User talk:Sam Korn/RFC April 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I reviewed the discussion on en-l, located here. Please note that the experienced editors of the article who have been involved with it for more than just the offensive image (and I went ahead and educated myself on the article over the months that passed since my first edit there, so I include myself) believe that the "not-offensive but fair use" alternative is not Lolicon, and the "offensive but free" picture of lots of magazines in Japan is not a picture of any Lolicon, whatsoever - this is a point of strong agreement between the two parties in the Lolicon dispute that should clearly be treated (as Sam Korn should as well) as having the best interestes of the encyclopedia at heart - myself and ashibaka.

As such, the discussion on en-l was generally misinformed. Had I checked en-l at some period between Mon Apr 3 10:22:03 UTC 2006 (when wholy innacurate information about alternative images was posted) and Mon Apr 3 18:18:10 UTC 2006 when, give or take, the article was deleted, I might have corrected this impression. This is why decisions that are irreversable do not take place after an 8 hour discussion, and are at least mentioned on the revelent on-wiki pages before irreversable action is taken Hpuppet - «Talk» 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: I mention this not in response to Sam Korn's statement, but to that of JzG, who states that there was extensive discussion on the mailing list. I argue that no matter how much talking takes place in 8 hours, it cannot be extensive, and further demonstrate that the discussion there was misinformed. Hpuppet - «Talk» 21:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Around 40 messages including input from Jimbo and Tony Sidaway counts as extensive by my measure. Just zis Guy you know? 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo asked a question. He was never given an accurate answer. The answer is being very clearly expressed in the talk page of the article currently - by myself and Ashibaka in strong agreement that the free image is not of lolicon (it's garden variety Hentai). This discussion was had previously - in the history of the talk page, not even that far back - [1] - this was before I had done the requisite research to realize that paroxysm was right in that the images were not Lolicon, whatsoever. If someone brought up the lots-of-hentai images on the talk page before deleting the article, we could have explained that the person in Japan needed to find pictures of the actual thing we are discussing. Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The mailing list generally attracts a certain core constituency and isn't really representative of Wikipedians in general. ZOMG it's the cabal! But seriously, the discussion was heading towards keep on the article's talk page and was 100% in favor of deletion on the mailing list. I can't help but point out this inconsistency. --Cyde Weys 03:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we have a citation

Perhaps the difference between Hentai and Lolicon would be better understood if we had better definitions of the terms. Can we get cites to reliable sources which define them or are we debating neologisms? Steve block talk 10:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that they're neologisms as they are loanwords from Japanese, albeit with slightly different connotations. (Interestingly, "lolicon", being a contraction of "Lolita complex", is itself a loanword from English!) That makes it difficult to find verifiable English-language sources. Powers 13:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That didn't answer the question. I assume there are some sources, otherwise we wouldn't have articles because that would be original research. Steve block talk 09:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Jimbo's comment

I support "Sam rocks", but I can't get fully behind Jimbo's comment because it's rather vague. When the Great Lolicon Image Debate began in 2004 it was me versus Sam Spade and Sweetfreek. I did not sense any "pedophile troll" bias on either of their parts. Jimbo has a much less tolerant attitude towards disturbing pictures than the majority of Wikipedians, and I think if he wants to give us even a helpful hint about censorship he needs to be a little more clear. Ashibaka tock 02:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounded pretty clear to me: When it comes to images that walk the legal and moral line in multiple respects, the burden of proof is on those who want to include it, not those who want to delete it. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Except, up until the point when an alternate cover was proposed, the "burden of proof" was to prove that it was more helpful to the article than it was detracting, which was both subjective and tilted a little in favor of keeping it.
