User:Sam Korn/RFC April 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is preserved as an archive of a debate that has ended. Please do not modify.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

  • protecting and unprotecting pages
  • deleting and undeleting pages
  • blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

Contents

Statement of the dispute

Sam Korn deleted disgustingly offensive image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg out of process on the ground that "It is grossly inappropriate." Image deletions cannot be reverted. This act was hasty, done without strong consensus beforehand, and is a violation of WP:NOT censored. There are multiple other solutions to images that are "grossly inappropriate," all of which are far less invasive. I list a number of other solutions below.

Description

Alternatives that Sam Korn could have undertaken include:

  1. Removing the image from the article but leaving the image generally. While this would have been a violation of WP:PP, it would have been undoable and far less severe.
  2. Adding the image to the mediawiki bad image list, again undoable.
  3. Creating a "censored" version of the image that he felt was more appropriate and uploading it over the initial image, again an undoable action.
  4. Engaging in discussion on the talk page of the article to assist in the consensus agreement to find a GFDL image that represented the subject appropriately (no such image currently exists - the alternative image added to the article was standard issue fair-use anime, and the second image added was of standard issue GFDL hentai, neither of which were illustrative of the article, which, while it would have resulted in a not-undoable action, would have served to make the article more free and more informative.

By abusing his adminstrative powers, Sam Korn made it nearly impossible to reach a consensus for a replacement image - any image that adequately illustrates the subject (sexualized drawings of minor females) will be deleted per Sam Korn precedent, while any image that passes Sam Korn muster cannot illustrate the article. As such, the article is less informative. While sexualized drawing of minor females is considered offensive to many, including myself, if such an article mertis inclusion in the encyclopedia, it should be as informative as possible without violating the laws of the jurisdiction that Wikipedia is bound by (this image is unquestionably legal under the current laws of the State of Florida and the US generally).

Powers misused

  • Deletion (log):
  1. Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg

Applicable policies

  1. "Image or other media needs deleting (but not because of copyright violation) - List on Wikipedia:Images for deletion." This image was already listed and passed IFD.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

I ask that Sam Korn waive this requirement. If he does not, I will provide such evidence (however futile, as the action is undoable) in the near future.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

I ask that Sam Korn waive this requirement.

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. --Jqiz 22:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Not the best alternative taken, since it is irreversable, especially when majority of the people involved did not knew of the actions impending. Article content should be run on consensus, not one person consensus.
  2. Thryduulf 23:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Speedy deletion of images that do not come under any of the 5 criteria for speedy deleting images is always bad. To do it when it has been kept at IfD, and there are at least 2 ongoing discussions about it (talk:Lolicon and user talk:Jimbo Wales) is inexcusable.
    You are of course aware that, since Sam Korn removed the image from the article, it qualified for speedy deletion under CSD Images 5 [fair use image not used in any article]? Cynical 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    So anyone can remove any fair use image they personally dislike from an article, then summarily delete it as unused? WP:POINT? Thryduulf 12:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    This isn't actually the case. It becomes speedy deletable as a fair use image if it's removed from an article, is tagged as an orphaned fair use image and then remains thus tagged and unused for more than seven days. Otherwise vandals could remove fair use images from articles leading to the images becoming speedyable. CLW 10:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    OK, wasn't aware of that qualification. Cynical 11:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Powers 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC) See my outside statement below.
  4. The Psycho 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  5.  Grue  06:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I shall start by saying that the rationale for my deletion here is fully explained at [1]. It is unnecessary for me to expand on my reasoning beyond this. However, I am more than happy to defend my actions here.

I would expand the scope of this RFC by saying that, by a strict enterpretation of the policies, I also violated the protection policy by editing a page while protected, and then unprotecting the page while I was arguably involved in a dispute on it.

Before I actually get onto explaining further my actions, I'd also like to add my utter opposition to deleting RFCs made in good faith, as this one very plainly is. I recognise how my actions were strong and controversial, and I welcome discussion on them.

And, finally, onto the deletion and protection themselves. I shall start by attempting to show why I didn't apply any of the options Hpuppet presents.

  1. Removal without deletion. This was the first option I considered. However, it became clear to me, upon reading the history of Lolicon, that this was never going to be a long-term solution. It has gone back and forth like this many times, and my involvement would not have brought a definitive solution.
  2. Adding to Mediawiki:Bad image list I thought of this as well. However, there were two major problems here. The first is that the fair use claim would have been even further weakened by such an action as the image would not even be included in an article. What's more, the unacceptable image would still have been just as unacceptable and just as much on the WMF servers.
  3. Making a censored version I concede that this is possible. However, I am no kind of artist. I could not even properly define a "lolicon" image, let alone find a free one after many others had failed.
  4. Engaging in discussion Again, I concede that this is a possibility. However, just look at the number of archives Talk:Lolicon has! As with 1, my contribution here would have made no significant difference. No resolution to the dispute would have been forthcoming from such actions. Naturally, discussion is the best possible course. However, here, it seemed impossible. Furthermore, it would have hampered my ability to act boldly and decisively, as I most certainly would not have used administrative tools when already in a dispute.

To be honest, I think that pretty much any close-up, sexualised image of children is blatantly and completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Our aim should not be to create a completely non-censored encyclopaedia but a free one, one that can be used in the most possible circumstances. I find it impossible to argue that sexualised images, even cartoons, of girls will make Wikipedia more accessible and more free. No such image will ever further Wikipedia's goals.

It is mentioned on the talk page of this RFC that there was not a long discussion about this image and alternatives. A longer discussion would not however have altered the fact that this image was completely unacceptable, no matter how few alternatives there were.

I want to finish by saying that I am very sorry that I used the tools available to me as an administrator outside policy. I want everyone to realise that I did not do this lightly. I considered it heavily and made sure that I wrote a full explanation of my actions on the mailing list where they can be best preserved unto perpetuity.

