Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 no consensus. I carefully examined the impact of the canvassing/notification (depending on what side you are on) and it seems to have had minimal impact on the discussion. While it may have brought out some individuals who might not have !voted for keeping, there were likely some on the other side who were brought here by the controversy surrounding the original closure and subsequent canvassing/notification. Both sides bring up legitimate concerns, but none are particularly pressing from a policy standpoint. The weight of opinion (I hesitate to call it consensus) is for the page being kept for community-building reasons. Generally such issues can be resolved by moving information to userspace, but the point of this page is for it to be in a centralized location (cf. WP:MEET). Privacy concerns are real, but provided users only add their own pictures to the page, that is their choice (knowing that most admins are happy to delete unencylopedic personal images at user request). As far as inactive users go, I see no reason why the sensible norm of removing unencyclopedic material from inactive users should not apply here as well. If the page becomes a problem in the future (and by problem, I don't mean that it continues to irritate sensibilities regarding unencyclopedic material outside the mainspace of Wikipedia) the situation may be reevaluated. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians

Procedural listing. The first MfD for this page (originally titled Wikipedia:Facebook) was speedy closed as keep after less than two hours, and unanimous consensus at deletion review was to "overturn and relist". So here we are. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Original nomination was:
Delete - Wikipedia is not Facebook. Page contents are nn, irrelevant, imagecruft. Page is a potential privacy issue, especially considering anon IPs are adding people without their knowledge or consent. Nobody of consequence 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This does not belong in the Wikipedia namespace and is a potential minefield. How can we ever be sure that the person on a picture actually is the user it is associated with? And if it is, aren't we giving ammunition to ill-willing people? We can't assume good faith when it may have real world implications. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pointless, I would say; how does this improve the wiki? These can just be put on individual user pages. We are not a social networking site. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Useful for meetups. Help establish a sense of community. - 211.30.71.131 04:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps categorise to a userpage (not image) category, something like Category:Wikipedia users with photos of themselves will address some of the privacy concerns. It would prevent people sneaking in images without the user's knowledge, since inclusion of the category will be controlled by the user themself. Sadly, the admins who appear to be for keeping this page have resorted to removing deletion tags more than once. [1] [2] Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • After trying to edit the page a couple of times (to get rid of IP additions), I'm strongly in favour of delete and convert to category. Even if this page is kept it is already slow to load as it is now. If people keep adding their photos here it will bloat this page, so it will eventually have to be split into multiple pages, making policing even harder. A category doesn't have this problem. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me get this straight. You believe that it would be easier to police a category than it would a single page. I don't suppose you've ever tried to watch a category? Let me tell you, it's far easier to revert edits on a page than it is to revert on category. To revert on a page, press "undo" or "rollback". To revert on a category, you first must determine that someone has been added incorrectly (you can't watch changes on a category!) then you must edit the image and then revert the category markup. In other words: it's not as easy as watching a page/pages of images. - 211.30.71.131 04:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • "you can't watch changes on a category..." - yes you can, using Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:XYZ. If it works for Category:Living people (and we have a link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people in the Recent changes banner as a testament of its usefulness!), why won't it work for Category:Living editors? Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Won't work if the user's image is on Commons. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
          • It would still work (if the category is an image-tracking cat; I proposed a userpage-tracking cat but either type is fine) - the image page that contains the category would have to be created here and thus can be tracked for changes like local images. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• I've thought this over for a little bit, and I'll have to conclude that I support deletion, since doesn't help the encyclopedia in some way, and can be considered a privacy issue. The speedy keep for the last MFD is unwarranted. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:09, 16 November 2007 (GMT)
• Rename and keep, as per what I did last time. Hello? I moved it to a different page, made it permanently semi-protected to address the issue of privacy concerns and have a permanent watch on it to prevent abuses! And it does help the encyclopedia as it helps us keep a sense of community. It's been very useful to us for many, many years. I'm going to let all those with pictures on it know about the MFD, which I feel is only fair as they all contributed to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You may have semi-protected it and watchlisted it, but I notice you haven't done anything about recent anonymous additions. Chick Bowen 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this page promotes community spirit, provided it is used correctly. Permanent semi-protection should be applied however, and time taken to sift through the history and take away any anon additions. It may be best to delete without prejudice to a new page being created and better patrolled, something I'm personally willing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, if... as per Awyong and Ta bu shi da yu, a system is in place to prevent images from being included that aren't on the user's page. This does help foster a sense of community, putting a human face (sort of) on both names we know and names we don't normally due to different editing interests. It reminds me that there's more to Wikipedia than the same ten people I see all the time in my areas of interest. If someone has uploaded their photo to a user page, then its appearance here is no invasion. However, it is important that this page not be a tool for "outing" people, hence the need for some degree of control. --Karen | Talk | contribs 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Many a new/young user are told not to use their user spaces as MySpace or Facebook clones because, they are told, "Wikipedia is not a social networking site", but here we have a page that tries to do just that. Either we have a social networking/community side to WP or we don't. If people want images of themselves on view let them do it on their user page, that's what it's there for. ---- WebHamster 02:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Worst offender of self-promotion, if there ever was one. Entirely pointless and doesn't contribute to Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk)