I would specifically propose Jimbo suggest linkimaging in such controversial cases. Ashibaka tock 02:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If I am understanding you correctly, you are right that the burden of proof used to be on the people who wanted the image removed. That's what was so fucked about this situation; process was allowing controversy to keep child porn on WMF servers, and that's why we had to sidestep process in this case. As for linkimaging: Linkimaging would sort of help in the sense that you would have to dig harder to find the child porn we are hosting, but we'd still be hosting fair use child porn, so I really doubt that anyone would have been satisfied with that. I can say that I wouldn't have been, not remotely. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you stop refering to it as child porn, because it's not child porn. The Psycho 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Explain how it is not child porn then. It is porn of children. That would by most defintions make it child porn. JoshuaZ 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a drawing, not real. Saying this picture is child porn is like saying video games like DOOM and QUAKE are causing murders. The Psycho 04:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be using an odd set of defintions. You are correct in that it is not "pornography involving actual human children" that doesn't make it not child porn. Your analogy is also flawed. The correct analogy would be that QUAKE is a violent game, but it is not a gladiatorial tournament. However, it is still accurate to call Quake a "violent game" and it is still accurate to call the picture "child porn." Also, please stop putting your messages in bold, it doesn't accomplish anything. JoshuaZ 04:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It is accurate to call Quake a "violent game" and call this image "erotic image", not "child porn". The Psycho 04:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a better analogy would be to call the imagery in Quake an example of "extreme violence". We probably wouldn't allow an image of an actual person getting blown up in Wikipedia, but we do allow virtual images of people being blown up. Perhaps that is the point Psycho is trying to make. Kaldari 04:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. There is no child involved and there is no porn involved (no depiction of genitals and sex act). Perhaps it your dirty mind...  Grue  08:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Calling the Lolicon image "Child Porn" (which is illegal) is counter to the United States Supreme Court's deciscion that such 'virtual' imagery is legal. Netscott 01:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're wrong there. Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition deals with COPA, while the relevant law here is the PROTECT Act of 2003, which, to my knowledge, hasn't been tested in court yet. Steve block talk 08:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who used to live in Japan I can assure you that the image in question would hardly raise eyebrows there (at least not in Tokyo). More explicit images can be found on most newsstands or pasted inside any telephone booth in downtown Tokyo. I don't see how I qualify as a "pedophile troll" for believing that the image's appropriateness is open to debate in the context of an article about lolicon. I do not believe this controversy has anything to do with the pedophile userbox scandal, and I am a bit concerned by all the moral panic that pedophiles are taking over wikipedia. Yes, there are certainly pedophile trolls on wikipedia, but I have yet to see eveidence that this particular issue was not a good faith debate. If Jimbo has a line that he believes should be drawn, he should say so, instead of assuming that those who do not share his opinions are trolls. I am certainly willing to respect whatever Jimbo's opinion is if he will be gratious enough to offer it. Kaldari 02:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. Japan has lax laws, compared with other countries around the world, regarding obscene images. I did a little research for this discussion, because I've heard conflicting things... Canada, for one, currently bans 'child pornography in cartoon form', and convicted a man for importing same last fall. The US, on the other hand, has recently rejected the idea that such imagery is banned (Freedomforum discussion from 2002). It seems to me we shouldn't be worried about including any image which could conceivably be considered 'of a minor' and 'related to anything sexual' -- the current image on the article, for instance -- but we should be more conservative about such images than we usually are. +sj + 04:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
To start with the images on this project are suppose to be free. The images in question were not free and and did not met fair use. So there has been a big problem for months that was ignored by the editors of this article. FloNight talk 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Bringing up the copyright status is really just dodging the issue. There's already a free image replacement that doesn't have these issues. And it's not really graphic but it could easily have been as or more graphic than the previous fair use image. The copyright status isn't relevant to this issue and is just being used as additional (and unwarranted) support for the delete side. --Cyde Weys 04:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like Jimbo Wales characterizing everyone who thought the image should be kept as "pedophile trolls". Whatever happened to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? Jimbo is out of line here. There is a valid disagreement over this issue and dismissing the other side as "pedophile trolls" is inappropriate. I'm certainly no pedophile and I don't enjoy this lolicon stuff whatsoever but I also don't believe in censorship and I believe that in this case the image did help to better illustrate what the article was talking about. But according to Jimbo, I'm just a pedophile troll, so what could I possibly know? --Cyde Weys 03:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I found Jimbo's "pedophile trolls" comment so hard to believe, I had to go check in the edit history that it wasn't someone impersonating him. See one of the principles espoused on Jimbo's user page: "Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. And I'll treat you the same way." I am truly saddened. I never thought Jimbo was perfect, but he seems to falling a long way short of his standards here. -- Avenue 05:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

  • "Pedophile trolls" are not the issue here. Accusing people of being trolls smacks of assuming bad faith. Accusing people of being pedophiles is, uhm, probably worse. As with many other issues, good-faith contributors can disagree on whether this image (or any similar image) is worthwhile.
