The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I carefully examined the impact of the canvassing/notification (depending on what side you are on) and it seems to have had minimal impact on the discussion. While it may have brought out some individuals who might not have !voted for keeping, there were likely some on the other side who were brought here by the controversy surrounding the original closure and subsequent canvassing/notification. Both sides bring up legitimate concerns, but none are particularly pressing from a policy standpoint. The weight of opinion (I hesitate to call it consensus) is for the page being kept for community-building reasons. Generally such issues can be resolved by moving information to userspace, but the point of this page is for it to be in a centralized location (cf. WP:MEET). Privacy concerns are real, but provided users only add their own pictures to the page, that is their choice (knowing that most admins are happy to delete unencylopedic personal images at user request). As far as inactive users go, I see no reason why the sensible norm of removing unencyclopedic material from inactive users should not apply here as well. If the page becomes a problem in the future (and by problem, I don't mean that it continues to irritate sensibilities regarding unencyclopedic material outside the mainspace of Wikipedia) the situation may be reevaluated. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians[edit]

Procedural listing. The first MfD for this page (originally titled Wikipedia:Facebook) was speedy closed as keep after less than two hours, and unanimous consensus at deletion review was to "overturn and relist". So here we are. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination was:
Delete - Wikipedia is not Facebook. Page contents are nn, irrelevant, imagecruft. Page is a potential privacy issue, especially considering anon IPs are adding people without their knowledge or consent. Nobody of consequence 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to add to my statement that putting a picture to some of the users names can be really helpful in cooling down a heated discussion. More than once I've gotten worked up with someone over some debate, came across their userpage, and saw a picture to remind me that there's a real person there. Having seen pictures of people before something gets heated helps too, even with those who don't upload a picture. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seth Finkelstein's photo was originally uploaded by another editor to accompany the article about him, which has since been deleted. As well, several photos have more than one individual in them, and there is no evidence those other people consented to their photos being on Wikipedia or used in this way. Risker 04:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that argument is that anyone can use these photos for just about any reason. The problem you point out is hardly limited to this situation. However, since it is on the project namespace, there's nothing stopping us from setting criteria that asks people to only add pictures of themselves, which actually makes the issue less problematic than if these photos were being used somewhere else on the internet. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See this as well. Miranda 10:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Solumeiras talk 11:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I agree privacy is, generally speaking, an important concern -- I'm glad several people have brought it up. On the other hand, we can presume that editors with pictures here have freely chosen to upload these images under a copyleft license. There's still the worry about whether people are actually uploading images of the people they say they are... but we don't exactly run around policing this sort of thing, do we? Even if somebody puts up a "self-portrait" on their userpage, there's really no way for us to check if it's actually them, in most cases, and I bet there's no plans to try. Is the next rule "no self-portraits" to plug this hole? That would be a shame. So yes, it's a problem, but is deleting this page going to fix that problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: 1) That's what your user page is for. 2) And if someone else adds your picture...? This is WP remember, anyone can edit a page and there's no policy against someone/anyone adding an image to this page. So how does one recommend policing it? Anyone can add an image, but technically only the user who's image is shown can remove it, and even then it could be construed as vandalism due to removing an on-topic image purely because they don't want it there. ---- WebHamster 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, if someone wants to forfeit their right to privacy, and take risks then they will do so, even if there is advice saying they should not do such a thing. Also, if any user does want their personal information hidden, the diff can be oversighted, via the mailing list. However, if it is a person under the legal age of adulthood, then pictures should be removed per the suggested policy on childrens' privacy (which has had an arbitration caseand ruling on it).It's a no-win situation here. My personal opinion is, this is a bit too frivolous but there seems to be a consensus so far to keep, so I'm remaining neutral (Abstain) on this.Apologies for the length of my arguments and my reasoning, but I was trying to help the situation. If anyone wants to discuss my arguments further feel free to use the talk page. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 13:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's the point, IPs don't need consent if the images are on Commons or have Free-Use licences. Per policy anyone can add an image to this page at anytime. If the image is of a genuine editor then they are not vandalising or being off topic. ---- WebHamster 15:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TBSDY is not the topic of discussion here; if you have an issue with this editor, you may continue that discussion at your existing complaint at WP:AN/I. Furthermore, there is such a thing as a bad-faith xfD nomination, and I believe you've just proven that a subsequent repeat nomination by you will fall into that category.