  • Useful for meetups. Meetups encourage article editing. Therefore, not pointless and it does help Wikipedia. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's harmless. It's nice to see the many contributors.—trey^{omg he's back}_{Forrmerly Know As TREYWiki} 03:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All arguments against BAD uses for these images apply also in userpages the same way, so actually there's no other reason. Delete these and delete any other similar images(faces) everywhere on this wiki and in Commons:Commons, but that's not possible--Andersmusician VOTE 03:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a big difference between being a social networking site and something like this. Renaming it will avoid a lot of confusion. In the end, I think using a category for the images would be a better idea, for technical reasons, but I'm supporting keep to ward off a slippery slope. No worries, people, Wikipedia:Esperanza isn't coming back. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also like to add to my statement that putting a picture to some of the users names can be really helpful in cooling down a heated discussion. More than once I've gotten worked up with someone over some debate, came across their userpage, and saw a picture to remind me that there's a real person there. Having seen pictures of people before something gets heated helps too, even with those who don't upload a picture. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rename and keep: it doesn't do any harm. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a community, and if members of that community want to show the rest of us what they look like, what's wrong with that? However, calling it a "facebook" obviously has connotations with another website, so calling it "Images of Wikipedians" is a much better idea. --RFBailey 03:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - A) It's really a stretch to see how this helps build a free encyclopedia anyone can edit; B) I agree with the privacy concerns; and C) IMO if an article needs to be permanently semiprotected to retain its legitimacy, it doesn't have much (legitimacy). Permanent semiprotection makes it a de facto private club, which is a poor example of community. Anchoress 03:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Helps build community, which Wikipedia is often sorely lacking, and is harmless. --David Shankbone 03:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As per Anchoress and WebHamster's points. I consider it nothing more than a blog for a clique, and can be easily abused. Awyong's suggestions regarding making it a category page has merit. --健次(derumi)^talk 03:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Serious risk of privacy violations, at a time when there is heightened awareness of the hazards of providing too much information about one's self here. Makes a nice convenient place to find photos of people to subsequently ridicule outside of Wikipedia for those who are so inclined. No evidence that every single photo was added by the specific user - Seth Finkelstein's name doesn't appear in the history, for example - and it seems the rule of thumb is that only the person depicted has the right to remove the picture. Well, if they didn't put it there in the first place, how can they remove it? Risker 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking of privacy violations, why is my anon account being tagged as TBSDY? - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no encyclopedic value. Dubious content. Privacy issues - Alison ^❤ 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful for collaboration, sense of community. Helps you know whom you are dealing with, or at least what they want you to think they look like, self-image really. If you've ever talked to someone over the phone when you know what they look like and when you don't, you'll know how much of a difference that makes. If we can have our image on our user page - and many do - it seems counter-intuitive to say that we can't have a collection of such images, all voluntarily added. It's not a privacy violation if we choose to reveal it; or would you ban people from using their pictures or user names? If for whatever reason the add doesn't appear in the history, the solution is simple, ask the Wikipedian - hey Seth, is this you? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How can any user here seriously raise privacy concerns? There's only one way we can get these images, and that's if the user specifically uploads them so that their face is associated with their Wikipedia account. You don't get to make that kind of judgement call for someone else, or else we'd be blocking people for using their real names, such as myself. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Seth Finkelstein's photo was originally uploaded by another editor to accompany the article about him, which has since been deleted. As well, several photos have more than one individual in them, and there is no evidence those other people consented to their photos being on Wikipedia or used in this way. Risker 04:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with that argument is that anyone can use these photos for just about any reason. The problem you point out is hardly limited to this situation. However, since it is on the project namespace, there's nothing stopping us from setting criteria that asks people to only add pictures of themselves, which actually makes the issue less problematic than if these photos were being used somewhere else on the internet. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - innocuous fun page, plus the individuals decided to upload their pictures to Wikipedia. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 04:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Regardless of privacy concerns, the same purpose could be served by all these users putting their pictures on their individual user pages. WP is not a social network. Noclip 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Better go delete Wikipedia:Meetup then. - 211.30.71.131 04:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC) (This anon account is being used by User:Ta bu shi da yu)
