[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Marcus Buck wrote:
> Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
>   
>> This is nuts.  Literally, nothing has changed.  Stuff on Wikimedia
>> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
>> of the project and the foundation.  We don't host articles about my
>> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
>> either.  Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.
>>   
>>     
> The thing that has changed is the fact that this was decided by the 
> community, by admins who have earned their rights in a community vote, 
> and according to policies. Take e.g. 
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_Sainte-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png>. 
> That image is a 19th century artwork, a drawing,  from an important 
> artist. It was uploaded to Commons in 2006 and never questioned. But 
> Jimbo didn't file a deletion request, he didn't even put a speedy 
> delete. He just deleted it with a generic message given as reason. Two 
> times the deletion was reverted by longstanding Commons admins who 
> wanted to uphold Commons policy about deletions and two times Jimbo 
> deleted it again, with the same generic reason. At the moment the file 
> is again undeleted by a third Commons admin. (Jimbo is not online at the 
> moment to overturn that decision.)
>
> I think this is a really obvious example how Jimbo breaks policies and 
> why large parts of the Commons community are upset.
Interestingly enough, the same caricatyrist still retains
on teh commons another work (for the moment at least),
which possibly many would find nearly as offensive, but
is likely just about the perfectest metaphor for what is
currently happening on Wikimedia Commons...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_La_tentation_de_Saint_Antoine.jpg


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen