Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 22

RaRa – As a result of User:DESiegel's work creating a well-sourced version of the article which will be merged with the deleted edits, this DRV is moot (though deletion was generally endorsed). – –xeno^talk 12:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Illegitimate G10 deletion. This was not an attack page, all content (that I can see via google cache) is verifiable and the relevant sources can be easily added, please see my referencing at de:Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie and dutch sources at nl:Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie. Additional source see here. Meisterkoch (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather premature, don't you think, considering the active discussion on my talk page? You certainly have the right to request deletion review, but it's a far simpler process to convince me to reverse my deletion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, DRV should have happened only after ~~pinging Jclemens and~~ receiving no satisfaction after extended discussion with Jclemens. –xeno^talk 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno, that's what I have already done. I have discussed everything on his talk page that I had to say on this topic. If he doesn't see that he is in breach with the guidelines, he doesn't leave me any other options then to go here and see what other people think about it.--Meisterkoch (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I didn't see that the thing higher up the page was related. Still, it could've been a lengthier discussion. –xeno^talk 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I just asked you (User:Meisterkoch) a question on my talk page to which you have yet to reply. AGF'ing that you didn't see it, feel free to respond there. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Excellent call by Jclemens. Falls squarely within G10 as an article about an organisation (including named individuals) that contains only negative unsourced material. For negative pages, a general source cited at the bottom of the page is not good enough. There is no way of verifying that the negative factual claims in the article are true. G10 extends to entities as well as people. In my view that is for two good reasons: (a) an attack on an organisation by extension attacks its members and officers; and (b) many jurisdictions allow organisations, not just individuals, to sue for defamation. Negative material about organisations or persons should be sourced from the moment it is placed on the mainspace. I would not support restoration of this without a properly sourced userspace draft. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, keep this stuff deleted, this is way to stupid to discuss, I will stick to de:WP where people can actually admit when they have done a mistake, after they have read a source. Bye en:WP --Meisterkoch (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. en:WP has some more strict expectations than other 'pedias, but that doesn't mean this discussion is over. You'll note that I didn't issue any warnings or blocks, nor did I salt the article against recreation. There is still a way to work forward on this, but when it's such an article talking about crimes and people and whatnot, we delete it until it can be shown to be supported and neutral. I realize this might be frustrating for you, but there's no reason to abandon en.wiki entirely yet. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a well-known terrorist organization in the Netherlands. The Dutch article references three national papers and a book by a BVD employee (Dutch equivalent of the NSA), among other sources. I don't know what the English article looked like, but sources are available. Remco47 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. This was a good-faith G10 deletion. However, it seems that it should not be difficult to find and ad WP:RS to the article. The organization is notable and was (apparently) covered by national press. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not good-faith deletion, Jclemens had the same source as you guys have here for 10 days on his talk page and then he decided out of the blue to delete the article. And now I should go down on bended knees and beg for mercy/undelete to be able to add these sources? This is pure bullying and really pisses me off.--Meisterkoch (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear not to have noticed that I was out of the country for that time. Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, but without prejudice to recreation as the article stood when deleted it was clearly a negative article about a specific group, accusing them of violent crimes. In the article a single source was cited, a book, with no page references or inline cites to indicate which claims it supported. Talk page discussion has stated that there was a criminal conviction. If so, there must have been news coverage, although that may not be online. Under the circumstances, better in-article sourcing is needed for any such article. Specific inline citations, preferably with relevant quotes (translated, if not in English) from any off-line sources, should be provided to multiple reliable sources to clearly establish the accuracy and fairness of the article. That said, if the statements made in the deleted version are in fact supported by RSs, this group is notable and a proper article can be written, and there should be no bar to a properly sourced version in future. DES ^(talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google news returns some 20 hits on "Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie" but none appear to be in English. Non-english sources are fine, as stated in WP:RS, but this means that I can not personally evaluate them or add them to the article. Someone who reads the relevant language could and should consider doing this. Note that {{cite news}} provides the trans_title parameter for translated titles, and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Non-English sources says "When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate." DES ^(talk) 23:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google news search on "Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action" returns some 11 hits, which may be enough to source such an article. DES ^(talk) 23:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See my user draft linked below. DES ^(talk) 07:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G10 due to the undersourced nature of the decidedly negative article at the time. I'll vote to restore the article, but only if someone is going to rigorously source the facts within it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userspace draft created. I have created a draft at User:DESiegel/Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action. I think it is sufficiently sourced, with some 16 different sources (all but two in the English language) and 44 inline citations. Sources are newspapers, journals, and books. Note that I started with the text of the deleted article, so if this is accepted that would have to be undeleted and this applied over it, or my draft moved and a history merge done, to preserve the attributions for the text from the original article. i dropped any statements not supported by sources, most statements are supported by multiple sources. There are probably additional sources out there in English, plus the 20 Google news hits not in English, so this could no doubt be improved further. But I now ask that this draft be permitted into mainspace, with appropriate history undeletions for attribution. DES ^(talk) 07:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Superb. I'd note, however, that there's nothing in a G10 which prevents anyone from taking such action, nor was any DRV intervention needed for such an outcome. Thanks for doing the grunt work to create a more neutral and specifically-cited article. Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted. But given that a DRV discussion has been started and that it is still open, I felt it better to present the matter here than to unilaterally use admin tools to undelete and edit. Use of admin tools would be required for GFDL/CC attributions, so this isn't just a matter of creating a new article by an old name. Besides there is WP:PI. DES ^(talk) 07:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also note, it isn't much more neutral -- 90% of the text is straight from the deleted version. Mostly what I did was add cites, adn remove the few statements I couldn't cite, and add details found in the refs cited. All refs came from Google searches, BTW. DES ^(talk) 07:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore DESiegel's superb userdraft. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, permit recreation from the draft or otherwise. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Studio 1 Photography – article restored to be discussed at AFD. – –xeno^talk 19:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This was deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the log entry "notability not asserted". I presume this is intended to be WP:CSD#A7, although that does not actually match the A7 rule. The deleted page included the text "This is the same company that was featured as Utah's best wedding photographer on a budget." and included three inline references to three different news stories. Now this might not have been enough to establish notability at an AfD, But I think it is well over the bar for an A7. I asked the deleting admin to reconsider in this edit but got no response. Overturn this as an improper speedy deletion, please. DES ^(talk) 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the deleting admin did not notify the page creator, nor was the page tagged by any other editor. DES ^(talk) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per nominator. --GRuban (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Definitely over the bar for A7 - can be sent to AfD if someone still feels strongly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion, send to AFD; failure to assert notability isn't grounds for speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the speedy per nom. If afd is deemed required do so for editors' views.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom. This appears to be a situation for an AfD, not for a speedy. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in notifying someone of a deletion once they've been gone for a month. This was a single-purpose account, whose purpose was to promote this business. Furthermore, notifying someone that an article they wrote is going to be deleted... that's a courtesy, not an obligation. I do try to be courteous, but I'm not obligated to be.

About those three different news sources? They were about a competitor's bankruptcy, and briefly mentioned Studio 1. There was also one article about Studio 1 itself, calling it "Utah's Best etc etc", although a) I strongly disagree with that being an assertion of notability, and b) the site claiming it appears to have been down for quite a while - archive.org only has versions until mid-2008.

Of course the page hadn't been tagged by another editor. I don't need to wait for people to tag pages for speedy deletion; I can assess them myself and then delete them -- and I do that all the time, because it's more efficient.

I don't bother using the CSD codes because they're too damn cryptic. I know what they mean, and I use their meaning.

If you want to argue process enough to take this article to AfD, I will gladly restore the page; however, if I do that, then I expect at least one of you will implement a proper AfD within the next 24 hours. DS (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The article made a credible claim to significance or importance. I'd be happy to send it to AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Goatse.fr homepage.png – List at FfD. This is a difficult case. It is undisputed in this DRV that the image was deleted out of process. Nonetheless, the !votes are split roughly 49-31 in favor of overturning, with the endorse !voters arguing essentially that undeleting is futile because (1) the image fails WP:NFCC#1, as it is replaceable with text and (2) the image is entirely unencyclopedic, which is the rationale employed by the deleting administrator. The overturn !voters respond that (1) the image is irreplaceable, since no text could convey the "shock"; (2) the image is encyclopedic in an article about the website, and WP:NOTCENSORED prevents its deletion solely because it is grossly offensive; and (3) these issues should be debated in an FfD, not a DRV.
While DRV normally limits its reach to process, it has endorsed out-of-process deletions when such deletions are inevitable. However, the discussion here fell short of demonstrating the futility of further discussion. Cogent arguments are presented on both sides, and both of the endorse !voters' points are countered by the overturns. Moreover, given DRV's usual limit to process issues, one must take into account the fact that many participants may choose not to address the merits issues, leaving any apparent consensus on the merits here relatively unsafe. For instance, one might argue that the merits discussion might be somewhat biased toward the side favoring the out-of-process action, since those who believe that the image should not be deleted would !vote on the process issue alone; on the other hand, it can be argued that quite a few of the overturn !voters indicated that they would !vote delete on the merits. The upshot is that it is impossible to predict what would happen in an FfD for this image based on this DRV, and therefore there is no consensus below that the image either fails NFCC#1 or is unencyclopedic, and no consensus to keep this image deleted despite the out-of-process deletion. I take note of MzMcBride's note of a previous DRV and FfD on another goatse image that resulted in deletion, but that image is different from this one, and in any event this image at issue has survived an FfD postdating that DRV and FfD already. – Tim Song (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deleting administrator opened a thread at ANI to announce his decision. The discussion became contentious.[1] Most of what's been discussed there would be better suited to DRV. Opening this request procedurally with no opinion about its outcome. Durova⁴¹² 02:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: [2] << for those not familiar with this image, here it is. Which was once found on this webpage: Goatse.cx. Okip 02:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore, regrettably because I have a great deal of sympathy at a personal level for Prodego's actions here. However, there was no consensus to delete this image, so deletion was out of process. This went through an FfD as a keep, was subject to an open MedCab case, and no speedy deletion criteria applied. Invoking WP:IAR in this case is not appropriate as many editors (not me) would dispute that the invocation of IAR "improved the encyclopaedia". But I would like to see this brought back to FfD where editors can give proper consideration to WP:NOTCENSORED and whether this image adds anything to the encyclopaedia. In my view, genuine consensus has not been reached on this yet. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note if this turns into a super-FFD discusion, as seems likely, I would !vote delete. I would !vote that way not for the reason that a fair use claim is invalid, but because of the reason Prodego deleted it: that its inclusion does more harm to the project than good. Just because an image can be displayed on wikipedia does not mean that it should. But that is an on-balance judgement on which reasonable minds may differ: such judgements should be made by consensus, not unilateral fiat. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The photo is not compatible with our mission to build a free encyclopedia. It is neither free nor encyclopedic. The only reason we don't have a specific policy "Wikipedia is not a shocksite" is that this is such a rare case. Wikipedia is not censored. Liberties are best preserved by (1) making use of them extensively, and (2) not abusing them. Hans Adler 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to give a formal reason for the process wonks: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (NFCC) Any encyclopedic purpose of this picture is far overshadowed by its primary purpose of shocking whoever stumbles over it. The reader of an article illustrated in this way will either be thrilled that Wikipedia breaks taboos so shamelessly, or will be shocked and somewhat disturbed. Neither is an encyclopedic purpose, and in either case the reader will be distracted from the article. Hans Adler 11:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't part of our goal as an encyclopedia to provide historical insight into what cultures find offensive? –xeno^talk 12:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. But our contribution shouldn't consist in demonstrating that finding photos of stretched anuses in an encyclopedia article extremely offensive is a feature shared by all cultures worldwide. It's not our primary purpose to do such research, and especially when the result is so predictable. Hans Adler 13:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should also remove visual depictions of Muhammad, as it also facilitates such in-house "research" as to how many Wikipedia-using Muslims find it offensive? –xeno^talk 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we should remove some of them, but not all. One picture of Muhammad being tortured in hell, another of him trampling on a globe, a cross and the Ten Commandments. In addition no less than four other images outside the section "Muslim veneration", which is the only section where such images convey information as opposed to being purely illustrative. This is serious overkill. In quantitative terms it's not quite as bad as the severe over-illustratedness of Jesus and Buddha, but it's still bad enough and the fact that every single of these pictures gives offence to a significant portion of our readers either (1) directly, or (2) by showing them that we want to offend the more extreme of their faith, gives this more weight. Hans Adler 08:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. We have deletion polices for a reason: to ensure that our contents benefit the encyclopedia, and to ensure that deletions are performed only if they benefit the encyclopedia. We also have the important WP:IAR policy, specifically in order to ensure that anyone can take actions that benefit the encyclopedia, even if they can't find some specific sentence in our many policies that specifically says they may do so. In the long run, because we are an encyclopedia and not a shock site, it plainly benefits our encyclopedic purpose - and therefore is the right action - to cut through all the debate and just remove the image, and to delete the image in order to prevent the removal from becoming an endless edit war. Unless there is some reason why the image is actually required by our encyclopedic purpose, and not replaceable by a link to the site depicted in the image, there is no issue here. In particular, bureaucratic arguments about what "should have happened" are of no importance; only what "should happen" is important. What should happen is for the image to stay out of the article on the grounds that we are not a shock site - and we are not required to be one merely in order to provide encyclopedic coverage of shock images. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Hesperian summarized this excellently: "A picture conveys more than text. If you subtract what the text conveys from what the picture conveys, you're left with the marginal benefit of displaying the picture. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the Mona Lisa is substantial and educational. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the goatse.cx image is nothing but shock value." This image is intended only to be "offensive, disgusting or/and disturbing to its viewers"^[1]. It is not an image that is useful in an encyclopedia, and its inclusion is far more harmful to the project than any marginal benefit gained by readers from viewing it. Prodego ^talk 03:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: horrible abuse of process, no two-ways about it. As has been emphasised a million times, DRV is not IFD, it examines process issues in deletions. As there is no procedural reason at all to delete, and at least three to overturn...:
1. Not eligible for deletion under any speedy criterion;
2. Image has already survived IfD, so it can't be speedied for the given reason anyway;
3. It's currently a matter of contention at mediation so it's inappropriate to take action during the mediation process.
...thus, the image should be undeleted. There is also very flimsy justification for ignoring all rules because there are solid arguments that unilateral deletion is a detriment to the encyclopedia; remember, IAR is not carte blanche. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Hesperian. :-) Hesperian 03:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn / Undelete - While I agree that goatse is rather a nasty website, the image IS encyclopaedic on the grounds that it is essentially the subject of an article. Furthermore, there is an ongoing dispute as to whether the image should be included, and that should have been allowed to conclude before such unilateral action is taken. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the website, not this single image. Risker (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical argument, as in this case the website is the image. And let me ask you this: If they never published that image on that site, would we have grounds for an article at all? Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's particularly nonsensical given that the image was only presented within a screenshot of the website's front page. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The image fails NFCC criterion #1, in that it is easily described in words and can be linked to at an external site. In fact, it *is* described in words in the opening sentence of the article. The image itself is not encyclopedic or educational, nor is it free. Risker (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn / Undelete - its a nasty picture, but the process for deletion was fatally flawed (community process subverted). Without the pic, the article is kinda pointless. Maybe its a good AFD candidate, but this was not the way to do it. Bevinbell 03:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussions do not override fundamental policy. WP:NFCC overrides consensus just as WP:COPYVIO does; we don't keep copyvios around even if there is a consensus discussion to keep them. Otherwise, we'd still have dozens of album cover images in discography articles. Risker (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus determines whether WP:NFCC is satisfied by interpreting it and applying it. It is not self-executing, especially where it asks us to make editorial judgments like determining an image's encyclopedic purpose and informational value. If a consensus of editors have determined that the image is not replaceable, then it is not replaceable, and no admin is empowered to enact his own opinion as if it were policy. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. This was a deletion in the middle of a content dispute, and counter to another administrator's actions. At Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Goatse.cx, it has already been established that the image does not fail NFCC. Whether the image should remain in the article is purely a question of value versus offensiveness. Therefore, a deletion out of process is not warranted. Remco47 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete: I've stumbled across this over at ANI, and while I make no comment on the file in question, this deletion was disgusting. There is ongoing discussion about the image, and no legal situation justifying a speedy deletion. The IAR justification being batted around is not, in my opinion, very convincing, as there are many people who do not think that this deletion benefits the encyclopedia. I think Sceptre sums it up nicely. Some responses here seem to endorse keeping deleted because they feel the picture is not appropriate. I make no comment on their rationales, but I think that that discussion should be held elsewhere (like IFD). Buddy431 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per Risker. This is an unfree image that does not add any encyclopedic value to the article. The description in the article is accurate and succinct; the link is on the article page. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/undelete - I've actually been arguing for removal of the image at MedCab, but this deletion was way out of line as consensus seems to currently lean in the other direction. IAR means "Ignore All Rules", not "Ignore All People". It's fine to ignore a rule if everyone agrees that the rule is holding up progress, but it's not okay to ignore everyone else in favor of your own opinion -- especially when we're talking about administrative action. At most, Prodego should've taken the matter to DRV himself following the failed IfD if he thought the closure was improper. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:04, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Overturn and discard every insipid "not a shock site" argument from consideration. This is not round 2 of an IfD to discuss the merits of the image; we are here strictly to discuss the breach of trust and authority that Prodego displayed by ignoring the community and using admin tools to support a personal opinion. There was no valid policy-based reason for up and deleting this image. None. We just had an Arbcom motion that dealt with another admin who invoked WP:IAR in this manner. Apparently some lessons have not been learned yet. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have outlined the policy-based reason for this image to be deleted above. Please explain why this image passes NFCC #1. It is already well-described in words, although if one wished to expand the description one could do so. Risker (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a shock image can be as well-described with words as it can be by seeing the image itself is charmingly naïve. The subject matter itself is the image, and no amount of textual descriptors can adequately convey what the image itself can. Why don't we simply describe Mona Lisa's smile, sans portrait, while we're at it. Tarc (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article? The subject is the website, not simply that single image. And the Mona Lisa is not an appropriate comparator, being in the public domain. One gaping anus looks pretty much like another. Risker (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, feel free to snap a pic of your own gaping anus, head on over to 4chan with it, and see if you can get the kiddies to make it into a meme too. Until then, we have an iconic image here that would be the height of absurdity to not have a copy of on its own article. There is nothing you have said here so far that wasn't shot down in flames back at the Virgin Killer IfDs. Tarc (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've read it. The main (well, only) attraction on the site is the image. All the history, details, and tangential stories derive from that image. None of that would exist or be of interest without it. If you don't like the Mona Lisa as a comparison, you can compare it to any controversial figure in history whose portrait we include, controversial incident whose images we include, or controversial art that we include. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:54, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Keep deleted: I think I filed one of these IFDs. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean one of the IFDs that failed? If so, why do you cite that as a reason to keep deleted? Are you saying that since you filed an IFD on this, it should stay deleted? Not following your logic here. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:58, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  - It was partially to disclose the fact that I'd been previously involved in this debate and partially so that I wouldn't have to write out another rationale for why this image should be deleted, having done so previously. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that would be the deletion discussion where the closer thought it would probably fail NFCC#1 but he would "be damned if I'll waste my time trying to write the replacement text". Well, the replacement text is there now. Risker (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it isn't here. You can't just change the goalposts like that. The deleting admin did not delete it on NFCC grounds, not in the slightest. From the AN/I post; "However, the image seems to me to be so egregiously unencyclopedic, that I deleted it despite both of those discussions.", i.e. a specific invocation of WP:IAR, not a delete based on non-free policy. Tarc (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't undelete copyvios or images that fail NFCC because the deletion process was less than optimal, goalposts or no goalposts. In fact, I think your "desysop" argument earlier might be more effective with respect to an admin who failed to delete an image that violated NFCC. Risker (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do, however, undelete images if the deletion process wasn't followed at all. There is no debate here: the deletion policy was violated by the unilateral deletion of an image ineligible for speedy deletion, contrary to a recent consensus at an appropriate forum, and contrary to our guidelines of retaining the status quo during disputes. That is fact. You can wikilawyer all you want on this, but the image should not have been deleted in the way it was. And endorsing deletion endorses abuse of the deletion policy and of our content policies and encourages administrators to violate our policies. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting a non-free image that does not meet NFCC isn't just a violation of Wikipedia policy, it is a violation of WMF policy, and that is an even more serious matter. Risker (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that, so I refactored my reply to encompass all images. But the point is: without following the deletion process, we have no way of showing a violation of the NFCC. Additionally, no-one has demonstrated that the image fails any part of the NFCC: neither the parts which you can speedy delete for (4, 7, 9, 10) or the parts that require discussion to ascertain violation (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8). And don't pretend this is NFCC enforcement; this is prudishness, plain and simple. As far as fair-use images go, this was one of the more exemplary images on the article in terms of NFCC compliance, save maybe for the fact the image displayed a bodily orifice. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, a prude would never have found this page or this image in the first place. If you're suggesting that I'm a prude, you might want to keep in mind that I probably spend more time addressing far more offensive stuff than this image on an average evening of editing than I have spent on this discussion; my tolerance for shock is considerably higher than that of most Wikipedians, let alone the average member of the reading public. I also strongly disagree that this is an exemplary image in terms of NFCC compliance, as it is one of the simplest ones to describe with words, and there is a solid external link to the image itself, unlike the Virgin Killers example above. Risker (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Killer cover: "A naked pre-pubescent girl, with a cracked glass effect obscuring her genitalia". Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima: "six American soldiers raise an American flag on a hilltop". Bingo, that image fails NFCC#1, or at least the version given in this DRV. However, the criteria has another part: an image fails it if the free media serves the same encyclopedic purpose. In this case, drawing on the multiple visual identification and notable image precedents, I believe that a free replacement would not serve the same purpose, as I have argued at the MedCab case several times. But I'm straying off-topic, here. My argument is that failure of NFCC#1 is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, as it doesn't pass CSD's requirements that said criteria must be objective. And setting asside the NFCC#1 question (as any image can be easily argued to fail the commonly recited version, as I've just shown), this image is indeed exemplary among the thousands of "this shows an important thing that we barely touch on in the article" rationales for usage. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I usually tend to agree with Tarc, but in this case, I think Risker is in the right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question - If Mr. Goatse himself was tracked down and agreed to release his image to the public domain, would all objections to its inclusion be dropped? Tarc (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's far from an honest question, but it is a fair point. The rights arguments should probably be put on hold if they don't matter anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:18, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- Mr. Goatse would have to prove that he is indeed Mr. Goatse, and that he owns the rights to that image, which is going to be nigh-on impossible at this stage. The article itself refers to a Snopes article about one of the parodies which has been claimed by multiple individuals as the "rightful owner". Risker (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question was largely hypothetical. Ignore the wouldas and couldas and address the what if... aspect, if you would. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Mostly per Risker. I happened to stumble upon this from the ANI thread. Killiondude (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Risker. The image does fail NFCC#1. AniMate 06:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should ask, as there seems to be a misunderstanding on what NFCC#1 is: is there a plausible free equivalent that could be located or created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose? Sceptre ^(talk) 06:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all? From the article Its front page featured a picture, hello.jpg, showing a naked man stretching his anus to a large size with both hands, with the inside of his rectum clearly visible. Is there anything else we need to know about the picture? AniMate 07:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima can be adequately conveyed by the text "six American soldiers raise an American flag on a hilltop". That doesn't mean that it serves the same encyclopedic purpose; see my reply to Risker above that there is clear precedent that lends to supporting using the image. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are technically correct. "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" can be conveyed by text. However, we're comparing one of the most important moments of World War II to a man showing his gaping asshole. Sorry to be blunt, but... really? AniMate 08:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like your objection to the image is based more on its content than the non-free content criteria. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. This is the core issue we're examining in the MedCab case: whether we can find a policy-based reason that a) would not delete similarly offensive images which otherwise would be acceptable for use, and b) would not delete any famous images such as Iwo Jima. So far, I've yet to see an argument that, with a minimal amount of tinkering, couldn't be used to delete the Virgin Killer cover or the Iwo Jima cover. The worth of the image by itself to society shouldn't matter when we decide whether to use an image or not; what should matter is the worth of the image to the article we wish to include it on. And I believe there to be to some worth, based on precedents of website screenshots and famous images. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the image, but I nevertheless believe there to be a valid fair use claim for this image and my distaste for censoring material just because it's offensive is larger than my distaste for the image. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send for another IfD. I think the image is obnoxious, and wish it had never existed, but I do not see what this has to do with the matter. I refuse to decide issues of Wikipedia procedure and policy on such a basis, and I think that attempting to twist the copyright policy to keep it out are using sophistry to ignore the fundamental principles. The community cannot ignore copyright, but the community did not ignore copyright , and I do not think it ever will, for the community very strongly believes in respecting copyright and endorses the enWP copyright policy, as is shown in hundreds of unchallenged decisions every day. Admins rely on their own judgement, but only when the matter is unquestionable, because when it is, they trust that the community will endorse it. If in a decision of theirs the community were not to, the community would be right and the admin would be wrong as far as dealing with the problem goes--for those who cannot accept this, Wikipedia would not be a suitable place to work, and they should find some place where they could get their own way always. This of course goes much more strongly when they know in advance that their view has been rejected.,) If the community decides not to follow the view of an admin or anyone else. the person can seek to have the individual issue reviewed, or to try to change consensus to change the policy. In this case, the normal way would be to bring another IfD or go to deletion review, in each case to get a broader consensus. Whether this image passes NFCC must be decided by the community, and the community decision followed. No admin has the right to say the community is wrong and is right over the interpretation of this or anything.. He has the right to use IAR in the absence of a community decision, but only to the extent the community will back him., certainly not when he knows the community will oppose him. The only people who can override the community is the office, on legal grounds, for we like everyone else, follows legal advice on what we can and cannot do. But here again it is actually consensus: if the foundation thinks the law is clear, the community has agreed in advance to follow their view, for no responsible person would do otherwise. I see no need to consider now whether I think it meets NFCC1. The material must be restored, and then the deleting admin can open a deletion review, or try another IfD, It is now three months, and an acceptable time for another if this was the first IfD on the file. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn there has been explicit consensus at the FFD to keep the article based on WP:NOTCENSORED, there is explicit consensus at the talk page and an RFC that the image is encyclopaedic. No speedy deletion criteria therefore applies. WP:IAR should only be used when there is consensus that the rules are wrong, in this case there is consensus that the rules are right, and thus IAR is not helping the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hans Adler, Risker and Hesperian. Best to remember the purpose of this encyclopedia from time to time instead of getting caught up in red tape. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. NFCC#1 calls for an editorial judgment as to whether a textual description would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the image. Apart from it being a post hoc rationale, this is not an appropriate ground for speedy deletion, but rather a matter to be discussed on an article's talk page in the first instance, and failing resolution there at FFD. An FFD was conducted, and the result was to keep it. At most, it should be relisted there given the complaints about the minimal participation in the last go-round; I doubt there would be another low turnout after this debacle. Further, "Wikipedia is not a shock site" is not an argument. Wikipedia is always about subjects deemed notable and in the process describes and illustrates those subjects even though it is not itself those subjects. That one of those subjects happens to be a shock site doesn't change the equation in any other way, at least where there does not seem to be any question of illegal content. Likewise, the claim that the article is about the website, not the image, misses the point that the website is notable only because of the image and was defined by that image. So there are no clear and objective grounds for speedy deleting this image. postdlf (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - The image is undoubtedly offensive, but we've never made that a deletion criterion in the past. The Goatse meme and images are unfortunately significant on the net, and it's hard to demonstrate just how they were without being able to illustrate it. Those arguing for deletion are creating a new policy argument to do so - a variation on IREALLYREALLYDONTLIKEIT. If you want to change policy to remove all seriously shocking content from Wikipedia that's fine, but this is not the legitimate way to do so within our policy or process. The image needs to come back until and unless our policy is redefined to actually prohibit it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and take to FfD for fresh consensus. Clearly, based from the ANI and DRV discussions, there is not a clear consensus to keep this. I am no NFCC expert though, so I am unsure if this is a valid concern. However, I do sympathise with the deletion motives, but it may not be a suitable speedy candidate, thus the best thing to do would be to hold another FfD in line with process and let a wider group discuss this as it has now gained the attention of the community. --Taelus (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-list at FfD. DRV does not exist in order to determine the appropriateness of the deleted subject for Wikipedia; it exists to determine whether the deletion process (where we do determine the appropriateness) was properly followed. No one is disputing that the deletion was out of process; therefor it must be overturned. However, consensus is unclear as to the appropriateness of the image itself; therefor the image should be listed at FfD, the proper venue for such a discussion. Rami R 08:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn because deletion process was not followed. Whether the image is unencyclopedic or fails NFCC must be determined through the deletion process. Deleting images out of process because the anticipated result of the process does not correspond with one's own opinion is an abuse of administrator tools. I have no opinion about the merits of (and no desire to see) the image itself. Sandstein 08:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as clearly deleted out of process in a highly controversial way. Given the ongoing dispute around the image, and the previous "keep" FfD discussion, this unexpected deletion really feels to me like using admin tools to win a content dispute. ~ mazca ^talk 09:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete (there is nothing to "overturn" here but one admins unwise act). The concept is notable if offensive to some. However, many things are offensive to some. If we stop covering them, Wikipedia loses every usefulness. The image is an extremely effective illustration of the concept. Mere text cannot convey the effect of the image. Thus, the image is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Trout Prodego, restore the image. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, par WP:NOTCENSORED. We have pages of about every sexual organ on Wikipedia, and these pages all include images. The images might be highly offensive to some people (For example, my vandalism patrol left combating censor attempts at Cock ring just yesterday), but they describe the subject in a way that words cannot. A similar problem arises atDepictions of Muhammad, which is again highly offensive to a group of people, yet again we keep images citing the uncensored rule. I think that we can therefor conclude that we don't remove images on the basis of perceived grossness and not liking it.

This leaves us with the issue if the image actually adds anything to the article, or if it has any encyclopedic value. I would argue that any press coverage generated for Goatse.cx is due to this particular image. Hence, the only reason why we cover the subject altogether is because it received press coverage due to that specific image. I would therefor argue that the image has value for the article - gross as the image might be. As argued before we can of course just link it, but couldn't we do the same on every other questionable page? As for scaring our userbase: The images on the Gangrene page are in my eyes even more nauseating then this image, but we keep those visible as well. So yes, we already present out users with quite a bit of.... questionable content.

Apart from the image matters we have policies to deal with these kind of situations. The image was kept at an IFD procedure, and as the medcab case signifies deletion without discussion is controversial. This is NOT a case where WP:IAR / WP:SNOW should be applied, nor a matter of red tape. Overriding policy should only be done if there is clear consensus, or if certain actions are not controversial, and that is not the case here. We wrote our policies, and if we wish to change our policy we can do so as well. Discuss this, and if the discussion warrant it change the policy, and acts on its new content - but not the other way around. How long do you think it would take for me to be banned if i create a new account and start CSD'ing a bunch of pages for WP:NOT criteria, stating WP:IAR? In my eyes this is entire issue is just a big WP:IDONTLIKEIT topic, were people vote on personal opinions. See also the Encyclopedia Dramatica AFD's, where lots of editors argued it should be removed due to personal offense, and not due to it breaking the rules. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn let the currect MedCab run its course and then maybe argue again afterwards. There's no point in having the same discussion on a hundred different forums. I think it should be considered lucky that there's a MedCab at all. At any rate, this was a serious abuse of admin 'powers'. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undelete per DGG's arguments. It's a revolting image and I'm unconvinced we need an article on it at all (to all extents and purposes, the website is the image, so the "this article is about the website not the image" arguments are meaningless). However, as long as the article does exist, it's clearly fair use to illustrate it. It's not the job of a Wikipedia admin to unilaterally decide what the dividing line between "art" and "pornography" is and to demand that everyone else on the site follow their particular prejudice. – iride scent 10:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, obviously. Being an admin doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want against consensus. Even if you think an image is "egregiously unencyclopedic", you still need to use the proper channels like everyone else. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hans Adler, Risker and Hesperian. Seems to me like a classic case of red tape getting in the way of common sense - one of the other WP:NOTs is that WP is not a bureaucracy. Orderinchaos 11:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & undelete I don't think that the IAR policy was meant to be used in this way. From reading all of this as an outsider, it seems that an administrator ignored the community and acted on his/her own opinions which is not acceptable at all. Let the discussions continue, but return the image first. Administrators are not supposed to have more or less of an opinion than any other editor, lets show this by reversing the action taken. I have seen this image somewhere, don't remember where, and yes it's gross to me. I have uploaded some medical images that are also seen to some as being gross too, yet the images are still in the articles like they should be. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as strictly out of process. An admin executing summary judgment while the image is under good-faith dispute resolution is not appropriate and prejudges the outcome of that process. –xeno^talk 12:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, gratuitous or decorative use of non-free content. Failure to include this does not in any measurable way degrade the project. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, unambiguously out of process deletion. That said I'd be just as happy for Jimmy or the foundation to make explicitly clear that this isn't part of the proejct's mandate. This is a non-free image that we don't need. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, as so many write, "while I make no comment on the file in question, this deletion was disgusting"; "unambiguously out of process deletion"; "an administrator ignored the community and acted on his/her own opinions which is not acceptable at all", and so forth. A WP:TROUT is called for. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn due to process issues. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse unfree image that does not add any encyclopedic value. Restoring bad images for "process reasons" is simply disruption to prove a point.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - leaving this image deleted endorses (and encourages) cowboy adminship (which simply exacerbates the situation). If the image is to be deleted, it should be done through the appropriate procedures already in place - not a bold unilateral action. –xeno^talk 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn on purely procedural grounds, no prejudice against relisting on IFD. I have no comment on whether or not the image is helpful or suitable for the encyclopedia, but it should not have been deleted while there is an active mediation going on. Disclosure: I'm the mediator. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted.--M4gnum0n (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. We need room for editorial judgment in extreme situations such as this; otherwise, we will never be able to maintain any concept of quality of the encyclopedia. I don't see this as a unilateral action--I see it as an action based on a long-running feeling among reasonable people in the community that this image is not necessary, a feeling that was absolutely right. Chick Bowen 16:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore the image. This was not an emergency, so there was no call for deleting it while discussion was ongoing. For the same reason, this is not the time for de novo review at DRV. ReverendWayne (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete: un-encyclopedic addition which merely replicates the shock site in wikipedia space.--Ludwigs2 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn by all means have a discussion over whether or not to delete. Can't see what's changed since last time, although I suppose there is more input from other users now. As this page clearly shows, there is dissagreement between users including sysops. Users are given sysop tools so they can use them for the best of the encyclopedia, which is decided on by the community, not to mention an ongoing mediation cabal. If Progego thinks it should be removed that doesn't mean it's what should happen. A decision like this should be a community one, whether or not people want the image deleted. We can't have a proper discussion about the image if there's no file page on it. Jolly Ω Janner 16:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Like most image deletion discussions, this one has unfortunately been rather binary; should the image be kept or deleted. There are always ways to use a non-free image while minimizing that use, and consequently its visual impact--such as by reducing it in size or making it black and white--that do not remove relevant information. A thumbnail size b&w copy of this image (noting in the caption that the original was in color) could communicate all relevant information while significantly reducing its shock value. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that desaturation would be rather a poor measure, as if we can't use the right image, there's really no point using an image at all. Also, to respond to people saying we should just take a photo of our own backsides - we're not going to use, oh, let's say a picture of George W Bush just because we couldn't get a picture of Obama, and what the hell, they're both presidents so it's close enough, right? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement on the substitute picture argument. But regarding desaturation, it's a sure way to both strengthen compliance with NFCC#3 (not to mention the underlying legal fair use claim) by using less of the original work and its creative elements, if the color is not important information; the same would go for reducing an image to the minimum resolution that it is still informationally useful, or cropping an image down to just the relevant part. A prime example of an appropriate desaturation would be a non-free image used to depict a deceased person. By contrast, most uses of non-free art images could not be desaturated without losing important information. I guess it could be argued here (at the risk of sounding crass) that the redness of the orifice is central to this image's "information." But that's a matter for discussion, and it's at least worth considering these alternatives. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong overturn as per WP:NOT#Censored. This image has been discussed before and the consensus was clearly to keep. It is precisely this image that made the site notable, and the reader must see the image to fully understand the controversy over the site. it is therefor highly encyclopedic. Deletion was completely out of process. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment. A major problem I'm seeing with this DRV is that many participants are treating it as a de novo deletion discussion. The sole issue that should be discussed here is whether the speedy deletion was appropriate. If it was not, then the file should be restored and anyone can then list it at FFD for a full discussion. This is the only proper scope and subject matter of this review, because while FFD requires a consensus to delete an image, DRV requires a consensus to undelete an image. If this is then treated just as a garden variety deletion discussion rather than a review of the deletion that occurred, then the unilateral actions of one admin would have shifted the burden of consensus, effectively deciding the issue by weighting the result in favor of deletion, such that a no consensus result would default to keep deleted rather than keep. Throwing the odds like that seems an invitation for speedy deletion of all sorts of objectionable material rather than going through the process of XFDs. postdlf (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Risker, unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia doesn't overrule NFCC. Q ^{T C} 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion was not carried out on NFCC grounds but asserted to be because it was an "inappropriate, unencyclopedic image". If informal mediation had stalled, formal mediation or arbitration was the next step, not unilateral action. If NFCC is truly a concern apart from the odious nature of the image, list at FFD. –xeno^talk 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yay for process wank?~~ End result is the same -> deleted picture. it's gone now, Process complete. Q ^{T C} 17:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you be so sure the image will be (would have been) deleted at FFD? –xeno^talk 17:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yay for anarchy?~~ End result would be unknown -> No certain outcome. Besides, NFCC lists a total of 10 points. Mind enlightening me which it fails in your opinion? I see point 8 has been claimed and refuted several times for example, so deleting it as WP:IAR is nonsensical. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion it might pass 8, but it mine it doesn't. There is nothing in that picture that helps explain anything more then is already in the article. Q ^{T C} 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn restore, continue in-process discussion. Out of process, and this forum isn't for debating the merits of the image, only of the process.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oveturn. As this discussion is solely about the process followed in the deletion, really the only relevant policy here is WP:IAR. Some editors are mentioning NFCC#1 and no doubt that is relevant to a discussion about the fate of the image, but that is not why the image was deleted, rather WP:IAR was the (implicit) rationale. There was nothing abusive in that actually, and I understand why Prodego decided to go that route. However (and unfortunately many folks don't recognize this) IAR must always be paired with WP:CONSENSUS. That is, when any editor ignores a rule in order to improve the project it must either: A) Be so trivial or non-controversial that no one even bothers to discuss it, i.e. a tacit endorsement from the community; B) Garner a rough consensus in agreement with the action after the fact, i.e. much of the community thinks it was a good application of IAR and says so. It's obvious that without pairing WP:IAR with WP:CON we would have chaos, with anyone able to ignore any rule at any time. So the deleting admin was perfectly within their right to be bold and take an out of process action which seemed in the best interests of the encyclopedia, but afterward invoking WP:IAR the ignorer-of-rules must let the chips fall where the may. This discussion seems to show a pretty strong consensus that this particular application of WP:IAR was not appropriate, and as such the deletion rationale would seem to be invalid (which, oddly, we can really only determine after the fact when IAR is invoked—had the current consensus here been that this was a righteous action then I would be arguing to endorse on the same grounds described above). Please note that this comment is most certainly not an effort to be wonkish or to limit the utility of WP:IAR. I think WP:IAR is still one of the most important policies we have and it can be incredibly useful, but it simply cannot be separated from the "consensus based" decision making process that we generally use around here. Finally like others I would encourage a return to FfD (and/or a continuation of the MedCab case) which would surely receive more eyes and comments given this discussion. I would hope some kind of compromise can be worked out, or a consensus arrived at that an external link to the image is more than sufficient for our purposes (that's how I feel). If the deletion kick-started a discussion that results in a consensus-based decision then it was useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Out-of-process deletion with no support by policy. Woogee (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, I don't like the image either, but it's what the page made famous, so it should definitely be in the article. Wikipedia isn't censored and there are other disguisting images here on Wikipedia as well. If you don't want to see them, install Adblock Plus and block the images. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Prodego and Hesperian. There is no reason why this can't just be substituted with text. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & restore I'll add to the other arguments in favor of restoring this image that the appropriateness of this image has a long, contentious history to it; ISTR a thread on the ENWikipedia-l mailing list about it when I still followed it (i.e. before 2006). Invoking WP:IAR in this instance only serves to prolong the discussion & drive the opposing views apart, not resolve the conflict. That said, I'd like to state on the record that Prodego was undoubtedly acting in good faith, & that AFAIK no one is voting "keep" because they enjoy looking at the image. -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, per Sceptre.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - copyvio, non-encyclopedic, and - well - please --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - While process may have been a bit atypical, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The image is non-free, fails NFCC, and this is a perfectly valid application of WP:IAR. I see no benefit to a restoration. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, with comment After reviewing this a bit more, I realize that the situation was much more controversial than I originally understood, and thus I don't think WP:IAR is appropriate. IAR and consensus go hand-in-hand. That being said, I see no encyclopedic gain from this image and wholly endorse deletion on the grounds that it has been deleted and I don't see a good reason to bring it back, however I redact my endorsement above on the grounds that IAR should not have been applied here and going to IFD would have been more appropriately. This does not, however, mean that I agree with overturning, because I see no gain to that except adherence to red tape, which is wholly in violation of WP:BURO. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Just because we can (by NOTCENSORED), does not mean we should. My main reason for wanting the image removed is to avoid exciting some editors who interpret pictures like this as an invitation to add other shock stuff to other articles. Removing this picture does not set a precedent that other shock stuff should be removed (we always debate each case on its merits), but it does set a precedent that the community can choose to remove a shock image if that is judged appropriate for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we "make an example" out of this image, even if it might be encyclopedic? –xeno^talk 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. For brevity I failed to explain that I agree with those who have stated that the picture is not encyclopedic (it might have some encyclopedic value in an article on anus elasticity or whatever, if presented with other verified anatomical information). Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I understand where you are coming from. I just had a frightening flash-forward to Wikipedia 2020 where we were debating whether the out-of-process deletion of the 2girls1cup video excerpt was appropriate. –xeno^talk 01:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS, xeno... Equazcion ^(talk) 04:30, 23 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Endorse - It's deleted now, for better or for worse. Restoring it at this point means endorsing copyvio. Whether it was a justifiable delete or not is immaterial at this point, because it's gone now. If it is going to be restored there needs to be some justification for using an image that fails NFCC There Is No Cabal (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— There Is No Cabal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— actually, I've edited and commented several times under my IP address. The new account was unrelated to the current issue. With that said, how does that reflect on anything? I'm pretty sure everyone knows Goatse, and I've been following the article for some time. There Is No Cabal (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

If this is your first account, then allow me to welcome you to Wikipedia. The tag is applied whenever a user's first edits are to a community discussion. It is for the convenience of the closing admin. Do you agree that Goatse is perhaps (as of the Internet age) the world's "most notable anus"? If so, does that warrant a Wikipedia article? If so, isn't an image not the clearest way to convey information about this topic? The fair use claims may demand examination at the proper venue, but DRV ain't it. "Copyvio" has yet to be determined, and a fair-use claim here seems to satisfy all 10 criteria. –xeno^talk 01:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to FfD. I can accept a good faith IAR decision to delete, but it's clearly contested now by a range of editors, reasons presented for deletion above are clearly contested as well, so it needs a consensus (and that was actually to be expected). In an FfD, I can see myself following Mkativerata argument that Wikipedia is a better place without it, even though the NFC would certainly allow it. Nonetheless, this is not the place to find such consensus. Amalthea 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist at FfD. I cast this vote with reluctance, as I firmly agree that this image should be deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a shock site, and that this non-free image does not significantly enhance reader understanding of the topic. The text of the Goatse.cx article conveys what the image shows perfectly well, so we really ought not include this just for the sake of including it.
However, Prodego deleted this image out of process, when (a) no speedy deletion criteria applied, (b) there was no consensus for deletion established, and (c) the image's inclusion was the subject of hot debate in a MedCab case. WP:IAR should not have been invoked in such controversial circumstances, even if the MedCab case had stalled out for a week or more. While I agree with Prodego's motives and respect his boldness in approaching the problem, it was unacceptable for him to delete under those circumstances without consensus at FfD. (Indeed, the image has been kept at past FfDs, making this deletion even less proper. Is the image a copyvio? That's not a matter for DRV, but a discussion elsewhere can establish consensus on that question.)
I propose, therefore, to overturn the deletion and immediately relist at FfD. Due to the size of this controversy, it would be best to have a high-participation FfD to consider questions of WP:NFCC compliance and other issues. This FfD should be advertised on the article talk page, at WP:VPM, WT:WikiProject Internet culture, WT:WikiProject Pornography, and WT:WikiProject Websites. If the image is kept at FfD, I encourage those involved in the MedCab case to revive their discussion. if the image is deleted, perhaps that case should be closed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 5)Weak/Procedural Overturn Quite honestly, although I agree with the deletion (from what I've seen/heard) there isn't adequate concensus that this was the correct move. Suggest image be undeleted, then immediately be sent to FFD. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn You can't ignore previous consensus through IAR without extremely valid justification. The issues with this image were already debated and there was no consensus to delete the image. A relisting at FfD would be the proper way to delete this image. Them From Space 01:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - While I have sympathy with those who prefer that objectionable images should be used with great discretion, and my own concerns about opening the floodgates to those kinds of photos, I believe in this case, because of the internet actions connected with the image, it should be restored, and use of it controlled through the restriction list. The deletion was clearly out of process, which is hardly even disputed (higher standards being claimed to justify the action), so there is plenty of reason to overturn. I think we cause more damage to ourselves by these disputes, then we will suffer by having the image in stock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as failing requirements for fair use. Risker explained it well; and may I add, the article is about goatse.cx, while this image is of goatse.fr, a semi-mirror which isn't even exactly the same as the original, making the fair use justification even more dubious. Fran Rogers ❇ 03:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument I would give due consideration to at FFD, but this was not the reason for the original deletion. As such, your vote really ought read "Keep deleted on other grounds" rather than Endorse (and this goes for a good deal of the endorsers above) - because Prodego did not delete on invalid fair-use grounds. –xeno^talk 13:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when the image is restored, I believe the main article should be renamed simply "goatse", as the subject matter and notoriety thereof centers around the image, not on the literal website. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the .fr mirror is not good enough, we can always use the Internet Archive as a source for the screenshot. Remco47 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn This is not the venue for arguing whether or not this is acceptable fair use. The community was not convinced of that argument at the last in process deletion discussion. If necessary, IfD it again. There's no compelling policy reason for Prodego's action. Nor is there any compelling policy reason to keep the image deleted. We have policies for a reason. One major one is that so we can amicably resolve disputes or major disagreements in the community. Out of process deletions just further fan flames. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as Risker states, this would seem to run afoul of NFCC#1. Also, while I agree there's NOTCENSORED to consider, I don't think is really a censorship issue. If someone were to go to vulva for instance, one would assume that the viewer wouldn't be surprised by finding pictures of vulvas there. The same doesn't necessarily hold here, since I would think the average reader would want to know "why is this site shocking?". That's a question that can be answered with words and links, without a need for non-free images. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone think that Vulva had pictures of a gaping vulva? Also: any question can be answered with words and links. That does not mean every non-free image fails NFCC #1. Remco47 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was not deleted per NFCC.1; as DRV deals with procedure, the fact that it may or may not fail NFCC.1 is irrelevant to overturning Prodego's deletion. Sometimes it is okay to use DRV to circumvent a future XfD, such as when the result of such an XfD is a foregone conclusion, but I think to do so in this case is not acceptable. It ought to be restored and sent to FfD if someone wishes, so that the NFCC.1 issue may be discussed at FfD, where it should be, rather than at DRV. (As a side note about NFCC.1, this is one of the few cases in which the image itself is iconic; as such, it is not replaceable by text.) ÷seresin 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Deleted while discussion was on going. Also, unless its determined that this image's Fair use rationale is invalid there is no reason do delete it. Acer (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Deleted against consensus. Take it to IfD if you want to reexamine consensus. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and restore It had survived a IfD, we don't delete images just because they are offensive. The application of NCFF#1 is argueable and many are opposing it (there was even a RfC on removing the image that included discussion of NFCC#1. You couldn't use NFCC#1 as a speedy deletion rationale because it's not a clear-cut case and if had been argued in the RfC and the IfD, and in both cases the image had stayed. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Notcensored doesn't have to mean needlessly disgusting for the same of arguing that we are not censored. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But I do think it does mean that "disgusting" shouldn't be the main reason to delete. I think we all would agree that we wouldn't be having this debate if it weren't disgusting--the arguments to keep it are pretty strong (the iconic image of a notable website). It NOTCENSORED doesn't protect this (assuming we agree it is an otherwise ligit image), what does it protect? Hobit (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The phrase I used was needlessly disgusting. NOTCENSORED should be an argument for retaining encyclopaedic content not being vile for the sake of being vile. Last time I looked, our aim was to be educational and I think there has to be a compelling educational argument for the use of an image like this. Some things can only be demonstrated by an image but this isn't one of them and retaining this is really nothing more then doing it because we can, not because we have to use this non-free and improperly licensed image to demonstrate something that words alone cannot convey. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The image is non-free, but not improperly licensed. Fair use is easily satisfied in a case of an iconic image. Remco47 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm using licensed in the wrong way. What I mean is that we don't actually know who the license belongs to and what the proper license actually should be. I hope this clarification is useful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In case you were confused, Deletion Review is not XfD Round Two. This is purely a discussion on the propriety of an administrator ignoring both a prior XfD and an ongoing mediation case, summarily deleting an image not because of non-free policy, but because of personal opinion that it was "egregiously unencyclopedic". Tarc (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you so much for explaining the purpose of DRV to me. I must confess after being a regular here since before BDJ quit that the purpose of this page and the rules of engagement had completely escaped me. Or maybe not, and you just disgaree with the view that I chose to express. I'm clearly too stupid to understand what I'm supposed to say here so you decide what it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Apparently they have escaped you, and several others, as we see some arguing about why the image should be kept or deleted, and not about reviewing the deleting administrator's actions. But hey, it's your time to waste. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "NOTCENSORED should be an argument for retaining encyclopaedic content ... there has to be a compelling educational argument for the use of an image like this." At least two prior discussions (an FFD discussion and an RfC) came to the conclusion that the use of this image in the context of the article was encyclopaedic and thus educational. There was an ongoing mediation over whether the use of the image was appropriate. Yet despite this one administrator took it upon themselves to speedy delete the image outside of process because they personally didn't think it encyclopaedic (despite consensus saying it is). Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there a reason I am being badgered so firmly here? Perhaps its just because its the last vote. I'm entitled to express my view whether you agree with it or not. The closing admin will, I'm sure do a bit better then counting heads and will be more then capable of evaluating the weight they choose to give my argument. But then I could be wrong because I clearly have no understanding of how DRV works, am making the wrong argument and wasting my time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I'm the one that started it, and yeah I suspect that !voting after a day of quiet set this off. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment <ec> Assuming, for the moment, that this image would be kept were it not disgusting, should it be deleted because it is disgusting? I claim that NOTCENSORED says "no". The bar for keeping this image should be no higher or lower because it is (highly) disgusting. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that. Whether the image is "disgusting" (a highly subjective quality) or not should be completely irrelevant in determining it's encyclopaedicness. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said disgusting. I said needlessly disgusting. There is a big difference and if you are to challenge what I say, at least do me the courtesy of actually responding to what I said. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I intentionally de-indented and reworded after the edit conflict in an attempt to address what I saw as the basic reason Risker et al were arguing to delete. Further, I'm saying that if it weren't gross we'd keep it then we should keep it--gross or disgusting whatever shouldn't matter at all. I claim that's exactly what WP:NOTCENSORED says. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close for the sake of expedience / convenience break

Overturn It's quite clear that the deleting admin had personal objections to the image as well as some other problems with it. However, IFD already returned a keep and in deleting it, this action seems as if the admin did not like what the community returned, so he deleted it himself as if he were superior in judgement, a bad case of adminitis. Regardless of the picture's merits, this deletion was clearly out of line for such a decidedly not noncontroversial issue. I would like to motion for an uninvolved admin to bring this to a close and restore the image.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second this motion to close. It's obvious this needs to go to WP:FFD, because any attempt at a final decision here is going to be hotly challenged anyway. No point standing around continuing to kick dirt on eachother. Someone restore the image, and let's get on with it. For those who like counting heads, it's 48-24 in favour of overturning/undeleting with a good number of the endorsers admitting that the deletion was at least somewhat out of process. –xeno^talk 05:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this can be closed now - the activity on this DRV has died and there's a clear consensus to overturn. I must say though that "no consensus default to no anus" has some appeal! --Mkativerata (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Spartaz has quite rightly pointed out that DRVs should remain open for seven days. I didn't know that. Those of us who argue process should have been followed here can't turn around and ask for an early closure of this hotly contested DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV never should have occured in the first place, the deletion being so clearly out of process. Swift consensus to overturn should have been obtained at ANI, the image restored, and sent on to FFD. For whatever reason, Durova ~~felt the need to stifle~~ closed the ANI discussion and bring it here where the result was a foregone conclusion from the start. This image should be discussed on its merits (or lack thereof), and untangled from the discussion of Prodego's unilateral act. –xeno^talk 13:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I raised this motion at AN and it was declined by User:Shereth [3]. –xeno^talk 14:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Xeno has no excuse for presuming to speak on my behalf in any way. Please do not put words in my mouth again.~~ Durova⁴¹² 22:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Durova⁴¹² 23:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the result - Wikipedia shouldn't aspire to be 4chan. No, the proper deletion process was not followed, but the other processes in play right now seem to have stalled. This isn't the best way of breaking the deadlock, but I approve of the end result. It shouldn't be this hard to get images of distended anuses removed from mainspace. I blame Obama. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They've stalled because they lack consensus. On the hopefully off-chance that this DrV gets closed as "endorse" do you seriously believe that bypassing consensus like this will have been a net win for this encyclopedia? Should admins take action when they don't have consensus in the hope that DrV will endorse that action? I'd think that way would lie chaos. I don't see a good reason not to follow process and let this be discussed at FfD rather than DrV when we all agree process was not followed (which is what DrV is supposed to be figuring out). Hobit (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They lack consensus to either keep or remove the image, with no end in sight. Same discussions, over and over. In the event of a split decision, it's my personal belief that Wikipedia should generally default to "no anuses". Speaking strictly of the deletion action itself, I don't agree with it and it's hopefully not an example to be followed, but I think it serves this particular situation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your default plan amused me. :-) That said, we only delete things if there is consensus to do so. Lacking that... Hobit (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sometimes, I find doing the right thing in the wrong way is the only way to get anything done. Fundamentally policies, guidelines, and processes are established ways of doing things to help the project. They aren't perfect, and they don't always work. If there is a way to have a net positive impact, don't let process stand in your way. You shouldn't ignore process for no reason - but when you can see that has become bogged down with little hope of a productive outcome, then perhaps just doing something is a better way to resolve the problem. I try only to take those sorts of actions when I believe I am Right™. I've been around a fair amount of time, and usually I'm correct. Sometimes I'm not. But either way something more is accomplished than if we had endlessly argued about it. I respect the opinion to endorse the deletion, and I respect the opinion that the deletion was out of process (it was) and that the image should stay. I do not respect the opinion the image should be deleted, but that it should be restored for an IfD. Process is a tool for getting something done, either the image should be deleted, or not, it doesn't matter how it happened. Prodego ^talk 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I find that doing the right thing(tm) in the wrong way leads to a bad place. At best you piss people off because you ignore process and trample on them (actual people who don't think you are so right that you get to be special) to get that right thing done. At the worst you really screw it up. There is no need for this discussion to be here rather than at FfD, where it belongs. In any case, at the end of the day, all this does is prolong the discussion, not shorten it. Hobit (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's very sad if with so many participants we can't even get a clear consensus here that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I am aware that this is not only because so many believe that, yes, Wikipedia is a shock site, but mostly because of the large number of people who believe that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. Still, it's very sad.

