On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Arnaud HERVE <arnaudherve(a)x-mail.net>wrote;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_Vul…
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