I apologise wholeheartedly that I stepped outside Wikipedia's policies. However, I will not apologise for deleting the image. I still believe that I did what was necessary for the good of Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (and I don't really think it was outside policy, since the fair-use claim was itself contentious).
    The appropriate method to challenge a fair use claim is WP:CP, no? Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    The appropriate method is the one which does least harm. Jimbo's comment below says it all. Just zis Guy you know? 09:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mikker (...) 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Tony Sidaway 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I completely support this action.
    So Wikipedia is censored? We don't censor those things that are offensive to "prudes" but things that offend SamKorn, he can just remove at will?Grace Note 00:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. JoshuaZ 00:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC) I endorse this action, and would like to further note that the image was in fact speedable since an image with a better copyright status was available. JoshuaZ 00:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. --FloNight talk 00:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Ryan Delaney talk 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. -Will Beback 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Kirill Lokshin 01:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC) If ever there was a place to IAR, this was it.
  13. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Sam did it reluctantly, but he ultimately did it for the good of Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. It was an unfree image anyway. Jkelly 03:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Perfect use of WP:IAR, we have to keep our eye on the ball...not a precedent but good judgement. Rx StrangeLove 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Fred Bauder 04:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Kosebamse 05:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC) "No such image will ever further Wikipedia's goals", very well put. My compliments again.
  20. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oskar 06:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC) This is EXCACTLY why we have WP:IAR
  22. A better example of the proper use of WP:IAR it is not possible to find. David | Talk 08:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Alphax τεχ 08:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Do I need to point out that if any member of the WMF lives outside the US (say, in the UK or New Zealand) or goes on a visit outside the US, they could end up being arrested as a sex offender for publishing child porn. I am generally against censorship, but removing an image that is blatantly and unquestionably illegal in every country from which people contribute to Wikipedia is not censorship. [edit] This isn't supposed to be a legal threat, it's just another reason for deleting the image as it shows the level of problems it could cause [/edit] Cynical 09:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. I wish to express the strongest support possible. I regret not having clearer presence of mind on this issue and wish I hadn't allowed myself to be sidetracked into a blind alley discussing the fair use issue rather than the issue of the image itself. Hiding talk 09:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Delete on sight; no quarter. El_C 11:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. I don't always agree with Sam, but this was well put. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Agree completely. Jtmichcock 17:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. TheKMantalk 17:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. BrokenSegue 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. I was on the verge of doing the same thing myself and applaud Sam Korn's judgement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. An example of the right kind of boldness. Johntex\talk 22:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. BanyanTree 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by JzG

This was discussed on WikiEN-l. Numerous admins agreed that this gratuitously offensive fair use image was better replaced by a free image which was not banned by law in some countries. Sam's action has widespread support.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Just zis Guy you know? 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ashibaka tock 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mikker (...) 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. --FloNight talk 23:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Justinc 00:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Stormie 00:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Ryan Delaney talk 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Cantara 00:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. he gets my support. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. He did the Right Thing here. This case shows the alarming potential for certain die-hards to use policy to do the Wrong Thing, and Sam just tipped the balance back to the side of the angels. Well done! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    tip back to the side of angels? are you saying people who oppose the deletion of the image are on the side of Satan? The Psycho 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Sometimes the Gordian Knot just has to be cut. I'd have endorsed Sam's statement, but it contains an unnecessary apology. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. And I think the serious policy issue that should come out of this is not about where we should draw the line, but about what we should do in cases like this while we are deciding where the line should be. It is important to monitor the fact that POV pushers (in this case pedophiles) will work hard to create 'facts on the ground' that abuse our default openness and trust. I do not think I can emphasize this enough: this is not about 'where to draw the line' but rather 'what to do while we are working on figuring that out'. Deletion is absolutely appropriate in this case to prevent POV pushers from setting the default assumption that we have to have 80% support (or whatever the bogus vote count of the day is thought to be, since We Do Not Vote) just to delete their nonsense.--Jimbo Wales 02:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Um, what Jimbo said. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Arwel (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. It was an unfree image anyway. Jkelly 03:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. David | Talk 08:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. A fair use picture was replaced by a GFDL one. Nothing more to see here, go home. Sam Blanning(talk) 08:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. I saw this on the mailing list and I'm not an Admin. This image has no place on WP because having it there is stupid and does damage to WP. Sam did the right thing. Bduke 08:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Alphax τεχ 08:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. As I said on the mailing list, and in a comment above, having removed this image from the article Sam Korn was perfectly entitled to delete it under CSD Images and Media #5 (fair use image not used in any article) Cynical 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, per Jimbo and Cynical. Hiding talk 09:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Yep. --Syrthiss 11:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. TheKMantalk 17:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Johntex\talk 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments (JzG)

  1. The wikipedia mailing list is not the appropriate place to make non-controversial decisions about wikipedia content.
  2. The opinions of admins are no more important than the opinions of regular editors. Admins do not hold executive priviledge to make decisions about Wikipedia. If they do, someone forgot to tell me that when I was made an admin.
  3. Yes, Sam had widespread support, but he did not have consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia operates by consensus. To say otherwise is to show disregard for the community that builds this encyclopedia.
  4. Yes, the image was controversial and illegal in some countries, but so is this one. Kaldari 02:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll give a shot at answering:
  1. The mailing list is, has always been, and will always stay one of the main sources for discussion. If you wish to view the relevant messages, this one started the discussion (the relevant thread is here) and Sams announcement is here (relevant thread is here).
  2. No that's certainly true, but admins do hold the technical power to make such a change. And there is precedent for allowing this stuff if it is clearly in the best interest of the encyclopedia. That's what WP:IAR is for (to clarify: I'm not saying that this sort of thing should be done routinely, but in an extremely exceptional case, a man who has been not only trusted with the mop and bucket, but also with the power to arbitrate, should be allowed to do such a thing)
  3. In cases with wildly controversial images, the burden of proof is on the people that wish to include it. There is clearly not consensus to include it, so we shouldn't.
  4. WAY, WAY, WAY different. First of all, that image is complely necessary in order to understand the article properly. The lolicon image is not. Second, echoing my previous point: for that controversial image there is almost unanimous support (enough to call it consensus) to include it. The two cases arn't even comparable. Oskar 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Thryduulf

I first became aware of this issue via a posting on Wikipedia:General complaints. As the complaint was inapropriate for that page I directed them to talk:Lolicon, where there is active and ongoing discussion about the image by people who know what they are talking about. The user was insistent that it be brought to the attention of Jimbo, so I suggested posting a note on user talk:Jimbo Wales. When the user posted the note there a WP:PANIC appears to have broken out.

  • There was no consensus regarding the image on Jimbo's talk page, with a majority saying that it was not a problem.
  • There was a consensus at IfD that the image be kept.
  • There is ongoing discussion about the fair use claim at talk:Lolicon. As far as I can tell the balance of opinion (with no comment by anyone qualified to give legal advice on the subject) was that the fair use claim was allowable, at least until an alternative and apropriate free image could be found. Efforts to find such an image were in progress.

The first I knew that image had been deleted was when Sam posted a self-righteous message on Jimbo's talk page. Checking the Speedy deletion criteria for images, I cannot match it to any of them:

  1. Redundant: This image is clearly not redundant, as it not a duplicate of any other image.
  2. Corrupt or empty: Obviously not, else this whole matter would not have happened.
  3. Improper license: A fair use image tagged with an apropriate fair use tag {{bookcover}} does not have an improper license.
  4. Lack of licensing: As above, this article was properly licensed and the source was cited.
  5. Unusued copyrighted images: The image was in use on the Lolicon article, ergo was not unsued.

WP:CSD#Images/Media explicitly states "With respect to fair use disputes, if a fair use rationale is provided, use WP:IFD instead." and "For any images that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Images for deletion."

The image was not a speedy deletion criteria AND had a fair use rationale was provided - and even undergoing active discussion, which is more than 99% of fair use images get.

Sam has already stated that he conciously did not persue any of the alternatives given, so I cannot see how this is anythign but a flargant policy violation.

With regards the mailing list, the vast majority of Wikipedians do not read the mailing list, and to the best of my knowledge the mailing list has never trumped Wikipedia policies such as WP:CSD, WP:IFD, WP:NOT, WP:CONSENSUS and others. Thryduulf 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

  1. Thryduulf 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Jqiz 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. The Psycho 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4.  Grue  06:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. It's funny. We didn't censor the Muhammad cartoons and Jimbo did not label those who wanted them kept "POV pushers". We didn't censor a guy sucking his own cock and Jimbo didn't label those who wanted them kept "POV pushers". Now here we have a case in which an admin has unilaterally censored a paedo image and Jimbo is labelling those who wanted it kept "POV pushers". Does kindness not extend to paedophiles? Or have we just stopped pretending that we are kind? This user has shown utter contempt for the community. Even if we agree with the outcome -- and I am against including offensive images in articles, as I've noted elsewhere -- I do not believe that we should take the approach that the end justifies the means. This user should be deadminned for his actions. He won't be, naturally, particularly since Jimbo has endorsed his actions. It's sad. The principle that the community decides is a good one. The conflict and contrast of ideas can lead to greater creativity. It's a pity that principle is now considered to be anathema here.Grace Note 00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. I also endorse Grace Note's message above. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. [[User::Wisden17|Wisden17]] --Wisden17 17:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Splash

Deleting the image has had the effect of drawing the poison it held (from the article at least). Ok, so people can't help but edit war over the article, but at least the issue that has filled so many kilobytes, archives, talk pages and protection tags is gone. This is not to endorse deletion of controversial content as a means for dispute resolution, but given that an alternative, which is free and has no question about licensing the damage seems to be minimal.

I don't think there was any reason to put the post on the mailing list rather than Talk:Lolicon. A difflink from the talk page works as effectively as a link to a mailing-list post, but has the advantage of having let the people affected know directly and immediately rather than waiting for them to read either the list or ANI. -Splashtalk 00:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. I'm particularly agreeing with the mailing list issue. The Admin's Noticeboard is the place to discuss these things, not on a mailing list. Note that two other people essentially said the same thing by adding an oppose to JzG's statement, but their comments have been unceremoniously deleted. --kingboyk 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 15:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by kingboyk

It would have been preferable for the matter to have been discussed on-wiki first, but Sam Korn has a certain amount of support for his action and was ignoring all rules in (as he saw it) the best interests of the project. --kingboyk 00:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Just zis Guy you know? 14:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Yes, Sam did what he saw as the right thing. There are plenty of others who agree. Why does Sam get caned instead of the people who put up these questionable images and then demand that a large majority must support their removal before they are taken down? Just zis Guy you know? 14:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to kingboyk

Eh? Sam didn't ignore any rules, he followed them in replacing a fair use image with a free one, then deleting the orphaned fair use image (whose use had been dubious in the first place). --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they're referring to the rule that you need to follow the CSD or IFD to delete an image. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
He also edited a protected article. : ) Still the right course of action. FloNight talk 15:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by BorgHunter

Sam's decision to go outside policy was unfortunate and regrettable, but not as bad as many make it out to be. He did what was right for Wikipedia, and by replacing the image with one with a freer license, he ultimately did the right thing. I wish the fair use image could have been deleted through proper channels...but sometimes, that's just not an option. This was one of those times. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Regrettable because we should've done this a long time ago, yes.

Comments (BorgHunter)

  • The image he replaced it with was already taken down based on consensus that it is irrelevant to the article. --Jqiz 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Then there should be no image. I stand by what I said. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Why do you believe there should "be no image"? Because the image is controversial? Because it doesn't fit into American mores? Or because it is not a valid fair use claim? Do you also favor deleting the image of the Mohammad cartoons? If you have a reason for wanting the image deleted, does that reason stem from a Wikipedia policy? Or is it purely your opinion? Do you believe that the opinions of admins are more important than the opinions of the editors who actually work on the article in question? Just curious. Kaldari 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • If 'the editors who actually work on the article in question' have such poor judgment and taste as to what constitutes a serious editorial approach to this matter, then, yeah, the opinions of admins are a LOT more important. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it is most certainly not a place where merely camping out and pushing a POV on an article entitles ownership of it.--Jimbo Wales 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
          • That judgement is based on cultural mores. Apparently, "where the line is drawn" is fairly clear: where it crosses the boundary of American cultural mores. Kaldari 02:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Other than the strange, strange case of Japan, in which country/culture would the image be acceptable morally? I can't think of any. Mikker (...) 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Personally I only know about Japan as I have only lived in Japan and the US. If you ask me, everywhere except Japan is "strange, strange" :) Kaldari 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Fair enough, :)... still, I think it is unfair to say Jimbo is drawing an arbitrary line at "American cultural mores". Repulsion at child pornography is a near universal, present in nearly every culture (See "Human Universals" by Don Brown). Mikker (...) 02:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Cultural mores? I personally have no issue with fictional depictions of naked children, as that's a bazillion times better than actual children, and there is no victim. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, such images are not illegal on something like an encyclopedia. However...did the image significantly add to the article? No. It was also copyrighted and used under fair use. Ergo, it goes. The fact that it generates a helluva lot of controversy is only an added bonus to the view that it does not belong, and that, I think, justifies Sam's immediate deletion. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
              • It is illegal in most democracies (except the US apparently, though there is some debate on this). See Lolicon. Mikker (...) 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Your points are well-taken, especially about the fair use issue. However, wouldn't it make more sense to bring up such issues on IfD? The fact is, good faith editors had reasons to disagree on the appropriateness of this image. You can say that their opinions are unreasonable and outlandish, but does your extreme difference of opinion give you the right to act unilaterally? Apparently it does if your opinion is based on the dominant cultural influences shared by other wikipedia admins. If that's true, why don't we just say it out in the open instead of being hypocritical about it. Kaldari 03:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Jimbo Wales

