[Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sydney Poore]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Arnaud HERVE <arnaudherve at x-mail.net>wrote:

>  On 12/09/2011 12:18, Sydney Poore wrote:
>
> If you look at the full body of his work, this admin  truly is trying to
> follow policy and the customs of Commons and WMF projects in general.
>
>
> Well I might have been too quick in judging him, and besides idiocy or
> perversion the reason of his behaviour might have been a complete lack of
> attention. To the point that he didn't even have a look at the photo,
> because if he did and still protected the photo, then I am back at the
> idiocy or perversity hypothesis.
>
> Because, quite frankly, voluntary or not, exceptional or not, what he has
> done here is an insult to plain common sense, and a clear direct
> deterioration of WP content.
>
> From the scientific point of view it is below the required level to even
> begin a discussion.
>
> Imagine the page for Finger, should we even take time to discuss the
> propriety of a photo showing the forearm without the fingers ? What would we
> think of an admin who would protect a photo of the forearm without the
> fingers on the Finger page, after having been duly pointed to the obvious
> mistake by a user ? Don't you think the user with a normal self-respect
> would be right to no bother to come any longer on Wikipedia ?
>
> If you add the Asian-erotic content to that, you realize that the photo was
> totally inappropriate on so many levels that the problem doesn't lie in the
> photo anymore but on the admin.
>
>
>  IMO, the policies need to be tweaked so that admins like him will have
> better policy to work with. And we need a broader group of people commenting
> in all deletion discussions so that we get a more globally representative
> view of what is appropriate for Commons to have on site.
>
>
> Yes but as Sarah Stierch wrote today :
>
>
> One thing Wikimedia as a whole *suffers* from is no "solidity" when it
> comes to policy and rules. Everything seems that it can be adapted, broken,
> changed, manipulated..etc. I think that's a problem.
>
>
> Adding rules or adding policies or adding commentators doesn't work if the
> admins don't show the adequate level of literacy, or use their position to
> manipulate the rules at their convenience.
>
> In his Discussion lock comment Yann says "Person is not recognizable". That
> is typical of illiteracy and bad faith. You add a right detail to justify an
> otherwise totally wrong and very obviously wrong decision. That is totally
> twisting the rules.
>
> As a result we now have a scientifically totally irrelevant and plainly
> domestic-erotic photo on WP, which is explicitly protected by WP. The
> mistake is so obvious that no further rules will work if admins don't show a
> normal intention to respect the rules.
>
> Re-read the discussion page. Is it normal that Sarah Stierch (Missvain) had
> to take time to write the obvious in detail, and that she was not followed
> eventually ? This is not fair, no grown-up literate person should be treated
> like that. Even if it is involuntary, Yann's decision is so wrong and so
> rude it should seriously put in doubt his position as an admin.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg#File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg_3
>

He reconsidered and deleted the image. Approaching an admin to reconsider is
always okay.  They close dozens of deletion discussions and will sometimes
get something wrong.

This is a good outcome.

Sydney Poore



http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg&diff=0&oldid=59292511
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110912/a22bccb0/attachment.htm