On 8/4/2006 Sam Korn wrote
The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country.
Yes, in terms of laws. This image might not fall under child pornography rules in some country or another, but that doesn't actually stop it being child pornography.
Of course that does! Whether something is or is not child pornography is clearly subjective (especially in borderline cases like the picture you decided to delete) and I do not see why your personal judgement on the matter should be considered to supersede the judgments of other editors on Wikipedia who are neither POV-pushers nor trolls.
People left and right are saying things like "It was child porno" or "it was inappropriate for Wikipedia". These sort of things are what are called weasel words on Wiipedia articles. Wikipedia should not be edited according to the personal likings and dislikings of one or even several editors.
I believe it is accepted process to maintain status quo unless there is consensus to change, not change unless there is consensus to keep. We don't start by deleting articles and then undeleting them if people demonstrate a super-majority for retaining them, we do it the other way. I don't see why the process should be otherwise for image deletions.
Your rationale for deleting the image without consensus (that the IfD had failed to delete the image) is very strange, surely that's why the IfD is there for, to prevent the deletion of images when Wikipedia editors don't want to delete the image? "I will let the IfD delete images when I want them deleted but when it keeps images I want to be deleted then I'm just going to go ahead and delete them": doesn't this sound wrong to anyone?
Supposedly an admin has only abilities and not rights, but clearly in this case an admin has the right to irreversibly delete images that are not to his taste while an ordinary user doesn't have the right to keep images that are to his taste.
--------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.