Sam rocks. For something like this it is far better to err on the side of tastefulness and respect. Let us not let the pedophile trolls set the standard for our debates. That is, the default assumption not have to be that we include clearly bad content while we debate it forever. Delete this sort of nonsense, and then if someone wants to argue to include it, then by all means, hold a formal discussion and vote about it. This is a wiki and there is absolutely no reason for the default assumption to be that we have to keep possibly illegal and certainly non-free images for a year while people fight about it. The default assumption should be: keep it out unless it can be conclusively shown that there is significant consensus to include it.--Jimbo Wales 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Ryan Delaney talk 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. --FloNight talk 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mikker (...) 02:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. What it comes down to is common sense. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jkelly 03:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Stevage 08:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. David | Talk 08:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Bduke 08:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Alphax τεχ 08:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. TheKMantalk 09:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Cynical 09:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Hiding talk 09:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. After a little thought. I think that despite failures we need to remember that several others have tried, and we should be thankful to them as well. Anyway, I want to thank Jimbo for making the policy on these sorts of images clearer, I think I finally understand it. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 11:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Palmiro | Talk 18:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. -Will Beback 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Let's be reasonable. BrokenSegue 20:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Agreed. Johntex\talk 22:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Jimbo's comment goes here

Outside view by Kaldari

I see little difference between the situation at Lolicon and the situation at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Both are examples of images tolerated by some cultures, but not by others. Because Wikipedia is western-centric, however, we tend to tolerate the censorship of anything offensive to American mores, but feel justified in defending images equally offensive to other cultures. I'm certain Sam Korn will be exonerated for his actions. Whether that is a symptom of a problematic double-standard is up for debate. I have to wonder what would happen, though, if a muslim admin deleted the Muhammad cartoons image. Would we be equally sympathetic? If not, we need to change our written policies so that we don't have to resort to draconian actions to maintain Wikipedia's moral and cultural biases. Kaldari 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. --Jqiz 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC) The policies/guidelines should be clearcut. Right now, this RfC is showing that all of WP policies and guidelines can be ignored, if it favors the majority of the people who votes(or care to vote) in the RfC that will result from such action. As a matter of fact, it almost seems is encouraged.....
  2. The Psycho 03:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. joturner 04:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Avenue 05:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  5.  Grue  07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Thryduulf 08:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC) At the moment if an image is offensive to an American it gets deleted, regardless of what the rest of the world might think. NPOV?
  7. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Ashenai 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC). I have no special interest in Lolicon or pedophilia, and I was drawn into this debate largely by accident. I resent the implication that I am somehow a "pedophile troll", or in cahoots with them. This is, in my opinion, a clear case of systemic bias, and needs to be either acknowledged or excised.
  9. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments (Kaldari)

I'm an Asian brought up in a semi-Western background in a Muslim-majority country who thinks the Jyllands-Posten image should have been semi-censored (basically moved below the fold with an appropriate warning inserted in the lead) and that the Lolicon image absolutely had to go. Also note some key differences here -- for one thing, the Lolicon image was not fair use at all, while the Jyllands-posten images was definitely fair use. (Refer to fair use and WP:FU if you can't catch my drift). This illegal usage of the image lost it a lot of support; I've seen a number of people saying things like, "If this were free or at least not so blatantly misused under the terms of fair use, I might have tried arguing in favour of it, but since it's being incorrectly used, I won't lift a finger." Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that the Lolicon image was not fair use "at all". Obviously, the fair use claim was weaker than most, but there was a fair use claim to be made. Wikipedia's fair use guidelines tend to err on the side of safety, and reflect well-established judicial precedents. The U.S. Copyright Act, however, is very vague on what actually constitutes fair use. INAL, but I imagine a site like Wikipedia would be given fairly broad latitude in the application of fair use. Clearly in this case our use was non-commercial (probably the most important issue), nor would it adversely affect the commercial potential of the source material (arguably we would help it). Additionally, the substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyright protected work as a whole was minimal. I have a very hard time imagining Wikipedia being ruled against in a fair use claim of this nature, but I suppose that's all beside the point now. Kaldari 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by srb

A really outside view because I'm using my en: account just for iwiki-links - there's enough work to be done in my language (de:) where I'm admin too.

I had a look at the image because it was mentioned earlier today on the mailing list - I think it is just a funny pic, maybe a little bit perverse. I don't know if it is illegal in germany. But I think that's not the problem.

We are creating a free encyclopedia, it should be free to use by as many people as possible. Including images that even some people associate with child pornography doesn't help this goal - we would deliver arguments for filtering wikipedia in schools, universities and other public areas. Furthermore: I don't know the situation in America or Australia - in most european countries child pornography is not a harmless crime, even accusation is destroying lives - even being watched by reading this article (including this image) may have this effect.

Everyone should ask himself: is this image worth that collatoral damage? I don't think so.