    • WTF? "Anon account"? Marked as TBSDY?!? Yes, it is TBSDY, but for goodness sake, if I want to post anonymously, that's what I'll do! I'm not disrupting anything. It's possible that another editor on the Optusnet network hopped online and reused this IP, edited Wikipedia and was IDed as myself. Hardly fair for the anon user. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Nobody of Consequence 16:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed. But it does highlight that "wikipedia is not a social network" isn't really a valid argument, as there is evidence to the contrary. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I have personally found this page useful for relating to other editors. It is inspiring and edifying to see this (somewhat) diverse cross-section of humankind contributing in parallel to a single project. Reminds me of Family of Man. I do not believe there are significant privacy concerns; however, to alleviate any that might exist, it might be useful (and a reasonable compromise) to establish an informal rule that entries added without the explicit consent of the entry's subject may be reverted. Gracenotes^T § 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Ned shortly above. You upload a photo of yourself, you upload it under a free license and it can be placed wherever. You must upload of your own volition, and thus no privacy being violated that is out of your control. In the matter of someone uploading a picture of you without your consent, well, if they own the image, it's their prerogative I suppose. Ask if they will delete it nicely, or IfD it if it's that big of a deal. The fact that it's on this page doesn't do heaps of more damage if the image already exists. As for the lack of encyclopedia development, I understand that argument. However, it's one of the more established (2004) and fun of pages like this (of which there are myraid). It's kind of cool to see the faces behind some of the editors here. I see no detriment to the project in keeping this page, which is the criteria (IMO) for deletion of miscellaneous pages. I (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't really have a dog in this fight (I added myself but it's no big deal to me if the page is deleted), but it occurs to me Wikimedia ought to set up a place where this could be transwiki'd. Or won't that be done because it would compete with Wikicities or whatever?—Chowbok ☠ 05:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no really reason for deletion. My opinion is similary as Ryan Postlethwaite and Karen. --Cinik 07:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless, interesting, useful. Needs policing but so do many other pages. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep almost exactly per Morven. Also, I think we delete far too many things just because we can. Orderinchaos 07:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Users have the right to put these on their user pages. Doczilla 08:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, <mount>that this was nominated in the first place, that Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs) was blocked for notifying editors of this discussion and that someone actually put a "NO CANVASSING O PEONS" sign at the top are all very disappointing. I would have hoped that the Wikipedia community was sick enough of drama. But I guess we can't get enough of these pointless deletion discussions. Seriously, what harm does this page do? What harm has this deletion discussion already done?</unmount> *sigh* --Iamunknown 08:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless, potentially useful. Unlike MFD, doesn't stop people from writing an encyclopedia :-) Kusma (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Restrict to the handsome only Everyone is too ugly. Except AnonEMouse. DrKiernan 10:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: See this as well. Miranda 10:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and categorize. Currently this page contains several pictures of people who have left Wiki. For example Endomion blanked her user page in April of this year and hasn't edited since. Blanking her user page automatically removed herself from the one user category which formerly listed her. It also would have orphaned her picture, except for its use on this page. Does she care if her picture is still displayed here? Should we try to find out or should her picture continue to be displayed on this page forever just because she posted it back in 2005? Who will deal with all such problems if this page is kept? --MediaMangler 10:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I can see the arguments that this is not encyclopedic: in a sense, yes, this is true, and we are not Facebook. However, this is in project (meta) namespace so the "unencyclopedic" argument is not that is not useful (to some). As User:Morven says, it is harmless. Also, some of the users uploaded the photos themselves anyway and the photos are released under GFDL or Creative Commons licensing. What we do need is to take an approach towards ensuring that only active users are on there, and remove inactive ones are removed per Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians and Wikipedia:List of administrators#Inactive. If the page is deleted, it may be best to list at Wikipedia:Protected titles since it may be (inevitably) re-created. Regarding the privacy argument, if they did not want to be on there (or Wikipedia) they would not have uploaded photos of themselves. The page does need policing, but then again so do many other pages in the Wikipedia namespace, as the recent edit warring at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and protection of Wikipedia:No personal attacks shows. If the page gets deleted, some users will re-create it in their userspace, as with Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. It's a tough call to decide this, and there have been many good "for" and "against" reasons given, but in the end, the nomination of this page is a controversial one for any admin to close. Feel free to read over my arguments - I hope I have given you some food for thought. --Solumeiras ^talk 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

