Requests for comment/redundant-nudity-controversy

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus for the proposal to be implemented. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


David Condrey and I (Coin945) feel like we were mistreated on Wikipedia Commons. I will concisely explain the events step by step, and will link in the appropriate pages for you to read through.

  1. David Condrey began researching for images of totem poles for the article [{Raven Tales]], which was the TAFI article of the day (a Wikiproject we are both a part of).
  2. Through this process, according to David he stumbles upon the wealth of nude dick pics on Commons, and was so appalled at how pornography was passed off an "encyclopedic" that he had a mass DR (deletion request) for hundreds of these images. He used hyperbolic language in the DR to illustrate his feelings.
  3. Before a discussion had even taken place, it was closed and an administrator (INeverCry) deleted them all.
  4. As it turns out, many of these images were actually being used within Wikipedia articles. One in particular (a willy warmer) belonged to an administrator named Mabalu, who started deleting many of David's articles under accusatory raitonales that were later proven to be false such as the notion of copyright vio (they were actually original works) or false identity (his identity was proven via email confirmation).
  5. Without a chance to defend himself, David was blocked, and wrote on the talk page of TAFI for help. That is where I came in.
  6. I initially encouraged him to respond the only place he could - his talk page, but his post was ignored.
  7. I then started a discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard, asking form an objective perspective to allow David his editing rights back as I felt the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy had not been upheld. No discussion was centered around INeverCry who actually deleted all those 600+ articles before a discussion had even taken place.
  8. I started to get very weird emails on my talk page in a "you don't know who you're dealing with" kind of way, and after I we had proven Mabalu's defamatory claims were actually false, I myself was blocked from Commons, and the discussion was closed.

I think that pretty much covers it. David and I both think Common administrators abused their power and tried to silence anyone who got in their way.--Coin945 (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Get the facts right[edit]

  1. images were deleted after the usual DR running time of 7 days, assuming a good faith nomination of unused images which were properly tagged for deletion and uploaders notified.
  2. Not a single image was tagged for deletion, not a single uploader was notified and lots of images were in use, some even in high use.
  3. Block was not lifted because this user did not see (or did not want to see) the damage he had done to the project and to the admin(s) who had to restore the deleted images and place them back in articles.

--Denniss (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Denniss:

  1. What was the reason for the ban? For nominating the images, or for being an impersonator? Because those were the reasons listed and neither one have any merit.
  2. The facts are that the same user who deleted the images in the first place did not chose to put in place a ban until after they had deleted the images, and were reprimanded for having done so. If a nomination for deletion is worthy of a ban, then it would have been done prior to deleting the images, rather than after.
  3. Nominating a deletion is not a deletion, rather .. bringing them to discussion for deletion (I imagine that's what the definition of 'Nomination' is). So it what why is nominating them for deletion worthy of a ban? If the administrator who deleted the images did not agree that they should have been deleted then they shouldn't have deleted them.
  4. When a 3rd party stepped into the discussion to dispute the matter, they were immediately banned as well.
  5. The actions of various parties involved in the debate after the fact, conducted themselves in a very poor manner, which I can easily point out more than one policies that were blatantly disregarded.
  6. While a small minority of the nominated images likely should not have been deleted, the vast majority of them very well should have / should be.
  7. Only after the debate started, I was accused of copyright violations on my own contributions without any valid cause, on images which had already been clearly notated with the appropriate and valid tags. Was even accused of not being the person I came to be.. tho anyone could easily have seen that I've been an active member of Wikipedia for several years..

David Condrey (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion should not be grounds for a ban. In my experience as an anatomy editor, WikiCommons is full of gratiutous, poor-quality and pornographic images. EG. Recently, per a request for a picture of the 'anal canal', I go to Wikicommons, expecting relevant images, eg from textbooks that actually illustrate the anal canal. Instead I find numerous highly distasteful pornographic images, and only a single relevant high-quality image with labelled structures. Editors using WikiCommons should not have to pass the 'stomach test' in order to use it. And yes there are a huge amount of poor images or selfies of human anatomy that editors have decided to 'gift' to us, that presumably the uploader has thoughtfully decided to use on one or two pages, thus making deleting them very difficult. As an editor 'passing through' WikiCommons how can I be expected to participate and individually nominate extensive amounts of pictures?? I don't want to review these images, let alone participate in a huge amount of discussions point by point about why they are unsuitable. And to think that one may be blocked just for proposing this?? Hence I very much sympathise with David Condrey. --LT910001 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The ban seems to be totally out of order, and I also sympathise with David Condrey. Also being an anatomy editor I've experienced the same issues that LT910001 has. There is a ridiculous amount of useless pornography on commons which needs to be deleted. Some of the images that were tagged were done so superfluously, but I should hope the administrators instead used their judgment to decide what is being used properly instead of banning someone for trying to work for the best of the commons. Although I don't wish to I can invest some time cleaning up which images are actually of value and which should be deleted in the list above. CFCF (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • David Condrey is not banned. He is indef blocked, talk page and email access open, and unblock was offered, and the offer, on the face, was rejected.[1] (at the bottom of the page, and notice the dates. David did not respond at all until March of this year.) The original cause for the block was resolved long ago. The block stands because of subsequent behavior.
  • As is explained above, nominating files for deletion, per se, is not grounds for a block. However, nominating almost 700 files for deletion, without tagging the pages or notifying users, or researching usage status, and giving an improper deletion reason, can be. Here, David and others give arguments that show a lack of understanding the purpose and function of Commons. Some of those files might be indeed deletable, but because he exercised no caution, the massive deletion done by INeverCry was undone. David was not blocked because of that. Does anyone actually read block logs? The accusation of impersonation was an error, but an error that was also understandable. David may not be aware of it, but impersonators sometimes edit for a long time before being found! All this was resolved, but David is continuing to attempt to get something done at meta, which will not touch Commons. He has an open path to being unblocked.
  • Commons can be brutal. However, there is no ban. The "third party" blocked was not banned, either, he was blocked for one week for ignoring a warning from an admin. I've reviewed what happened there. The block was proper.
  • The original block reason was the alleged impersonation. I'll repeat: he was not blocked for making a bad nomination. But he could have been, and he refused to agree not to repeat the error. Hence the independent decline of his unblock request was proper. David could fix this immediately. I have suggested this on [2].
  • This RfC should be closed. There is no meta or global issue here. --Abd (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)