On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Arnaud HERVE <[email protected]>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
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
