Would you host Midnight68's art in your encyclopedia?, Wikipedia would and does Options

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...e:Kogaru1.jpg_2

If you're an artist and you have fantasies of peeking under children's skirts, then Wikimedia Commons is apparently the place for you. It doesn't matter if the artist in question is banned or if he uses sockpuppets / meatpuppets to manipulate multiple wikis. It's apparently easier to delete images from DeviantArt and ImageShack than it is on Commons. Just to clarify, the WR previously discussed Midnight68 / TGcomix in a thread entitled "Commons contributor Midnight68".

Also, consensus was apparently ignored in closing the discussion. Jcb justifies this by saying:

Kept. - as long as Wikipedia projects use it, we don't judge if it's "inappropriate" or "bad taste" or whatever quality or scope related argument

If consensus were used, if each argument were weighted, and if the participates' views were weighted, then I can't see how the general consensus could've been interpreted as "Keep". Also, I already explained that Midnight68 added those images to the majority of those articles himself (self-promotion). I'm guessing WP:DENY doesn't apply to Commons.

If it weren't for Herostratus, then consensus would've leaned even closer towards deletion. Herostratus didn't do any research on TGcomix and assumed (wrongly) that the image was created by someone else. Herostratus's blunder allowed the image's defenders to scream, "The previous consensus," and "Three days ago." Discussion closer Jcb probably saw the original keep consensus as a further justification. Now with two discussions ending in "keep" for closing admins to fall back on, any future deletion discussion will be doomed from the beginning.

I was, however, successful in removing the image from the English Wikipedia:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fan_serv...u_Diaries_image
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ld_sexual_abuse

It's curious to note that Wikipedia users agreed that the image had to be removed / deleted, while the Commons bureaucracy fought for the image's preservation. I see the issue this way: Creating an encyclopedia is the main priority of Wikipedia users, while it's only a secondary concern for Commons users. Commons users are mainly concerned with maintaining a repository of free images, and they could care less about whether free images are used in an encyclopedic matter. They care more about "freedom" than building something respectable.

Also, a message to anyone who described any of TGcomix's images as "educational" or "encyclopedic": WHAT?!? Seriously, common sense.

[carbuncle]

Would I host Midnight68's art? No, but I also wouldn't include photographs of a naked 8 year-old in the article on Lewis Carroll, so there's probably something wrong with me.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

His artwork is reminiscent of WP:Wikipe-tan.

[EricBarbour]

Just for giggles: don't forget that Trycatch really loves pictures of little girls.......and penises too.....

The other item: I went thru hundreds of deletion requests that Trycatch either voted on or closed, and I have found very few images in his DRs that were actually deleted. If it's a blatant copyright issue, he
has no problem with deletion. But anything else, whoa nellie, let's not be too hasty!