--Solumeiras ^talk 11:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment And exactly what is this page? I'll tell you, it is just a photo gallery and doesn't contribute the the Wikipedia community at all. In fact, pages like this fall well into WP:NOT#SOCIALNET and any excuses to keep the page is that it "builds/contributes to the community" actually proves the point that it violates WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. --Farix (Talk) 12:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While it's nice to put faces to the electrons I think the privacy issues override all other possible benefits. It's a big scary Internet out there and we have a responsibility to protect the community at large from it. No issue with individual users uploading pics - but we don't need a place to centralise the Internet stalker's wet dream, methinks. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree privacy is, generally speaking, an important concern -- I'm glad several people have brought it up. On the other hand, we can presume that editors with pictures here have freely chosen to upload these images under a copyleft license. There's still the worry about whether people are actually uploading images of the people they say they are... but we don't exactly run around policing this sort of thing, do we? Even if somebody puts up a "self-portrait" on their userpage, there's really no way for us to check if it's actually them, in most cases, and I bet there's no plans to try. Is the next rule "no self-portraits" to plug this hole? That would be a shame. So yes, it's a problem, but is deleting this page going to fix that problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep -- This page IS the Wikipedia community. Many of us have worked long and hard to create the encyclopedia and if we choose to expose to the world the fact that we're actual persons and not merely anonymous screenames, that is a small compensation for the work that's being done. And if you think it invades someone's privacy, then don't add your picture. -- Atlant 12:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Response: 1) That's what your user page is for. 2) And if someone else adds your picture...? This is WP remember, anyone can edit a page and there's no policy against someone/anyone adding an image to this page. So how does one recommend policing it? Anyone can add an image, but technically only the user who's image is shown can remove it, and even then it could be construed as vandalism due to removing an on-topic image purely because they don't want it there. ---- WebHamster 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Riana has made a good argument, and it's certainly a verifiable one, but people on here released them of their own volition. My argument is not a "I like it"/I don't like it argument, but a reasoned line of thinking. For some people, privacy and anonymity are not a concern, and if they wish to forfeit it, it is (for the most part) their concern, unless there are legal reasons why the content should not be on here (and that's within the purview of the Wikimedia Foundation. The "this-is-a-community" arguments are a good point too, but, in the end, it seems like no-one will be a winner in this debate - and this could end up at Wikipedia:Deletion review again and again, like Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense has done. As regards policing the article, well, the users can request deletion of their images of themselves under criteria for speedy deletion U1 "user request" and the images removed from this page. Simple as that.

In the end, if someone wants to forfeit their right to privacy, and take risks then they will do so, even if there is advice saying they should not do such a thing. Also, if any user does want their personal information hidden, the diff can be oversighted, via the mailing list. However, if it is a person under the legal age of adulthood, then pictures should be removed per the suggested policy on childrens' privacy (which has had an arbitration caseand ruling on it).It's a no-win situation here. My personal opinion is, this is a bit too frivolous but there seems to be a consensus so far to keep, so I'm remaining neutral (Abstain) on this.Apologies for the length of my arguments and my reasoning, but I was trying to help the situation. If anyone wants to discuss my arguments further feel free to use the talk page. Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 13:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Inclusion is voluntary and serves to help build the community. If it were otherwise, I would oppose it. Although I would suggest splitting it into separate pages - the size of this page has tripled since I added myself in 2005. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-16 14:00Z
• Keep Community building. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - reasonable controls are in place. If there are subsequent concerns about unauthorized pics, just add a provision that for a pic to be listed here, it also has to be posted on the editor's user page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the virtues of purging any and all signs of community and humor from the Wikipedia/User namespace have yet to be proven, and we seem to have been doing fine in the many years we've allowed it. --W.marsh 14:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Useful for collaboration, sense of overall community (as opposed to belonging to one clique or another), and promotes community spirit. As for the potential risks of the page, I looked at all the What Links Here links to the page. This page has been around more than three years and has cause very little concern. No one even has thought of deleting this page before until now, which shows just how important this page is to the many people who have viewed this page. -- Jreferee t/c 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not everything on Wikipedia has encyclopedic value, or needs to. Besides, if IPs are adding people without their consent, isn't that cause for a reversion of the edit, and not the deletion of the page? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's the point, IPs don't need consent if the images are on Commons or have Free-Use licences. Per policy anyone can add an image to this page at anytime. If the image is of a genuine editor then they are not vandalising or being off topic. ---- WebHamster 15:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't really don't see the value in the page at all, and I believe it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia WP:NOT being MySpace, or for that matter, Facebook. — Save_Us_229 16:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Someone NEEDS to do something about Ta bu shi da yu. He has done nothing but engage in trollish and improper behavior since this whole thing started. First, a speedy close of the original MFD out of process. Then, a violation of WP:POINT. Now he's blatantly violated WP:CANVASS and, IMO, deliberately buggered this relisted MFD up. I cannot believe this person is trusted with admin tools. If this comes out as no consensus I can guarantee I'll relist it later on until we get a proper MFD discussion, not buggered up with canvassed votes. Nobody of Consequence 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TBSDY is not the topic of discussion here; if you have an issue with this editor, you may continue that discussion at your existing complaint at WP:AN/I. Furthermore, there is such a thing as a bad-faith xfD nomination, and I believe you've just proven that a subsequent repeat nomination by you will fall into that category.