Atlant (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC) (An administrator here)[reply]
  • Rebuttal This whole MfD is so screwed up it should be declared a mis-trial - I pity the closing admin. And under these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with re-nominating the page or requesting another DRV if it is deleted, so that comment is not deserved. No matter which way this goes, it probably will be appealed.--12 Noon 01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And all those who have participated here can reparticipate. Deletion through attrition? Yet another reason why xFD is screwed. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it should be pointed out that the MfD is not the place for this discussion, the relevant thread on WP:ANI is more appropriate. This discussion is getting long enough as it is without digression. ---- WebHamster 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about the, perhaps more important, number of CPU cycles used (wasted?) to continually resize a page full of (unimportant?) images? ---- WebHamster 23:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparatively (to the rest of Wikipedia) nil. Wikitext-produced HTML is cached, and downloading the thumbnails is no problem with a persistent HTTP connection. GracenotesT § 02:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to mention that most web browsers will cache images locally anyway. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the HTML I was referring to. Each image thumbnail is physically resized server-side in realtime, not just the HTML img size tags. This is, relatively speaking, CPU intensive compared to parsing wikicode etc. Yes there is caching but even that times out. A page full of image thumbnails requires much more CPU processing than a page full of HTML. Let's face it there are enough problems with lag already without adding to it however minor it may be. ---- WebHamster 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you look at the filename for a thumbnail, you'll see that it's a saved file, not something that has to be repeatedly resized by the server. --BRIAN0918 03:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a digression so I'll be brief. A thumbnail is not any particular size (even though it defaults to 180px). The server has to generate a new image based on whatever size is asked for in the image tag, e.g. it doesn't display a 1000px image in a 180px box, it actually creates a new image that is resized down to 180px. It can't keep a copy as it doesn't know what the next variant is going to be (though that will depend on the caching used on the server). Haven't you ever wondered what the white line running down the image as it's displayed is? This is the server resizing the image and displaying the new image in real time. ---- WebHamster 04:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for goodness sake: go file a bug report if you are so concerned. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Touchy eh? Been outed too many times? Why would I file a bug report for something the software is supposed to do? ---- WebHamster 04:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never tried to disguise myself. You are being nasty now. My point is: this is actually a relatively small page in the grand scheme of things. Commons, which runs the same software, has many pages of the same nature that are a lot bigger and that are frequently changed. Evidently if this page causes big problems for Wikipedia, then presumably all those other pages will as well. Thus, this is a performance related bug. Alternatively, it's not and you don't really know what you are talking about. One or the other. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee, since we have an entire major portion of the Foundation's project designed specifically to do thumbnails on large galleries (I'm talking about Commons, of course), do you really think that one more page of thumbs is gonna cause a major server crash? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that was addressed at me, then no, I don't think that at all. If it was actually directed at me, please have a chat with WebHamster, as he raised it as a reason why this page should be deleted. I was merely showing the problems with the argument by following reducio ad absurdum. However, should this be a problem, I am quite serious about that bug report. :-) - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who said anything about crashing? I also referred to it as being minor. It may be only a minor element but unnecessary due to the frivolous nature of this article. ---- WebHamster 12:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, so in other words, this issue is so minor we can also discount the "issue". - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Running a brief cost-benefit analysis, I think the benefit of this page to the community is worth its minor cost. It's clear that not everyone shares this opinion, though (as is being argued elsewhere). GracenotesT § 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick addition -- I am proud to be listed on this page, am proud to have been there for several years, and am glad that we have something up that shows, in some small way, what Wikipedia looks like. -- phoebe/(talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break[edit]
Please do not try to ascribe motives to delete !voters. Disagreement if fine, but saying that this is "yet another mean-spirited autocratic attempt to rain on other people's parade" is absolutely ridiculous just wrong. AecisBrievenbus 12:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay calm there. I was not talking about the motive but rather the effect, which is indeed as I describe. Who knows why people are telling each other what to do for no good reason, they just are. We clearly have a partisan issue going on when a user is blocked for supposedly "canvassing" by notifying people whose images are about to be deleted, and the administrator's notice board is in a small uproar over the block. Misuse of administrative tools is clearly a problem in this case, so please do not dismiss my comments. The process is irreversibly tainted from this. Wikidemo (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was about effect, not about motive, why use the word "mean-spirited", which is all about motive, not about effect? AecisBrievenbus 10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category idea looks like a valid option. I also wondered about what happens when this page scales up and becomes a sprawling metropolis of images, but I don't think that particular issue is too serious; we managed to handle it by splitting up the admin list into subpages, after all. Not to put down your suggestion. The category is probably easier to manage, in all, I just worry about whether it's as useful. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to note that not only was I not contacted about the MfD, and not only am I not someone who has a picture or is on this list, but my original intention upon hearing that we had some kind of "facebook" page was to support deletion. Now I'm strongly supporting keeping the page, based on it's own merits. Also, whether or not TBSDY's actions were even considered canvassing is currently disputed. (I, for one, do not think what he did was canvassing at all). I believe that regardless of how anyone learned about this MfD, people's comments should be judged on their own merits. -- Ned Scott (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those interested in which of us have images on the page can easily discover this, and discount our opinions if they consider this appropriate. Or they can equally discount the opinions of those who have chosen not to use the page, and who therefore have a vested interest in deletion, if they consider this relevant. It seems equally logical, and equally productive. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is placing an image you uploaded under a free license a violation of privacy? I (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't want your self-portrait on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't upload it... if you don't want anybody able to use it for any reason, you probably shouldn't license it in a way that explicitly opens that possibility, either. That aside, I'd also prefer that images be added by the Wikipedians they depict. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Talk about missing the point here. Let's address each of the shortcuts you have noted:
  1. WP:SOAP. That applies to the article space. If we apply your logic though, this means that nobody can even upload their picture at all. Nobody wants that.
  2. WP:NOT#BLOG. A list of images is hardly a blog. What the page says is: "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." Knowing who your fellow Wikipedian is helps fosters a sense of community, which in turns helps with collaboration.
  3. WP:NOT#LINK. I think you are referring to point 4. See my point above: if we follow your logic, then nobody will be allowed to upload their image to Wikipedia as it is not strictly to be used in the Encyclopedia itself and will only ever be used on non main namespace pages.
  4. WP:NOT#DIR. Don't know how point is relevant here. None of them mention images.
  5. WP:NOT#USER. None of these people are using Wikipedia as their web host. I find that personally insulting, as my image is on that page. Not what I'd call assuming good faith at all.
There seem to be a whole lot of shortcuts here, some of which aren't even valid. That may well impress some, but others find it irritating, as it means that you haven't really formulated your argument very well. - 220.237.19.227 (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC) — 220.237.19.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Also, not to be a dick or anything, but most everything Vox linked refers mainly or exclusively to article space, and most say so early in their text... I'm not really sure how they might apply here as general principles, either. I'd prefer some specific discussion over a bunch of links to blanket policies which openly declare they don't apply in this area. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More