In summary: the picture is fair use and is very controverse and is illegal in some countries, or at least some may think it may be - a combination that should never occur. In my opinion Sam's deletion - fully conscious that it was not sanctioned by policy - was the only way to solve the problem. He did the right thing. -- srb 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. It was an unfree image anyway. Jkelly 03:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Picture should have been deleted even if fair use justification could be made. Johntex\talk 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments (srb)

  • Yes, the image is controversial and illegal in some countries, but so are the Mohammad cartoons. Do you think the image of the Mohammed cartoons should be deleted as well? Kaldari 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    Are the Mohammad cartoons illegal or controversial in countries where english is the native language? I don't think so - but if you are asking my personal opinion: the Mohammad cartoons are offensive to muslim and there is no real need to include them - a link to one of the dozens of webpages that hold these images would be enough. Yes, I would encourage a RFD for these images - but as I said before this is not "my" wikipedia, you have to decide this in the en:-community. -- srb 02:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    English is read and spoken by people in countries where it is not the native language - including in countries where the Mohammed cartoons have caused outrage. Is it truly NPOV to consider only those people who speak English in countries where it is an official language? Thryduulf 12:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with srb's comments here, but would endorse the summary if not for the fact that it states that the image was used under fair use. Technically, it was not used at all -- an important criterion for fair use -- since the article did not discuss it at all. Therefore, it could not possibly have been "fair" in the American legal sense of the word. Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by LtPowers

The image in question perfectly illustrated the article. One could tell at a glance what "lolicon" means without even reading the lede paragraph. I did not find the image offensive in any way, any more so than your average baby powder or Coppertone advertisement. (Granted, I'm told there was a dildo in the picture, but I didn't notice it.) Is it even possible to find a lolicon image that exhibits no nudity but still illustrates the concept, including its sexual aspects? I doubt it. Thereby, the encyclopedia is harmed.

Considering the numerous contentious points:

  1. The moral issue of whether Wikipedia should be showing material depicting naked children
  2. The legal issue of whether it's legal to do so
  3. The legal issue of whether this particular image could be fairly used or not
  4. The practical issue of what effect the presence of this image would have on the readers of Wikipedia.

... the case for removal was about as far from clear-cut as it could possibly be. Removal of the image as Sam Korn did is a blatant abuse of granted powers, in that it completely bypassed the numerous mechanisms Wikipedia has in place to prevent same.

Further, his "reasons" given were on a mailing list not read by most Wikipedia contributors, and made claims without support. He claimed it was "grossly inappropriate," a "poor reflection," "outrageous," and "extremely harmful," yet failed to provide any support for those assertions. Without that support, I find his actions to fit every one of those adjectives. It was inappropriate because it was against process. A poor reflection because it casts doubt on any future sysop action, particularly those he may take in the future. Outrageous because it's harmful, and harmful because it removed a perfectly illustrative image with no available replacement.

  1. Powers 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Psycho 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3.  Grue  07:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Thryduulf 08:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC) I don't think that his future actions will be suspect to quite the degree implied here, but he will have to tread carefully.
  5. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Kotepho

I do not particularly disagree with the deletion of the image, but I do not agree with how the image was deleted and everything leading up to it. As I had suggested on Talk:Lolicon that is someone wanted to ask Jimbo about the situation they would be better off posting on the mailing list I had been checking the mailing list for such a post. User:Herostratus's message was posted on Mon Apr 3 04:25:51 UTC 2006 and there was a little dicussion until Mon Apr 3 18:18:10 UTC 2006 when User:Sam Korn deleted the image. There are several things that are inaccurately assumed and stated in this discussion and no one (to my knowledge) asked any of the involved parties to clarify things. It was quite obvious that User:Sam Korn did not fully understand the situtation when he replaced the image with Image:Kanon-Anthology05.jpg diff. Anyone that had actual read the talk page (and not even the archives!) would have known that it was clearly disputed that this image was lolicon, represented lolicon, or anything of that nature. Furthermore, the images that supposedly show lolicon mangas being sold (Image:Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 002.jpg and Image:Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 001.jpg) do not actually. This was also discussed on the talk page. Also, the fair use claim is mentioned as a reason for deletion. This has mostly been settled on the talk page and IFD. Even one of the people challenging the fair use claim said had been convinced that it was within our policies. Almost all of the fair use discussion involved our policies and not copyright laws as you can find several people stating that it is valid fair use under U.S. law. There isn't any mention of the image in the article but the article has been protected many times for long periods of time so no one had a chance to actually insert them. Thus, we have an admin acting unilaterally and without prior discussion (of such an action) breaking several Wikipedia policies. The image would not fall under CSD and even if it did there was a current IFD debate he could participate in. We strive to do things by consensus. It is debatable if he was outside of the protected pages policies (and I actually had a request to have the image removed from the article on WP:RFP). He says he wishes there was a less radical way in his mailing list post. There were a myriad of ways this could have been handled better, such as dicussing on IFD, the talk page, WP:AN, the mailing list, Jimbo's talk page and as others have listed. For all of this what does he get? A round of applause! This is taking WP:IAR to a whole new level. It is now ignore all rules for whatever reason you want and Jimbo will congratulate you and give you a barnstar! So go forth and make snap decisions without discussion that cannot be reversed whenever you have a vitriolic reaction! In summary, it was the right decision but at least actually discuss such radical actions first (hopefully not on the mailing list, IRC, or otherwise offwiki), don't WP:PANIC (the article was cited by the Canadian government before and I don't seem to recall much furor errupting), and don't break policy without good reason. I also strongly object to Jimbo Wales possibly describing me as a pedophile. Kotepho 03:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. The Psycho 04:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Thryduulf 09:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by User:JoshuaZ

While I support Sam's actions and think it was the right thing to do, I would like to strongly register my displeasure at Jimbo calling those who favored keeping the image "pedophile trolls." Many long term users were in favor of keeping the image, and to dismiss those who were in favor of keeping the image as "pedophile trolls" is both unproductive and a massive violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Jimbo should set a better example. JoshuaZ 04:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. It doesn't appear to me as though the "pedophile trolls" comments are directed towards actual pedophile trolls and so I have no choice but to assume they were directed toward a general group that is "all those who were in favor of the image." Hopefully, Jimbo will attempt to defend the statement. joturner 04:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. I strongly agree with the latter part - Jimbo should know better than anyone about NPA and CIVIL. --Cyde Weys 04:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3.  Grue  07:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Thryduulf 09:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC) I agree with Cyde as well.
  5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments (JoshuaZ)

