue?". You're tired? It's not my problem.
My proposition is still: unblock and start a debate 'bout Richiex images and few other amateur photos from "anatomy" categories.
szwedzki
If you would like to be unblocked, add {{unblock|Reason}} to your talk page (the message you get when you try to edit any other page will contain more information); Shak has made it clear[1] he won't consider unblocking otherwise.
[1]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShakataGaNai&diff=13400112&oldid=13397336 - second past paragraph
-Giggy
On 8/9/08, szwedzki suidisz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:36:53 -0700 Jon wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
Ok.... So why don't I pop in and explain my thoughts and therefor my actions. As I've said about 100 times, I'll happily explain anything I do.
[...]
but as the original user pointed out to me - this file was in use
It's not an argument, images "in use" (!). Images "in use" were often uploaded and linked on other wikis by the same user.
Yes, the UDEL was completed extremly quickly - but the image was (again) previously in use and no outstanding issues other than people didn't like the content
Three opinions pro undeletion and one strong oppose, completely ignored by Rocket000, decision after 20 hours. Extremely or curious?
[...]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShakataGaNai#A_block_on_User:Szw...
Sweet. You're not my teacher and you're not my father or buddhist master. The answer is simple:
Step 3 - Is it in Scope? You say YES, I say NO.
Rest of your answer to Wpedzich is bitter sweet - i could ask you - "you were having a bad day or simple were going rogue?". You're tired? It's not my problem.
My proposition is still: unblock and start a debate 'bout Richiex images and few other amateur photos from "anatomy" categories.
szwedzki
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I have been debating writing this response for the last several hours...
I'm sorry Szedki, but you need to go back and read [[COM:SCOPE]]. The first line reads: "Wikimedia Commons is a freely licensed *media file repository*(similar to stock photography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography archives) targeted at other Wikimedia projects."
What this means in plain English to us? That if an image is used by ANY PROJECT for a VALID PURPOSE (in this case on en.wp for [[w:Semen]] ) - it is IN SCOPE.
Just in case we're a little fuzzy here? What is a valid purpose... well, anything other than an attack image. Sometimes images get uploaded and deleted shortly there after as being an attack image. In the case of [[ Image:Semen2.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Semen2.jpg]] the image was added to [[w:Semen]] on *12:47, 23 August 2006http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semen&oldid=71370118 *. (Yes, I went back through a few thousand version to find where it got added).
The rest of our scope page goes out the window at this point in time. I don't care if you hate cumshots, I don't care if it is against your god/country/religion. This is COMMONS, it is for EVERYONE not just myself or yourself. Oh, and in case it helps: The word "Common" is defined as: Mutual; shared by more than one. [ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Common ] . Oh, and for the record, I don't much like the cumshot pictures either. I don't think you'll find too many people that do.
----
As for the rest of your email, I don't think I claimed to have any relation to you - ANYWHERE. Be it father, brother, uncle, archnemisis, priest, etc. If I did, feel free to let me know.
As yes, I am tired of this argument. But when I'm tired and angry at people, I go out for a bike ride... not delete images. I felt the need to use strong language on my talk page to convey my point... not everyone may appreciate it - but I was not directing it anyone. Additionally, I think I properly prefaced my comment so anyone with sensitive ears (or in this case eyes) would be upset.
-Jon [[Commons:User:ShakataGaNai]]
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:00 PM, szwedzki suidisz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:36:53 -0700 Jon wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
Ok.... So why don't I pop in and explain my thoughts and therefor my actions. As I've said about 100 times, I'll happily explain anything I
do.
[...]
but as the original user pointed out to me - this file was in use
It's not an argument, images "in use" (!). Images "in use" were often uploaded and linked on other wikis by the same user.
Yes, the UDEL was completed extremly quickly - but the image was (again) previously in use and no outstanding issues other than people didn't like the content
Three opinions pro undeletion and one strong oppose, completely ignored by Rocket000, decision after 20 hours. Extremely or curious?
[...]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShakataGaNai#A_block_on_User:Szw...
Sweet. You're not my teacher and you're not my father or buddhist master. The answer is simple:
Step 3 - Is it in Scope? You say YES, I say NO.
Rest of your answer to Wpedzich is bitter sweet - i could ask you - "you were having a bad day or simple were going rogue?". You're tired? It's not my problem.
My proposition is still: unblock and start a debate 'bout Richiex images and few other amateur photos from "anatomy" categories.
szwedzki
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 20:16:04 -0700 Jon wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
I have been debating writing this response for the last several hours...
Oh yes, #wikimedia-commons log is useful.
I left you alone with your teachings, visions and interpretations of SCOPE. With your hunger for power, so typical for new admins. With your self-contradictions. With your offensive language and problems with anger. Look in the mirror and block that guy that you see there.
EOT szw.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
szwedzki wrote: | On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 20:16:04 -0700 | Jon wiki@konsoletek.com wrote: | |> I have been debating writing this response for the last several hours... | | Oh yes, #wikimedia-commons log is useful. | | I left you alone with your teachings, visions and interpretations of | SCOPE. With your hunger for power, so typical for new admins. With | your self-contradictions. With your offensive language and problems | with anger. Look in the mirror and block that guy that you see there. | | EOT | szw.
I think it's time to end the discussion.
Cary
2008/8/8 szwedzki suidisz@gmail.com:
Such files are very delicate in terms of building a (preferably positive!) image of the project, i think.
Well yes the file was being used by en and they were rather upset to find it had been hastily removed.
If a user (Richiex, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Richiex) converts Commons into a self-pseudo-pornographic picture gallery with own private parts, this calls for immediate reaction.
He's been uploading that stuff since August 2005 I think the immediate bit could be tricky.
Additionally, files that have their equivalents of a better quality ought to be removed in my opinion.
We generally don't take this approach.
If my statement is called vandalism... Multichill wrote in my talk: "Dear Szwedzki, please see the deletion guidelines. You deleted several pictures which are in use at wikipedia articles so clearly in Commons:Scope.". Oh yeah: "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. There are plenty of other projects in the Internet you can use for such a purpose, like Flickr and others."
None of the the images in question have any problem with those requirements.