  • This should not be a "censorship" issue, because censorship is simply not allowed here. Anyone who removes an image because they are offended by it, has thrown legitimacy out the door. The serious issues here have to do with the legality, relevance, and usefulness of the image -- not whether it is "offensive".
  • Using the expression "child porn" in this discussion probably not a good idea. To most readers, "child porn" means photographs made through the sexual abuse of a child. The making of child porn (in this sense) necessarily involves the specific victimization of a person, whereas drawings do not. Because some people have pointedly chosen not to see the image in question (e.g. because they're worried about their computers downloading something illegal in their jurisdiction) we should be careful not to mislead them about what the image is. It's a drawing.
    • As a parallel, consider the difference between the mythical category of snuff film, and action films depicting acts of murder using special effects. In a snuff film, a person is actually murdered. In action films, murder may well be glorified, but no murder is actually done in the making of the film.
  • In the relevant jurisdiction (the United States), legal rulings have been mixed. Many photographic works accused of being "child pornography" have been protected, while others haven't. Nobody seems to have prosecuted the band The Scorpions for their rather tasteless album cover. Regarding "simulated" works, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition seems to be the current precedent, which supports protection of works such as drawings, computer-generated graphics, and so on.
    • However, that isn't the case in some other jurisdictions ... of which New Zealand seems to be the most extreme of those which can reasonably be considered. (Any jurisdiction where nudity in general is illegal is probably not worthy of consideration here, for instance.) We don't want to expose readers or contributors to prosecution. I think it would be rather surprising if any court under the common-law system would convict someone for unintentionally seeing something, since mens rea is usually part of the deal. Nonetheless it would probably be a good idea to get the considered opinion of someone familiar with the relevant precedent -- not just the statute -- in such jurisdictions.

All in all: Don't Panic remains a good rule. Nobody is trying to break Wikipedia here. People have reasonable concerns about preventing censorship; and reasonable concerns about protecting Wikimedia, contributors, and readers from violence under cover of law. There is no need for personal attacks or panicky behavior here. --FOo 07:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

More disturbing is the fact that an op choose to delete an image without any consesus, and Jimbo Wales actully endorses such behavior. Jimbo seems to think Sam Korn should be applauded for everything he did, even the delete without consensus part. The Psycho 07:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The problem is that enough people have knee-jerk reactions -- "Oh no! Little girl with a dildo!" or "Oh no! Censorship!" -- that forming consensus is hard.
People who think that the image is evil are going to react badly to attempts to convince them to compromise. This is because they would like to keep their moral values. (Consider: If someone told you that they could talk you into thinking that rape was good, would you want them to try?)
People who think that removal of the image is censorship are going to react badly to attempts to convince them to compromise. This is because they too would like to keep their moral values. People can be just as vehemently anti-censorship as other people are anti-child-sex.
I for one tend to fall on the anti-censorship side by sentiment. I think that censorship is an active corruptor of youth and of adults alike. I do not think that concerns about the image being evil are legitimate here. Accusations such as "pedophile trolls" amount to the same sort of thing, and are destructive. They amount to saying that lack of consensus can be disregarded because those who disagree are bad people.
However, it does seem that some people have legitimate concerns about legality. Those concerns need to be discussed and addressed in a manner which is:
  1. respectful of disagreement
  2. informed by actual cases, not just by fears
  3. non-final (does not attempt to silence future discussion)
  4. moving toward consensus not polarization.
In the absence of such discussion, this issue will keep coming up again and again. Hell, even in the presence of such discussion, it'll keep coming up ... but if we have some kind of general agreement, then new people can be sure that we are actually proceeding thoughtfully rather than always abusing each other. --FOo 08:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
(EC) The principle is that, for controversial material, the standard consensus required changes to one of keep the material instead of a consensus of remove the material. Let's not get caught up in any rules that prevent us from writing a good encyclopedia. A discussion where we have to warn users about "NSFW" is its own problem. Do we want an NSFW encyclopedia? Of course not. Let's keep our eye on the ball. -Will Beback 08:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Our encyclopaedia is not guaranteed safe for work by policy:
  • In the big box at the top of the Wikipedia:General discalimers page linked from every page on the site.
