Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Durin/Husnock images

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP User:Husnock created his own sub-page to counter this material, which can be located at: User:Husnock/Durinconcerns -Husnock 08:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Durin/Husnock images

This page was created by User:Durin as a result of a dispute he and I are having over images I have uploaded to Wikipedia. The details are extensive but, in my opinion, User:Durin has requested unrelastic information about images, demanded that they be provided immediaetly, and has engaged in harrasment and "Wiki-stalking" of my every edits. This page has been created to resemble some kind of offical Wikipedia page where he lists my various "offenses". These have not been reviewed by any other editors and certainly do not reflect a formal decision or ruling by any Wikipedia organization. I am insulted by this page as it was created without my knowledge and seems to slander me with the apperance that I am a bad user who knowingly violates copyright laws and uploads bad images. User:Durin also has recently added a "suspension" notice to the page but continues to expand the page and add further accusations. This page should deleted for a vareity of reasons, most important of which that it is making unproven statements about my actions and perhaps even qualifies as a border line Personal Attack Husnock 11:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, all Durin does is enforce our image use policy. If you think our image use policy is unreasonable, try to change the policy. And you should really learn to tag images properly: as an admin, you should set an example for others. Even the images you uploaded that are PD and where I believe that they are PD as probably made for the US government should have a source so they can be verified per WP:V, independent of the copyright issue. Please work to fix the image issues (for instance Image:Macarthurcap.jpg is self-contradictory, it can't be PD and "with permission": permission for what?) instead of shooting the messenger. Kusma (討論) 11:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand the reference to that image at all. i tagged it as with permission and someone else changed it public domain becuase it is a military insignia. And in that case, I gave the exact name of the business which released the picture to me and I also think I offered a phone number at one point. -Husnock 15:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I had not checked the history of that item, just want to add that it's probably best to log all permissions using the process at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and to make it clear what the permission entails (if permission is for Wikipedia only, like permissions often are, the image should be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#I3). Kusma (討論) 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Durin has merely been trying to enforce image use policy, and has, as far as I can see, been reasonable and courteous. (He removed a fair use image from my user space some months ago, and I thanked him.) Jimbo is most anxious that this policy be enforced strictly. Husnock has been constantly reverting attempts to remove fair use images from pages where they are not supposed to be, even to the extent of using rollback on an administrator (Geni) who had made it clear in the edit summary that he was removing fair use images,[1] protecting the article in his version while he was a party to the edit war,[2] and then explaining on the talk page that he was concerned about Geni's acknowledged sockpuppet.[3] (Geni's sockpuppets are all legitimate.) The only reason that this case has even remotely looked like harassment is because Husnock has been so uncooperative, and because there are few people who care enough about the image policy to get involved in this extremely thankless job so Durin has not been given enough support. Also, this edit and the existence of this page could be seen as insulting to Durin. AnnH ♫ 12:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify "uncooperative", I asked Durin for time and explained three times I was deployed overseas. He dismissed this and tagged all a number of images that they would be deleted in seven days. He then would post "notices" on my page if I didnt answer his every inquiry in 12-24 hours. As for User:Husnock/Durinharass, that page is merely a record of his talk page entries where one can see the pattern of demanding info and not accepting my answers. His page is a "list of charges". I'm not even going to begin to go into what I suspect is going on in the real world, where I believe he is contacting certain persons to "check up" on me, such as e-mailing two employees of the City of Corpus Christi and questioning them about who I am. Judging by the attitudes on this page so far, I will probably lose this but I wonder how many people Durin will chase away from this project by hounding thier edits and demanding personal information. -Husnock 15:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I also must defend myself about P&C since you are not telling the full story. Geri removed all the images without any discussion about it. I reverted, asked him why he did it, and he reverted again and again removed the images with no discussion s to why. At first, before I ever knew he was an Admin, I thought this was someone trying to harm the page. I protected it, but had not protected a page in several months so then reviewed the policy. After realizing that I could not protect a page that I was involved with, I self reverted. I then attempting a compromise by replacing all the images with a single image and contacted Geri to see if that would be okay via the talk page of a new article. So, tell the full story, not just the parts that make me look in the image Durin would have you see. -Husnock 15:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A suggested compromise was posted to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[4] and both Durin and Husnock agreed to it[5][6]. As this page documents which images Durin has concerns with, it should be available to the mediator so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel. If there is specific content within the page that Husnock has concerns with, he should notify the mediator and let them deal with it. Once the mediation is done and the images resolved, then both this page and Husnock's would no longer be needed and should be deleted at the mediator's discretion. -- JLaTondre 12:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have admin powers, so if the page is deleted, I can restore or view the history needed, so this MFD is pretty moot, IMHO. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope, old friend, if the consensus is to delete, you wouldnt just restore. And I couldalso delete the page right now and abuse my powers, but am following the proper course. -Husnock 15:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I do not even have to restore: I just view the history of each edit and just copy and paste names of the images in the search bar at the right. (As for the images themselves, I think some have replacements for them or we need to find some). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I recognize that. However, transparency of process has been a recent big issue on Wikipedia. I see no reason to delete this page so only admins can refer to it. If Husnock has valid concerns regarding the content, that can be addressed without deleting the whole page. As mediator, if you wish to consolidate Durin's & Husnock's sides of the dispute somewhere else & replace with redirects or simply delete, I think that's fine, but I think deleting only one side's listing of the issues that are to be mediated is not conductive. To be blunt, both sides have said they agree to the mediation. They should abide by that and leave it to mediator to clean things up. There's no need to continue arguing across multiple pages. -- JLaTondre 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Durin's concerns seem well founded and his "unreasonable demands" appear in line with the demands our image policies make. As pointed out elsewhere your presence or otherwise is a non-issue from the perspective of copyright, if you are unable (for any reason, lack of will, absence etc.) to provide the relevant detail to make sure wikipedia is covered they should be deleted until such time as that can be done. This page appears to be preferable to maintaining it offsite, it certainly provides transparency and also enables others with an interest to help out filling in the gaps or proviiding alternate images (both of which are preferable to immediate deletion). --pgk 08:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Don't see anything wrong with this. I agree with Pgk. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?•meow!} 21:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. See reasons right below. --Cat out 15:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone desires to list all images by a specific user they can use a toolserv tool for it or use the "User Contributions" link. A simple checklist w/o any comments would also be fine.
  • We have recently altered and added a significant amount of bureaucracy to the copyright process. Any newer upload must comply with the new rules. How ever applying this to the older images can easily overwhelm any long term contributor and would only be counter-productive. There is absolutely no reason to rush things, provided that there are no immediate legal threats requiring immediate action.
  • All images should be reviewed on a case by case basis in a public location so other parties can involved in the discussion. A number of images listed such as Image:USN1.gif are clearly in the PD. I do not believe a discussion is even necessary for such images.

  --Cat out 15:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This information is key to the dispute resolution. NauticaShades 08:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.