Forum:Deletion of disputed images

Forums → Ten Forward → Deletion of disputed images (reply • watch)

31dot, I'm asking you as a neutral admin to deal with this: diff. As you can see, Archduk3 removed this discussion - although he was involved in the discussion and as such should not resolve it - although there wasn't even a consensus for deletion - although he himself claims that images without proper citation (of which there's one in the image history) mustn't be deleted but instead be added to some category - and without archiving the discussion anywhere. He also removed other traces of the discussion we had, including existing usages of these images: [1], File Talk:Map alpha quadrant.jpg. All of that is very much out of line for an admin, so I feel it is necessary to get involved. I also cross-posted this to sulfur. If you don't care about getting involved, let me know soon. -- Cid Highwind 19:44, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Will be looking at shortly. --31dot 20:55, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in and also for your comments on User talk:Archduk3. I know that it can be tiring to read this as an uninvolved party, but at the same time, I'm very sure that this initial action (blocking for an insult) - although deserved - will not help much in the long run. The issue is not whether I'm called "a giant dick" now, or "an idiot" some weeks ago (which apparently did not set off any alarms throughout the whole administration of this wiki) - the issue is that AD is very good at bullying his way through discussions and anything else to achieve what he thinks is a proper way, all others be damned. This happened to me in this whole image deletion charade and also in a recent FA discussion, this happened to sulfur when he asked AD to not add major changes to our live CSS without prior discussion and (recently) to not make wide-reaching edits to templates and/or categories without letting other people know in advance. It also happened to several users, some of which complained about it already. Unless that behaviour stops - or is stopped by others - the effect of having to read through all this crap again and again will not stop, either.

So, I repeat the plea to get (and stay) involved here, and to not let your involvement end with this proverbial slap on the wrist. To clarify, because my first comment had been misinterpreted already: I'm not asking you to babysit and just hand out further blocks. Instead, I'm asking you to join discussions early and stick with them, so that those don't simply end in an "AD vs. me" situation. The current problem is a good example of something that needs admin involvement:

It ended with AD deleting an image that he himself brought up for deletion - which is problem #1 already. In the past, we had the informal agreement to not delete stuff that one brought up for deletion himself. This is expressed as a "rule of thumb" in our deletion policy and perhaps (suggestion #1) should be turned into a more authoritative rule that forbids doing so in case of controversial suggestions.

Problem #2 is the fact that the discussion apparently didn't lead to any consensus yet (among other things because the policy discussion started from that deletion suggestion didn't lead anywhere for lack of participation of other people) but was still ended against even a majority - in addition, the deletion of those images as "unused" ist just plain wrong, because they still were used 4 minutes prior to their deletion.

Problem #3, and this is the real issue here, I guess - deleting these images even contradicts what AD put forth in the policy discussion. The only thing that can be called anything like an outcome is the idea that "uncited images mustn't be deleted but removed from articles and collected in an image category". If being unused is still a proper reason to delete images after that, then the whole idea doesn't make any sense, obviously. The idea applies here, because older revisions of the deleted images were "uncited" - me trying to deal that very fact started this whole thing (so, suggestion #2: participate in the now-inactive discussion about how to deal with images). This is what I tried to show by temporarily undeleting one of the deleted images and reverting it to its earlier revision, before AD intervened - perhaps trying to force me into a "deletion edit war", I don't know. In any case, suggestion #3: clarify if or if not admins should be allowed to temporarily undelete pages or images if they are considered necessary for a discussion - because this has happened several times in the past already without it leading to controversies, so I don't see how this time should be an exception to that.

BTW, if you think that this is better handled on a central forum page, of course feel free to move this there. -- Cid Highwind 12:45, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

I will address your points and then follow with some thoughts:

1) Regarding your first suggestion, if you wish to propose that, please do so on the appropriate page. I'm not sure the idea is necessary but I don't want to get into that on this page. We're dealing with too much here already.

2)I had already told Archduk here that I felt no consensus or other formal resolution had been reached in that discussion, and as such I will be restoring the discussion on those grounds only. Personally I would have posted a notice before proceeding with such a deletion of controversial material, if doing it myself at all. I am not taking sides on that point; it's simply what I would have done personally. As a result I will also be restoring the images that were deleted because, as I said, no consensus was reached on their disposition.

3) That point should be resolved as part of the restored discussion and I won't attempt to do so here.

Now, some other thoughts. I am, frankly, disappointed that I must referee a dispute between a bureaucrat and an administrator who both should know better- and I believe do know better. I am tired of the accusations of sinister motives back and forth between the two of you and I am going to do my best to not pass judgment on such claims. I ask both of you(without asking for an answer- please don't give one), what has happened to assume good faith? What has happened to etiquette? Though I blocked Archduk for the specific action of calling Cid a name, I frankly was getting close to blocking the both of you due to the general disruption your disputes cause. Though I don't wish to do so, I won't hesitate to do so if the back and forth accusations continue, or if name calling is done again. This has gone far enough.

If you all want me to impose a solution for this dispute, I will- but I can't guarantee either or both of you will like it- and I would much rather not do so. If you merely want my opinions on the issue beyond what I've said already- again, I will do so- but either or both of you might not like them. I would much prefer to see the issue about these images discussed calmly and without problems. If you cannot do so at a particular moment, then step away from the keyboard and take a break. The alternative is what I have already stated. This will stop- somehow. I hope it stops due to the actions of both of you resolving it- but I will take action if necessary.--31dot 13:58, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a little too easy to imply a breach of etiquette without allowing me to reply to that, so I will try to do so in a civil way, anyway. I apologize for any case where I did breach etiquette - but next time you observe a case of me doing so, it would be great if you (or anyone else for that matter, this shouldn't become another 2-person discussion) informed me of such. Keep in mind that, although fluent in some sort of "business english", I'm not a native speaker, so some finer implications of the written word might escape me. Where it has been more than that, I think it can be shown that it's most often of the "respond in kind" variety - not something to be proud of, of course, but, again, not being the only person involved in a discussion might prevent some escalation here or there.

Regarding the issue at hand, I added suggestion #1 here and hope for comments. Regarding points #2 and #3, I'll wait for others to comment first, to avoid this becoming a two man show again. -- Cid Highwind 15:02, February 16, 2012 (UTC)