  • From Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, to which the above quote links: "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy."
  • From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not censored
In my place of work for example, the pictures on the penis article are probably in voilation of the terms of work. There is rightly a consensus to keep those images. Wikipedia is not censored. 09:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that any censorship is involved here - the image is more likely than not illegal in every country from which people contribute to the English Wikipedia (and for those claiming 'its a cartoon, so its ok' most child porn laws make no distinction in legality between real images of abuse and simulated/drawn images of abuse) and for once Jimbo's intervention has been necessary, well-supported by the community, and most importantly unambiguous. Cynical 09:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"most child porn laws make no distinction in legality between real images of abuse and simulated/drawn images of abuse" Shows you do not know anything about child porn law. The Psycho 14:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It has already been stated in the various discussions at least once that the image is legal in the United States and legal in Japan. I am no expert but I believe it would be legal in the United Kingdom also as it is neither a photograph nor a pseudo photograph. Thryduulf 13:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly been claimed that the image is legal in the U.S. The last time I really paid attention to the various discussions was in late January; have we actually had a lawyer (ideally the Foundation's own counsel) make a statement on the subject since then? Kirill Lokshin 13:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The Foundation's lawyer hasn't commented to my knowldge. I don't know if any other lawyer has or has not, but as of yesterday morning (before the image was deleted) it appeard to be accepted by those commenting at talk:Lolicon that it was - the debate was about the legality of the fair use, not the legality of the content. See my seperate comment on the project page about the fair use issue (I was going to put it here but realised it was wider than just this comment). Thryduulf 14:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
US Supreme Court has ruled that image like this is legal in the case of Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition, see this. The Psycho 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition deals with COPA, while the relevant law here is the PROTECT Act of 2003, which, to my knowledge, hasn't been tested in court yet. Given the potential problems if we were to screw up here (think WMF servers seized, massive media outcry, etc.), I think we really should have some firmer legal advice than "it appeard to be accepted by those commenting". Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if there is a valid law expanding the definition of child pornography to include drawings, the picture we had to "exhibit" any sexual organs, nor did it "exhibit" a minor engaged in sexual activity. See [2]. Ergo: not illegal. 24.224.153.40 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Jimbo was referring to the troll with tons of sockpuppets who reverted the article over 20 times in the course of a day whose edit summary consisted of "REVERT PEDOPHILE OPPRESSION" every time. I don't think he was calling all those involved pedophiles. Finite 20:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Age is a big factor in people's views of these sorts of pictures. The view of a 16 year old seeing pictures of slightly younger girls is quite different from that of a 36 year old who may be a parent of young kids. I would note that the average age of Jimbo, the Board, the ArbCom, and the jury who would deliberate on any lawsuits about this issue is quite older than the average Wikipedian. NoSeptember talk 14:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think Sam Korn is 17 if memory serves me. Kaldari 23:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Memory serves you well. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, he's one of the ones dragging the ArbCom average down ;) NoSeptember talk 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where has the discussion gone?

I was just wondering who deleted the Rfc on Sam Korn, why, and why there was no discussion the the talk page? --Wisden17 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy!!!! The higher powers at Wikipedia are trying to erase history!!! The Psycho 22:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Phil Welch, noting:
  • Not certified within 48 hours. If you're going to insist on slavishly adhering to process, then this ought to be deleted. If you aren't, then why are you filing this RfC? Thus, it disappeareth in a flash of logic. Steve block talk 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, yeah I checked this myself just after I posted a message hear. I've left a message on Welch's talk page, asking him if he could move it instead, as the topic had discussion which had qutie wide reaching implications for Wikipedia, and also that virtually all the comments implied implicit consent for having the discussion open. --Wisden17 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Steve block, presumably you would be able to restore the article, but perhaps move it somewhere which could better facilitate discussion. I thing a notice on the Community Portal would be a good idea, as the image raises huge implcations for the way that we think Wikipedia should be run. --Wisden17 22:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right, I deleted it. The RfC template (and SK's RfC) clearly states: "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." In place of those, there were only the words, "I ask that Sam Korn waive this requirement." RfC policy does not allow for this requirement to be waived, nor was there any indication that Sam in fact did waive it. The page was therefore deleted in accordance with policy. The complaint against Sam Korn was that he did not follow policy in deleting the image in question. It is perhaps ironic that policy dictated the deletion of that very RfC. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 01:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The so it shows Wikipedia admins only follow the policy when it suits them. The Psycho 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, further discussion of this issue is ongoing at the mailing list. According to policies put into place by Jimbo Wales, the mailing list is an appropriate forum for this sort of discussion. One may visit this page to subscribe to the list. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam wrote:
  • 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.