Couldn't disagree more, and suggest such a view is a misreading of Jimbo's comments. As someone who originally argued to keep the image, I don't believe Jimbo has labelled me a pedophile troll. He has stated that we should not let the pedophile trolls set the standard for our debates. The above view removes the context of the quote, in which Jimbo directs the comment quite squarely at protecting the terms of a debate from being defined by pedophile trolls. He is clearly stating that the default position of debates should be based upon the whole issue, something I for one forgot. Jimbo is not accusing me of being as pedophile troll, he is reminding me that I shouldn't allow the frame of reference of a pedophile troll to influence my reading of a debate. Hiding talk 10:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I interpreted Jimbo's comment was "anyone who wants to keep this image is a peadophile troll". I am not alone in this. Thryduulf 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Another Wikipedian, (not listed above) has contacted me privately by email to say that he also interpreted Jimbo's statement that way. He has left the project because of it. Thryduulf 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair play. I still couldn't disagree more, and I've re-read Jimbo's comment four times in the last five minutes. He makes it clear the default position should not be keep, which is what I thought, and that that reaction is allowing the pedohiliac troll to shape the debate. The debate should always have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. I'm not going to convince people otherwise, but to me Jimbo's words are all there in black and white. I take it we're all referring to his comments above? Hiding talk 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If Jimbo did mean that, he phrased it poorly given how many people have interpreted otherwise. If he meant that, he should say so. JoshuaZ 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought the use of the phrase was unneccesarily inflammatory, but I assumed good faith that JW wouldn't have painted us all with such a broad brush, since it could be interpreted either way. Powers 13:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
He shouldn't be painting anyone with that brush. 24.224.153.40 00:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any "pedophile trolls" arguing to keep the image on the talk page. WP:AGF, WP:C.
btw, Jimbo was clearly implying that the person who set the standard to include the image during discussion -- Hipocrate, I think -- was a "pedophile troll." 24.224.153.40 00:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are asserting: that there were no pedophiles or that there were no trolls. It is quite clear that some editors are self-described pedophiles. As to whether any of them are trolls is a matter that Wales seems well-qualified to decide. -Will Beback 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hipocrite did not become involved in the debate until 2 months ago. The debate has been ongoing since October 2004. I believe Jimbo's impression of the situation must have been misinformed, as the people originally involved in the issue were certainly not trolls (or pedophiles as far as I know). Kaldari 03:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
There were no trolls. It doesn't matter if Jimbo is qualified to decide who's a "troll," he's supposed to keep it to himself. Throwing around silly accusations isn't going to get Wikipedia anywhere. 24.224.153.40 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Rx StrangeLove

Child porn is a incredibly hot button issue everywhere and it's a subject that we have to handle very carefully. Anyone who cares about the encyclopedia will want to get this right. We have time and can afford to get it right. We are building an encyclopedia here, not an encyclopedia building manual, and the process is not more important then the product. Let's assume some good faith. Rx StrangeLove 04:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. JoshuaZ 04:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Consider this an endorsement of Rx StrangeLove's comment below (dated 15:20, 4 April 2006 UTC) as well.
  3. Definitely. The accusations of "pedophile trolls" being thrown around are especially worrisome. --Cyde Weys 22:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there's plenty of ABF-ing going on all around this issue and many of the editors that object to the deletion are giving as good as they are getting in that regard. I do agree that statement was needlessly closed-fisted though. Rx StrangeLove 03:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments (Rx Strangelove)

  • "We have time and can afford to get it right.". Before all this blew up the editors on the talk:Lolicon page were taking the time to get it right. I don't understand how deleting an image in the middle of at least two active discussions is "taking time to get it right". Thryduulf 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Getting it wrong by removing the image when we don't have to is infinitely better than getting it wrong by leaving it in and having public relations issues or the several legal issues come back to bite us. The article will do fine without the image while we take the time to make sure it's inclusion won't hurt us. Normally it's not as big of a deal, but this isn't a normal issue. Considering the subject matter we need to get this absolutely right. Process isn't a suicide pact and sometimes common sense needs to trump strict policy, maybe not often but sometimes. Rx StrangeLove 15:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You are not a lawyer, so you shouldn't make any wild speculation about potential legal issues. The Psycho 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • On the contrary. He's not a lawyer so he should leave an even greater margin for error. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
          • hmmm.... what? What are you trying to say? The Psycho 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I think it's fairly clear but to restate it, on a hot button issue like this it's better to err on the side of caution and that the well being and smooth operation of Wikipedia is more important than a single image. The article will do fine without the image untill it gets sorted out. Rx StrangeLove 00:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Stevage

Keeping the image would have made Wikipedia the target of extremely uncomfortable accusations of supporting pedophilia. Also, deleting the image was not "irrevertable" as plenty of people have the URL to the site the picture was originally copyvio-ed from. Anyone arguing seriously for retaining an image of graphic child porn on Wikipedia needs to rethink their priorities. So, SamKorn acted decisively in Wikipedia's best interests. Stevage 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Cynical 10:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely right. Johntex\talk 22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments (Stevage)

  • Just a thought. Calling a bloody drawing "graphic child porn" is an insult to victims of real child pornography. I think people are beginning to forget why kiddie porn is actually wrong.
  • P.S.: I consider informing our readers a higher priority than PR. Hugs and kisses, 24.224.153.40 01:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Oskar Sigvardsson

I think that there is an important issue here not being discussed. The main thing people are arguing about is whether this image is allowed on wp servers under current image policy, and to me that is kind of irrelevant (I'm not saying that all such discussions are, but this one is). The overriding issue here is editorial taste. Just becuase we can have certain images illustrating articles, doesn't mean we should. The image was clearly in bad taste. Clearly. If people have any other opinions, I have a hard time to assume good faith, and think they are simply trolling.

When we build this great encyclopedia of ours, one of the priorities (not the greatest one, but it's certainly is a priority) is that it looks good. The style should be clear and consistant, the images should (if at all possible) be visually pleasing in addition to being informative (even though I realise this isn't always the case), etc.

The image was not needed to describe the article. You get what it is about without it. We have to all remember that we are not only editors in the sense of "people who edits", but all of us are also editors in the sense that we have to editorialize. Sam did nothing wrong, and to echo Jimbo: Sam Rocks!

