[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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
>

And what would that be?

I expect someone will be adding article content explaining the historical
significance of each of these works.  If it's so horrible that they be
deleted, it shouldn't be tough to add a paragraph or two which make it
obvious why.