I wonder if there is any way to get rid of the bureaucrats and 4chaners and just restart the project with the encyclopedists. With flagged revisions, of course, so that we don't need the silly warrior caste. But obviously this would require Foundation action, so it's not going to happen before the problem gets even more pressing. Hans Adler 07:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRVs get closed after 7 days unless there is a compelling reasons and I'm not seeing a compelling anything here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think (well, I hope) we all agree it's an encyclopedia. Some of us just want broader coverage. Others want to recreate the World Book Encyclopedia. I don't understand why, given all we can be, that people are so interested in recreating something you can buy for a few hundred dollars, but people do odd things. :-) Hobit (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with deletion. We should not be hosting sexually explicit images without the model's consent. While I guess that the subject consented to have that image displayed on a shock site, I am not so convinced he would consent to have it displayed on one of the most widely viewed websites on the internet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, per WP:IAR. --Conti|✉ 10:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't close this early even though in the face of such blatant misuse of administrator tools it should be closed and the image restored now. But early closes just cause histrionics and hissy fits all around, so there'll be less overall eDrama if we just let this linger til the 29th. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 2

Comment: Whether or not this image passes NFCC#1 (which it pretty clearly does not, in my opinion), there has been a long, consensus-backed history for excluding this particular image from Wikipedia. In 2005, a vote was held on the article talk page that overwhelmingly supported using an external link to the image rather than including it inline. Subsequent uploads of the image were generally treated as CSD G4 (re-uploads of deleted content) or CSD G3 (vandalism), for example File:G4tv.jpg, File:Goatse.jpg, File:Hello.jpg, and File:Goatse.png. The system administrators went as far as to ban this particular image from being uploaded at the server level (grep "UploadBlacklist" here). Until very recently, it has been unequivocal that this image was not appropriate for Wikipedia. Past deletion discussions and deletion reviews, such as Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 15, have strongly supported not including this image on Wikipedia. In that particular case, the Community was faced with a nearly identical situation (a speedy deletion followed by a Deletion review) and the Deletion review strongly upheld the speedy deletion. Even joke depictions of Goatse, like File:Goatse.gif, File:Times goatse.JPG, and File:Goatse.JPG have all been deleted. Any administrator who deletes this image (speedily or not) does so with consensus on their side. While consensus can change, there's been no evidence to suggest that it has. The past discussions have all pointed in the same direction. I don't see any reason for this discussion to point elsewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm -interesting. How did it sneak back in? –xeno^talk 15:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current consensus seems to be no consensus. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that many of those past versions of this image were uploaded purely for vandalism uses. I think that the discussion of the usage of this image in this specific article should be left untainted (pun mildly unintended) by past transgressions. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A three-week discussion on the talk page last July came to the result that the image could be used in the context as a screenshot of a website, hidden by default using the excuse of it being standard practice on other website articles. The image was unhidden for the same reason (as most website articles had unhidden screenshots) last October. Between July and October, there were no objections on the talk page to its use in the article (as it was hide-on-default); most of the objections have come since it was unhidden. When it was deleted by Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) last October for fair-use concerns, he undeleted as he recognized that there was a consensus for use in some way. The addition of the image also reflects a recent willingness to apply NOTCENSORED to the fringey sex articles, most notably Autofellatio. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This DRV seems in favour of the image (atleast on the grounds of it being deleted wrongly in the first place) 2-to-1. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion_{and salt the sonofabitch while your at it !}: This image is not free and is cannot be licensed as there's no proper attribution, a lot of sites say they own that image. That criteria alone excludes it from wikipedia. Second, it's not encyclopedic by any means. I heartily endorse deletion based on WP:IAR. _{by the way, to the guy that suggested taking a picture of yer own ass: I'd do it, but the lens on my camera is no where near wide enough for that :P}KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution is clear - goatse.cx via goatse.fr. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - I have found and sent a message to the person whose anus we all know and love, seeing if he would be willing to license the image under a compatible license, to eliminate the NFCC concerns. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm now completely confused as to what the intent of this Deletion Review is. I have already called to overturn the decision based on procedural grounds, but now it seems that the discussion has officially moved to matters of content. So now I will call to overturn again, but now on the basis of content:

Argument 1: I believe the image passes NFCC, because it has an extensive and precise fair use rationale, and it is an iconic screenshot related to the subject.

Argument 2: The image has value, exactly because it is an iconic image. It tells you in a microsecond exactly what the nature and extent of the phenomenon is.

Argument 3: I don't believe the issue of offensiveness should have any effect on our decisions.

Conclusion: These three arguments combined constitute for me an undeniable reason for the image to be reinstated. It does not fail NFCC, it does have value, and offensiveness should not enter into it. Remco47 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks are trying to turn this into a de novo review of the image. The closing administrator will surely dismiss these positions as malplaced. –xeno^talk 18:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to the edit summaries (see history, for those who have now lost all comprehension of this DRV):

Since this page tries to tackle two issues at once, I think all should have the opportunity to state their stance on each of the issues. Some administrators have already expressed the view that in light of WP:IAR, apparent consensus around content should be taken into account. This is biased towards deletion, since most of the overturn arguments are based around procedure, while literally every endorse argument is based on the content. Remco47 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not rely on anyone's any preconceptions about what an IfD would decide on this--my own is that it would end as non-consensus. S But there's essentially complete consensus here that this particular way of doing it was wrong. But the opinion of an admin on whether it ought ultimately to be deleted is worth no more than anybody else's. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, it certainly is worth the time to discuss whether the image is worthy of inclusion. if we decide the image should be deleted anyway, there is no sense in resurrecting it. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on that, actually. As can be seen here, what we have is some editors arguing that circles are better than squares, and others arguing that zebras are tastier than llamas. In other words, people thing they're on opposing "sides" when in reality they're discussing two completely unrelated things. So, we're better off keeping DRV about process and XFD about appropriateness. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... that smacks of a 'foot in the door' argument - i.e. "We had the image in, and there's a serious chance we might not be able to get the image back in if we allow it to be deleted, so we must find some technical grounds to prevent it from being deleted." Great tactic if you're selling encyclopedias, not so good if you're writing them. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so please don't try to justify content decisions with a "them's the rules" argument. --Ludwigs2 03:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that this DRV consists of two separate discussions?

Do you agree that many editors have participated in one discussion but not the other, and vice versa?

Do you agree that this makes it very difficult to establish consensus for either of these discussions at all?

Do you agree that splitting these discussions up according to procedures, would make it easier to establish consensus for both discussions? Remco47 (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The two are inextricably interlinked. The quantity of discussion on the procedural issue is prompted by the content of the image (an image which seems to have obsessed Wikipedians one way or another for some five years); and the breach of procedure was prompted by the impossibility of gaining consensus on the content. Endorse by the way, because only children (or perhaps very sheltered adults) would need to see the image to understand the article: the motivation for supporting inclusion of the image seems to be an abstract insistence that Wikipedia censor nothing, no matter how offensive; its value is an icon for that argument, but it has no value to the article or encyclopedic value at all.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

yes KD, you're right. and reinstating the image on procedural grounds is going to do nothing to solve the problem implicit in the image itself, so we might as well ignore the procedural issue and get down to the real debate. --Ludwigs2 02:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that 'the real debate' is not happening right now, and that the procedural debate is distracting from it? In that case, do you see the problem of having two discussions at once? There is a 2:1 ratio of people who want to overturn. But we don't know whether it is on procedural grounds, or on content grounds, or both. We can not predict how the consensus would turn out if we would start the real debate. Remco47 (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remco: I've been stuck in mediation over this for a long time now, so I've lost all sympathy with procedural arguments. The fact is, as long as this image is on wikipedia, advocates for it's inclusion will not discuss the matter, and they will not listen to any argument about removing it. The will simply turn to NOT#CENSORED and IDONTLIKEIT and other procedural grounds to wiki-lawyer all arguments away. That is what they have done for the entire time that I've been trying to discuss the issue, and (as I understand it) for a very long time before. screw that. the image is deleted: they now have an incentive to engage in discussion and to make some argument about how it he image improves wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If they do so convincingly, so that there is a consensus that the image is needed, then (and only then) should the deletion be overturned. otherwise we will just be back to the same old wiki-lawyering advocacy that that this image has always had. --Ludwigs2 13:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem at this point, is that there is no idea what the next step would be if this action was endorsed. There is no venue for discussion of an image that doesn't exist yet. There is no "Image for Upload". In case of of an "endorse" outcome, the only thing you could do is just be bold and upload the image again, and then everything that happened before, will happen again. So, that's probably why the overturners find procedure to be important: there is no next step. If this action is overturned, then you can be sure there will be an IfD immediately following that. And that will definitely have the same participation as this DRV has had, hopefully without the procedural noise. Remco47 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct at all. The next step (if proponents choose to make it) would be to go back to the article talk page and start a new thread (or an RfC, if they like) saying that they want to include such-and-such an image on the page, and presenting a set of reasons why they think the image would be useful. Then we could examine their reasons for wanting to use the image, discuss the matter, and if the consensus is that we do want to use the image, it can be re-uploaded with an explanation that consensus has been reached on its use. read wp:BURO - policy exists to supplement consensus; policy is not there to supplant consensus. --Ludwigs2 13:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems reasonable. So, this DRV will decide whether we'll go to IfD or Talk to continue the debate. Remco47 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, missed this one. For reference, endorse deletion, per the above (endorsements). Ale_Jrb ^talk 00:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn adding my name to the 2 to 1 already who want this overturned. I hate this image, but I believe that wikipedia is not censored more. Okip 02:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 March 2010[edit]