Oskar 06:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Cynical 10:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Johntex\talk 22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Hiding

As someone who originally argued from a keep position on this image because the issue debated was one of fair use rather than the content, I want to express gratitude to Sam for deleting the image. Regardless of policy, regardless of guidelines, Sam quickly defined, and then acted in, the best interests of Wikipedia. It's that simple, and I applaud him. Hiding talk 10:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. FloNight talk 11:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Johntex\talk 22:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Sjakkalle

I think that Sam Korn's decision was a good one, even if not entirely within the normal processes. We were after all talking about a child pornography image (yes I know it was a drawing, yes I know it was the buttocks and not frontal nudity, yes I still consider that type of image reprehensible) here, and my usual high regard for the process does not measure up to my wish to get rid of such images. However, in the future, I would prefer that Jimbo himself makes these kind of deletions when necessary because the word of Jimbo carries a lot more weight than the word of Sam, me, or any other admin or user will. If Jimbo had done this himself instead of letting another admin do it, we wouldn't have had this noisy time-consuming RFC in the first place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Johntex\talk 22:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cynical 11:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Korn&action=edit&section=32

Comments (Sjakkalle)

  • I disagree that if it were Jimbo who deleted the image out of process and in the middle of active discussion that there wouldn't be a noisy time-consuming RFC. This was not a WP:OFFICE action, and it had been previously agreed that the image was not illegal in Florida (in terms of content, AIUI there was not yet any conclusion on the fair use issue). If either of those had been true then there would be no call for the RfC, otherise it is perfectly valid to request comments on Jimbo's actions. Thryduulf 12:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It may be legal in Florida, but any Wikimedia board members who live in or visit the UK (publishing child porn, afaik UK law makes no distinction in legality between actual and simulated images), or anyone who views the article from the UK (viewing child porn), could potentially be arrested. Sure, not a legal problem for Wikipedia per se, but still something to consider. According to Justinc's mailing list post the situation is similar in New Zealand. Cynical 11:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sam is an arbitrator. That is a position of trust; I think it's fair to say that arbitrators have as much understanding of policy and the best interests of the project as anybody. Sam is also an admin. Admins have to make judgment calls all the time. If we don't trust them to do this, we had better withdraw all sysop privileges and leave all the work to Jimbo (there might be a backlog on CAT:CSD for a while). As a paid-up process wonk I still think Sam was right here. Just zis Guy you know? 14:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As an arbitrator, he should've known better than to impulsively remove an image without consensus. The Psycho 15:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I take objection only to the word "impulsively". I discussed this beforehand, wrote out a clear rationale and spent several hours in all before and after the deletion itself. By all means disagree with what decision I came to. That is fine, and I realise (and indeed realised at the time) that people would disagree and there would be some degree of dispute afterwards. However, it is completely factually incorrect to say that I acted "impulsively". Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think you did understand the issues surrounding it. I mean, you replaced it with an image that was clearly already determined by everyone in the "know" to be clearly not lolicon. That's why people are calling it impulsive. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • To that I plead ignorance. I made a mistake there. However, the replacement was hardly part of the issue. The issue was the unacceptability of the image in question. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of jtdirl

The biggest threat to Wikipedia, given that it is used as a sourcebook by children and schools worldwide, is the suspicion that it may be used by paedophiles to contact children who might decide to edit the site, with the intention of 'grooming' them for later meetings. The use of images that in any way leave Wikipedia open to suspicions of paedophile links could do potentially fatal damage to the credibility of Wikipedia, create a storm of media attacks, and lead to boycotts and blocks my parents and schools. That is something which Wikipedia cannot allow to happen. To allow that would be to betray the the vast numbers who are here to contribute to a serious encyclopaedia. All steps necessary to protect Wikipedia from accusations that it might, either deliberately or by ommission, form a threat to children, or be used by those who may form a threat to children, must be taken. Sam is to be congratulated for defending Wikipedia's reputation and protecting its role as a credible educator of millions of children.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Johntex\talk 22:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Bduke 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Cynical 12:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments (jtdirl)

I'm afraid I don't see how an image could "leave Wikipedia open to suspicions of paedophile links" any moreso than the article lolicon itself, or numerous other controversial articles such as Pedophilia or Child sexuality. Powers 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you do not understand the real world. It probably is'nt logical or even reasonable, but this image could lead to exactly such suspicions. --Bduke 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not designed for children, nor to appease those who would promulgate such moral panic. The moral panic has already happened, and it was surrounding the Mohammad cartoons. There is no way that this image would ever be able to have as much of a negative effect on Wikipedia as the Mohammad cartoons did. Access to Wikipedia was blocked from entire countries. If Wikipedia didn't feel the need to cave in to moral outrage in that situation, why should we consider such issues now? The decision should be dictated by editorial judgement and consensus, not by moral indignation. Kaldari 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

About the fair use debate on talk:Lolicon

There appears to be a lot of assumption regarding what the fair use debate regarding this image was about. As I understand it, these are the facts regarding that debate: move this to the talk page if it is more apropriate there

  • The image was taken from the cover of the book Lolita Girls Collection.
  • The image was tagged as a fair use book cover.
  • It has been agreed that a picture of the cover of a book "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" is fair use. For example the picture of the cover of Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire is fairly used on the article about the book Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
  • The book Lolita Girls Collection is a "Lolicon manga"
  • The Lolicon article is not about the book Lolita Girls Collection, but about the subject of the book, Lolicon.
  • It is debated whether this is an acceptable fair use claim or not.
  • The issue of this fair use is wider than this image. For example Image:Alliss 1977 Book.jpg is a picture the cover of a book called Play Golf with Peter Alliss. It is not used to illustrate an article about the book it came from, but the article about its author Peter Alliss. Thryduulf 14:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Then the Alliss image is not being used correctly under the terms of fair use. It should be removed. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The point of the debate was that there was no consensus whether using it in the manner it was being used in was fair use or not. The rationale should be changed to say what the fair use claim is at the very least though. Thryduulf 16:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Consensus can't trump the law or WMF policy. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no WP policy on Fair Use. WP:FU is a guideline, and thus subject to exceptions. Further, the only place I've found that says covers can only be used to illustrate the book/magazine/game itself is in the copyright templates -- and those are definitely not guidelines. WP:FU, the relevant reference document, is ambiguous on the subject. Powers 17:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Try the part of WP:FU called "fair use policy". Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right. My mistake, and apologies. However, I think said policy doesn't really support your position. The long list of provisions is summed up thusly: "This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on." Both criteria were met (although a free alternative is now available, namely the one currently in the article, it was not available at the time). It also appears to meet all of the provisions listed separately. Powers 17:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
For values of "improving the article" which include making it an offence to read it in the United Kingdom. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought only photographs, and representations intended to look like photographs, were considered child porn in the UK. Regardless, I don't see how article quality is in any way affected by the legality of the content. Either the article is improved or not; it can't be improved in one country and ruined in another -- especially if those two countries speak the same language. Powers 02:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
If the article on Peter Allis makes a critical anaylisis of that work, the image can be presented in it in a fair use capacity. A cover image doesn't have to be used in an article about the work of which the image is a cover to, but one in which the work is critically discussed. For example, Image:H2G2 UK front cover.jpg is the front cover to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but is fair use in Douglas Adams because of the critical commentary the work receives in that article. A cover image is fair use in any article in which it identifies the work and where the work is discussed critically. Hiding talk 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment by User:AzaToth