So he did waive the requirement in very clear terms. I don't understand the reason for the deletion, especially since the page focussed on the broad topic rather than just on Sam's behavior. -Will Beback 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If it didn't focus on Sam's behavior in particular then why was it filed as a user RFC? It was redundant, in this regard, with the discussion on the mailing list that I've invited all of you to join. Furthermore, RFC policy gives no provision for users to "waive" any of the requirements. The RFC was *about* Sam's failure to follow policy. It was ironic that the RFC itself failed to follow policy, and I don't see any coherent reason for anyone to oppose its deletion. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 04:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The main reason I can think of is that it contains a clear, formal discussion by Jimbo Wales about the topic. For good or bad, Wales's comments are generally regarded as significant. -Will Beback 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
In the case of this RfC, I'm not sure it would be possible for any user to endorse it, since image deletions are not reversable, i.e. it is not possible to "resolve the disputed conduct", it is only possible to discuss the ramifications after the fact. Kaldari 06:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Mailing list is a cludge. Subscribe to it, and you're spammed with 100 messages per day, making your e-mail address unusable. It doesn't scale and it is horrible mess. I think it should be discontinued and all discussions should be made right here on Wikipedia. I for one refuse to aknowledge significance of any discussion that happened on the mailing list: you guys can discuss among yourselves all you want, but Wikipedia is here, and Wikipedia-related things are discussed here, not on some lame list.  Grue  06:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't moving the discussion to the mailing list what caused this whole fiasco in the first place? Kaldari 06:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay guys that was uncool, that was really uncool. You don't just delete a huge discussion like that. Yeah, I can understand delisting it from the main RFC page, even moving it to a separate page name. But you shouldn't just delete something that important, especially because it has Jimbo's comments. I'm going to undelete soon; I just need suggestions on where to move it after that. --Cyde Weys 06:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some guy's userspace" is the best bet. I suggest you move this talk page with it, as talk pages without any corresponding page are candidates for speedy deletion. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 06:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. I deleted the redirect on the main page but left the talk page redirect standing so people looking for the restoration of this page can at least find it. --Cyde Weys 07:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it was stupid of the process wonks to delete the RfC just like that. (Disclaimer: I have never been comfortable with deleting even uncertified RfCs, as comments I made in 2005 can attest.) It was obviously of great significance, and this was certainly a case where WP:SNOW and Wikipedia:Use common sense applied. IMO, the right thing to do -- in all cases -- is to either userfy the thing, or otherwise make it clear that the RfC is considered baseless. (Perhaps move them to a /Rejected subpage of RfC?) In any case, I see no justifiable excuse for hewing to the letter of policy here. It only strengthens claims that admins ignore/adhere to policy only when they feel like it. Johnleemk | Talk 07:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ordinarily I'd agree, but the whole point of this RfC was that Sam Korn didn't follow policy. You can't complain about Sam Korn and then turn around and complain when an admin does follow policy. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 08:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Why am I not comforted by this "two wrongs make a right" philosophy? Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not "two wrongs make a right". Your deliberate failure or cognitive incapacity to understand what I'm saying renders your remarks unworthy of further consideration. In words that you may understand better: you have no idea what I'm talking about so shut up. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
So it shows Wikipedia admins only follow the policy when it suits them. BTW, your reply is very personal attackish. The Psycho 02:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
My definition of right and wrong is not constrained by policy. Policy sometimes makes the right things wrong and wrong things right. This is one of those cases. Johnleemk | Talk 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • An apology, I went to bed straight after noting Phil's deletion, which was, on balance perhaps remiss of me. Steve block talk 09:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a link to the archived discussion and to a current discussion on the Village Pump at the Community Portal. I hope people will contribute to what I see as being a very important topic for the whole Wikipedia community. --Wisden17 19:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)