Atlant (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC) (An administrator here)

• Rebuttal This whole MfD is so screwed up it should be declared a mis-trial - I pity the closing admin. And under these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with re-nominating the page or requesting another DRV if it is deleted, so that comment is not deserved. No matter which way this goes, it probably will be appealed.--12 Noon 01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And all those who have participated here can reparticipate. Deletion through attrition? Yet another reason why xFD is screwed. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Informing those who had pictures there was a reasonable thing to do. However, to avoid canvassing concerns, a neutral notice should have also been placed at other locations. Restricting discussion just to MfD regulars is as harmful, if not more so, than making more people aware of the debate. Carcharoth 16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps it should be pointed out that the MfD is not the place for this discussion, the relevant thread on WP:ANI is more appropriate. This discussion is getting long enough as it is without digression. ---- WebHamster 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: several people here have stated that seeing the picture of a user helps remind us that the user is a living person, an actual human being. No really? You need to see a picture to remind you? Aecis^Brievenbus 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think they need a picture so they can see if you look just like me. If you look like me, then I know what your motives are; if you look different than me, then you must have ulterior motives.--12 Noon 16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I know that I personally check this facebook page before reverting any user's edit, just in case they look cool and I decide I'd rather let their edit stay... *rolls eyes* — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-16 17:07Z
      • Well, that is totally missing the point, even if it is tongue in check.--12 Noon 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with what Jreferee said. Plus, if people are concerned abour privacy issues, why upload pictures of themselves in the first place? -- Acalamari 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears harmless, and there are no privacy concerns. No one is required to participate. • Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment: let's leave the issue of privacy aside for second. Even if every single Wikipedian pictured in this gallery is here of his/her own free will, it still is a massive waste of bandwidth. Wikipedia doesn't exist for the convenience of the editors. We are not a networking site or community entertainment project. We are an encyclopedia. How does this help build an encyclopedia? And for all those who have said that this is harmless, please see WP:HARMLESS. Whatever is said there applies directly to this page as well. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia doesn't exist for the convenience of the editors" - Who said it does? A large portion of the Wikipedia namespace is devoted to making it easier for editors to edit and work together. Nobody said Wikipedia existed solely for the convenience of editors... "We are not a networking site" - see the various WikiProjects - they require a multitude of networking and community support. "How does this help build an encyclopedia" - It improves the sense of community. Whether or not you find a need for it to serve that purpose does not change how others feel on the same question. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-16 20:24Z
  • And the bandwidth argument is irrelevant. --David Shankbone 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As for questions of bandwidth, talk to brion. He'll set you straight. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-16 20:33Z

• How about the, perhaps more important, number of CPU cycles used (wasted?) to continually resize a page full of (unimportant?) images? ---- WebHamster 23:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comparatively (to the rest of Wikipedia) nil. Wikitext-produced HTML is cached, and downloading the thumbnails is no problem with a persistent HTTP connection. Gracenotes^T § 02:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Not to mention that most web browsers will cache images locally anyway. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's not the HTML I was referring to. Each image thumbnail is physically resized server-side in realtime, not just the HTML img size tags. This is, relatively speaking, CPU intensive compared to parsing wikicode etc. Yes there is caching but even that times out. A page full of image thumbnails requires much more CPU processing than a page full of HTML. Let's face it there are enough problems with lag already without adding to it however minor it may be. ---- WebHamster 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you look at the filename for a thumbnail, you'll see that it's a saved file, not something that has to be repeatedly resized by the server. --BRIAN0918 03:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is a digression so I'll be brief. A thumbnail is not any particular size (even though it defaults to 180px). The server has to generate a new image based on whatever size is asked for in the image tag, e.g. it doesn't display a 1000px image in a 180px box, it actually creates a new image that is resized down to 180px. It can't keep a copy as it doesn't know what the next variant is going to be (though that will depend on the caching used on the server). Haven't you ever wondered what the white line running down the image as it's displayed is? This is the server resizing the image and displaying the new image in real time. ---- WebHamster 04:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake: go file a bug report if you are so concerned. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Touchy eh? Been outed too many times? Why would I file a bug report for something the software is supposed to do? ---- WebHamster 04:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I never tried to disguise myself. You are being nasty now. My point is: this is actually a relatively small page in the grand scheme of things. Commons, which runs the same software, has many pages of the same nature that are a lot bigger and that are frequently changed. Evidently if this page causes big problems for Wikipedia, then presumably all those other pages will as well. Thus, this is a performance related bug. Alternatively, it's not and you don't really know what you are talking about. One or the other. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Gee, since we have an entire major portion of the Foundation's project designed specifically to do thumbnails on large galleries (I'm talking about Commons, of course), do you really think that one more page of thumbs is gonna cause a major server crash? AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• If that was addressed at me, then no, I don't think that at all. If it was actually directed at me, please have a chat with WebHamster, as he raised it as a reason why this page should be deleted. I was merely showing the problems with the argument by following reducio ad absurdum. However, should this be a problem, I am quite serious about that bug report. :-) - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Who said anything about crashing? I also referred to it as being minor. It may be only a minor element but unnecessary due to the frivolous nature of this article. ---- WebHamster 12:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, so in other words, this issue is so minor we can also discount the "issue". - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Running a brief cost-benefit analysis, I think the benefit of this page to the community is worth its minor cost. It's clear that not everyone shares this opinion, though (as is being argued elsewhere). Gracenotes^T § 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I have to assume the page misrepresentatives the appearance of at least a few editors, including AnonEMouse, Cberlet, culverin, DannyQuack, Pacific Coast Highway, Two-Sixteen, Water Bottle, and White Cat, and such misrepresentation is not acceptable in wikipedia. Either that, or a lot of you are weirder than I thought. By the way, you can see me on a typical day at work here. -- John Carter (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Or, you know, they could have been having fun. (cf. humour.) - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and convert to category sounds reasonable (and more practical than current page, otherwise I'd be a "keep". WP cannot function without some sense of community. This supports that and is not an unreasonable burden or danger. Only reason I can see for a flat-out delete is WP:NOTSUPPOSEDTOBEFUN. -- -- Mdbrownmsw (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A category can't be used, as several of the images aren't on Wikipedia, they're on Commons. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What about a category for people with images of themselves on their userpage? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I had not even know that this was here. Now that i do, I find it useful. Some degree of personality can help the encyclopedia, and people can choose anything from complete non-disclosure upwards. The longer I'm here the more comfortable I am about such things. And for fanciful pictures likewise--we don't prohibit them on user pages. I really cannot imagine why it is any worse than having images on the user pages at all. There's only the possibility that those with pictures on their user pages may similarly not know of this, and not want them here as well--we could probably have a bot to notify them of it. DGG (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A perfectly reasonable thing to have for those who wish to use it. NoSeptember 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Pictures on display are those already shown on userpages. Live and let live. --Asterion^talk 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It could serve a useful purpose (e.g. if one wanted to start a game of Guess Who? using Wikipedians as characters). StrengthOfNations (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please elaborate? How is this relevant? Aecis^Brievenbus 01:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. DGG basically summed up what I wanted to say. As long as they are appropriate and free, I can't see why not. bibliomaniac15 03:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. morale and community buildiing. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Casliber, Cary, Atlant, Morwen and everybody else. WE ARE THE COMMUNITY. If you don't like it, don't put your picture on there, or remove your picture if it gets put on. No harm, no foul. And I am very, very glad my attention was brought to this nom -- it's totally misguided that it was nominated in the first place for the reasons it was. -- phoebe/(talk) 04:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• A quick addition -- I am proud to be listed on this page, am proud to have been there for several years, and am glad that we have something up that shows, in some small way, what Wikipedia looks like. -- phoebe/(talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If this page somehow starts damaging the encyclopedia, then of course it should be deleted. But there is absolutely no evidence that this is so. -Amarkov moo! 05:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needing extra policing is not analogous to needing deletion. As many others above have pointed out, building a strong community directly aids the building of a quality encyclopedia. VanTucky ^Talk 06:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Yes, it doesn't help the encyclopedia in a direct way. Neither does any user category, userbox template, barnstar award or humorous essay. Then why do we keep all of that? Because, an encyclopedia never falls out of the sky. It is created by group of encyclopedists. For traditional encyclopedias they get paid, and they can put their stamp on the articles they write. What's there in this for a bunch of anonymous volunteers? Two things - a feeling of accomplishment and a feeling of community. You take away the community and you'll be very successfully have taken away the encyclopedia itself. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is where encyclopedia dramatica gets its pics. Who wants this page anyway? How does it help improve the encyclopedia?--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a community might answer your question. Gracenotes^T § 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Would deleting this page keep ED from getting images? People are going to keep uploading images of themselves, regardless of whether this page exists. They'll probably even put them on their userpages. I'd bet some of these people have the audacity to check userpages for useful smear potential. In this case, the problem isn't with this page, so much, but with people who upload (and copyleft license) self-portraits without realizing the potential implications of doing so; what can we do, as a community, to inform people before they upload? I don't think deleting this page solves the problem you describe. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it's kinda cool, getting to know who fellow Wikipedians are. I, personally, do not wish to upload a picture of myself, but it helps build the community. In my opinion, anything that strengthens the community will strengthen the efforts the community on improving the encyclopedia. And that's what it's all about. Maser ^(Talk!) 03:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