IANAL, but isn't childporn illigal per Florida law? And thus must be speedied on sight, regardless off it's use in an article? →AzaToth 03:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, this has been discussed to death. Drawings are not child porn. --Cyde Weys 04:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't disagree, but we don't get to define the publics perception of us. I'm pretty sure that shown that picture, a significant number of people would say that it is porn...that's all that matters. If some sort of critical mass is reached and there's a perception that child porn exists here there's not much we can do. And then who knows what happens..maybe libraries add us to their content filters, or a major media outlet says we have child porn...or someone files a lawsuit. You just never know. Most of the time it doesn't matter but when it comes to this subject it's a whole different ballgame, and it could be a gigantic mess. Rx StrangeLove 04:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    1. The image had been on there for a year and a half without causing outside controversy.
    2. Outside sources have mentioned the article before, and yet Wikipedia is still not banned in Alabama.
    3. Wikipedia hosts several images which are much closer to actually being child porn. Yet no one has suggested deleting them. For example:
Image:BlindFaithBlindFaith.jpg and Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg. Kaldari 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
What makes those images OK, but not the Lolicon drawing? I would contend that fair use is the only legitimate difference. I do not believe that fair use concerns were the motivating factor in Sam Korn's action, however. Kaldari 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, as I said above, I don't disagree...but there are several reasons that the drawing would cause a reaction that a couple album covers wouldn't. The album art has been part of the publics consciousness for decades. A little girl somehow involved with a dildo hasn't. Say what you will about those album covers, they are not generally recognized as child porn, and they've had decades to have been tagged as such if it was going to happen. The drawing's very existance is one of pornographic intent, so there's a distinct difference. Perception is everything, if that drawing had been on a Blind Faith cover all these years this conversation isn't happening. That's my only point...the public's perception is that those album covers are not child porn, there's a real danger that the perception would be that the drawing is. The fact that it was there unnoticed for a long time just means that no one noticed it, there's not much chance of that happening now. Rx StrangeLove 05:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Scorpions cover was accused of being child porn, and was quickly pulled and replaced, but the original album cover is so well known that it is not able to inspire much controversy any more. The Residents also released an album cover displaying child porn (far less subtle than the two above), and it looks like we do actually censor that one (for good reason). In my personal judgement, however, a drawing of a young girl with a dildo seems much less scintilating than the album covers above. But I think your point about the public's exposure is very true. We are all biased according to our own cultural experiences, which is precisely why I believe it is inappropriate to take unilateral actions like this. Kaldari 05:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we please try to strive to be accurate in our terminology? Yes, hentai can reasonably be considered pornography. But it really can't be considered child pornography as generally "child pornography" involves pornography of actual children. This was just a drawing. --Cyde Weys 05:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A pornographic drawing of a child is virtually the same thing as child pornography. The legal difference is important in some jurisdictions, but the moral difference is rather small. The question we have, regardless of legal definitions, is do we want to have sexual pictures of children on our encyclopedia? I think the community is in agreement that we do not. Regarding Kaldair's claim that the Lolicon picture was in the article for 18 months without controversy I don't think that the history bears that out. Someone tried to remove it the first day it was added, and periodically thereafter. It was never an accepted image. -Will Beback 05:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you think makes child porn "immoral," but it must be very different from my view. Regardless, morality should never be used as an argument to remove something from Wikipedia. Some people think showing a penis where a kid could see it is immoral. Muslims believe it evil to show a picture of their prophet. Fortunately, these personal opinions (including yours) are irrelevant. 24.224.153.40 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I never contended the image was not controversial. That would be rediculous. Obviously it was. I said that image had not caused any outside controversy despite claims that it was likely to do so.Kaldari 05:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how a drawing can be virtually the same as the real thing. In the real thing, an actual child is being exploited and possibly scarred for life. In a drawing, it's just a fucking drawing. Do you understand? --Cyde Weys 06:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are pressing the point. Do you think it's OK to have a pornographic drawing of a child in this encyclopedia? -Will Beback
Actually yes. I do however think it depends on the specific drawing in question. For example, the Lolicon article still technically features "child porn" (according to your definition), but I don't imagine it causing as much controversy as the previous image. Kaldari 06:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Why wouldn't it be? 24.224.153.40 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the two album covers above have now been nominated for speedy deletion. Let the great Wikipedia purge of 2006 begin! Kaldari 05:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The speedy deletion tags were apropriately removed as no reason for deletion was given. Thryduulf 13:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are pressing the point that a depiction of something is the same as that actual something. Is a snuff film the same as a simulated killing in a movie? Hell no! I'm pressing the point merely because I hate logical inconsistencies and you are making a very big one. --Cyde Weys 08:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of Wisden17

It strikes me that this image should have been left up on the site. I say this not because I like the image, indeed I think of it is quite vulgar, but as I believe that the internet and Wikipedia should be places for free expression.

I feel that the advice of Voltaire should be borne strongly in mind here: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." Who is Sam Korn to decide what is good taste. Indeed who is any single Wikipedian. It should not even be for the Wikipedia community to judge, because in the end who are we? We represent such a small section of society, yet why should we decide what society should be allowed to view. This tyranny of the minority (and in this specific case the tyranny of the individual) is something that no-one should support.

Wikipedia should have rules and boundaries, I accept that. But I do not accept that its rules and boundaries should extend to deciding what is in good taste. The nature of free speech is having the joy of being able to hear or see something that ultimately disgusts you; then and only then does free speech exist. This image should be reinstated (unless the free use problems etc remain) as it represents what Wikipedia should be about. Why should a single user decide what I can and can't see. I have seen this image, I simply looked on Google, do I like the image? No, but do I think that I should be able to see it on Wikipedia? Yes, as only then will we know that Wikipedia really does represent a free content encyclopaedia.

I'm sure a huge number of users not agree with my views, but I'd be interested to head your comments, and see how many of you agree with me. --Wisden17 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment by User:WAS 4.250

image:coppertone.jpg Child porn S/M beastiality picture glorified by Wikipedia and NOT removed even though Jimbo himself applauded the removal of a less nude cartoon image without beastiality and S/M overtones merely because she carried around a stuffed toy bear and a cylinder. (Ya'll gone c-r-a-z-y.) WAS 4.250 18:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.