• Keep - Appears harmless enough. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep better community -> better encyclopedia.  Grue  15:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and please don't censor my talk page either! Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• The time we've wasted here could've been used to get an article to FA quality. But, noooooo. We just had to spend it here :-( Keep, per WP:COMMUNITY. This in no way prevents us from developing a quality encyclopedia. --Agüeybaná (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong, obvious, and speedy keep. Notability and other article-related arguments do not apply. Some number of Wikipeidans wish to put their photographs in a common place. There is no cogent argument whatsoever that this is a problem or hurts our encyclopedic mission. As far as I can tell the attempt at deletion is yet another mean-spirited autocratic attempt to rain on other people's parade. Moreover, there has been so much wikidrama and improper procedure (see, e.g., participant blocked and notifications rescinded here) over this deletion nomination that there is simply no way we could possibly have a credible result in favor of deletion. Hence, this should be closed as a keep and considered again, if at all, some time far enough in the future that it can be clean. Wikidemo (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to ascribe motives to delete !voters. Disagreement if fine, but saying that this is "yet another mean-spirited autocratic attempt to rain on other people's parade" is absolutely ridiculous just wrong. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stay calm there. I was not talking about the motive but rather the effect, which is indeed as I describe. Who knows why people are telling each other what to do for no good reason, they just are. We clearly have a partisan issue going on when a user is blocked for supposedly "canvassing" by notifying people whose images are about to be deleted, and the administrator's notice board is in a small uproar over the block. Misuse of administrative tools is clearly a problem in this case, so please do not dismiss my comments. The process is irreversibly tainted from this. Wikidemo (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was about effect, not about motive, why use the word "mean-spirited", which is all about motive, not about effect? Aecis^Brievenbus 10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the previous five arguments. Λυδαcιτγ 08:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy to the userpage of each, and add each page to Category:Wikipedians with pictures. - The page is just too large, with a likelyhood of becoming larger. Also, concerns about "the right to vanish" and this page possibly being an oversight. One possibility (if someone really wanted a single page with the pictures of all Wikipedians), could be for each picture to be placed on a single subpage, and transcluded to the table. (Some bot could automatically transclude User:somename/pix to this eventually sprawling page.) But such a page is bound to be huge, and likely to grow exponentially, hence my alternate suggestion. - jc37 (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The category idea looks like a valid option. I also wondered about what happens when this page scales up and becomes a sprawling metropolis of images, but I don't think that particular issue is too serious; we managed to handle it by splitting up the admin list into subpages, after all. Not to put down your suggestion. The category is probably easier to manage, in all, I just worry about whether it's as useful. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It is not in the best interests of our community to continue its evisceration of itself. I realize that there were and are valid reasons for the deletions which came before this (Esperanza, BJAODN, etc.,) but I would be lying to say that I wasn't sorry to see either of them go. I joined Wikipedia three years ago, and the atmosphere was much different. In the days when there were 300 admins, 150,000 users and 330,000 articles, red links abounded, and rollicking quests of article writing and community cohesiveness ruled the day. Does that same atmosphere scale to our current proportions? No, but there is no harm in keeping an ancient piece of what Wikipedia used to be. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 21:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• A very, very strong delete Not in any way encyclopediac or useful, enjoyable or helpful, the only things that can come out of this is violation and irritation. Thedreamdied (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Given the canvasing by Ta bu shi da yu to influence the outcome, would it be appropriate to flag those comments by those he had contacted. Or even flag those who are on the page since they have a clearly vested interest in keeping the page? --Farix (Talk) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's probably safe to say that most people who have worked on any article have an interest in keeping it. This page is not so different in this respect. Also I would like to point out although my image is on this page I was not contacted about this MfD; I discovered the issue indirectly through my watchlist. Deprecating the input of people whose images appear here thus seems faintly unfair, and more divisive than helpful. Let's just stick to the merits of the page, and stop debating all this Wikidrama stuff, please. --Karen | Talk | contribs 04:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would also like to note that not only was I not contacted about the MfD, and not only am I not someone who has a picture or is on this list, but my original intention upon hearing that we had some kind of "facebook" page was to support deletion. Now I'm strongly supporting keeping the page, based on it's own merits. Also, whether or not TBSDY's actions were even considered canvassing is currently disputed. (I, for one, do not think what he did was canvassing at all). I believe that regardless of how anyone learned about this MfD, people's comments should be judged on their own merits. -- Ned Scott (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Those interested in which of us have images on the page can easily discover this, and discount our opinions if they consider this appropriate. Or they can equally discount the opinions of those who have chosen not to use the page, and who therefore have a vested interest in deletion, if they consider this relevant. It seems equally logical, and equally productive. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Editors who want other editors to know what they look like can put an image, or image link, on their userpage - that is the best way to learn about a single editor. I see a value in local meetups having image collections of images of likely participants who are in the local area, so that they can recognize each other when they meet up (but infancy pictures don't help here). There is not, however, value in having a huge collection of everybody's image all in one place. GRBerry (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' Wikipedia is not FaceBook Wikipedia:Facebook should not exist. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While I think this project page is relatively harmless, it seems redundant to Cat:Wikipedians with pictures. The category is easier to maintain and far quicker to load, and doesn't have the potential problems highlighted with this project (e.g. people adding pictures of users without their permission). Given all that, I don't see the need for this project to exist, and a few good reasons for it not to. Terraxos (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Start over. I'm surprised that some in this debate are dismissing the privacy issue; that seems to me a very serious issue, since some of the people on this page removed their photographs from their userpages a very long time ago, and may have forgotten they existed. Furthermore, I see that from the very earliest edits people have been added by others. The page should be deleted and restarted from scratch, semi-protected and with a very strict rule that editors may add only themselves. Chick Bowen 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why is placing an image you uploaded under a free license a violation of privacy? I (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't want your self-portrait on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't upload it... if you don't want anybody able to use it for any reason, you probably shouldn't license it in a way that explicitly opens that possibility, either. That aside, I'd also prefer that images be added by the Wikipedians they depict. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians seems harmless enough to me but the whole concept of the dangers of canvassing is ridiculous. Notifying other users about issues they may be interested in is perfectly legitimate. Any prejudicial language in posts to user's talk pages or elsewhere isn't as big of a deal as some are making it out to be either. Do we really think that people are that dumb to blindly follow the instructions of another user, admin or otherwise? Have a little faith in people. "But he talked those people into saying that" wouldn't get you far on the debate team and it shouldn't get you far in Wikipedia discussions either but policy pages like WP:CANVASS reward that kind of intellectual victim mentality. I'm tempted to AFD WP:CANVASS. P.S. I found out about this thread when someone posted a link on my talk page, a bit ironic dont you think?--Rtphokie (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete - absolutely no reason for it to be kept. Violates WP:SOAP (no. 3), WP:NOT#BLOG, WP:NOT#LINK (no. 4), WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#USER horribly. Need I say more?--Vox Humana 8' 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about missing the point here. Let's address each of the shortcuts you have noted:

1. WP:SOAP. That applies to the article space. If we apply your logic though, this means that nobody can even upload their picture at all. Nobody wants that.
2. WP:NOT#BLOG. A list of images is hardly a blog. What the page says is: "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." Knowing who your fellow Wikipedian is helps fosters a sense of community, which in turns helps with collaboration.
3. WP:NOT#LINK. I think you are referring to point 4. See my point above: if we follow your logic, then nobody will be allowed to upload their image to Wikipedia as it is not strictly to be used in the Encyclopedia itself and will only ever be used on non main namespace pages.
4. WP:NOT#DIR. Don't know how point is relevant here. None of them mention images.
5. WP:NOT#USER. None of these people are using Wikipedia as their web host. I find that personally insulting, as my image is on that page. Not what I'd call assuming good faith at all.

There seem to be a whole lot of shortcuts here, some of which aren't even valid. That may well impress some, but others find it irritating, as it means that you haven't really formulated your argument very well. - 220.237.19.227 (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC) — 220.237.19.227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Also, not to be a dick or anything, but most everything Vox linked refers mainly or exclusively to article space, and most say so early in their text... I'm not really sure how they might apply here as general principles, either. I'd prefer some specific discussion over a bunch of links to blanket policies which openly declare they don't apply in this area. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep no problem with this innocent innocuious page. It contains no factually incorrect info, can't really be offensive (even though that isn't an RFD anyway), and may be useful to other wikipedians Mike Young (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If people voluntarily place their images here, there are no privacy concerns. (Images added by a third party should be removed, but that isn't a reason for deletion.) If this gets deleted, then I urge people to join one of the various Wikipedia-related groups on Facebook itself (e-mail me with your real name and I'll add you as a friend). Community spirit, and understanding one's fellow Wikipedian, are always conducive to building an encyclopedia. Walton^One 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Commons and categorize there. I feel that this is more of a photo gallery, and we have a photo gallery type site there. --w^{L<speak·check>} 22:43, 20 November 2007 (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.