Talk:Lolicon/Archive 5

message: A brief summary of the facts informing the discussions found below	                            	
This is intended for the benefit of those arriving from Wikipedia:Current surveys.
Background and previous discussions
The image under consideration, of a young girl holding a teddy bear (below left), has long been contentious. Indeed, people were removing and reinserting it from the earliest days of the article. In the past other pictures have been added and removed, but the image under discussion is the oldest and most frequently controversial. A previous straw poll resulted in no consensus, which according to policy leaves the image unchanged. The article history shows a history of revert wars, interspersed by periods of comparative calm.
The controversial image
  {|	Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg	The image to the left is the controversial image.
* Also referred to as "Hikari Hayashibara picture".
* The image shows a young girl holding a teddy bear. Her unclad derriere is depicted.
* Most who have viewed the full-sized image agree that the blue thing attatched to bear is a strap-on dildo.
* The legal status of this image was discussed here.
* The source of the image is a book cover. It is tagged as fair use for this reason.
* There is some question as to whether fair use applies when a book cover is used to illustrate an article on the subject of the book, rather than on the book itself.
* It took me quite a while to work out what was going on on this talk page, what with all the indenting and all... after I had what I thought was a fair idea of what is going on, I put together this summary box for the convenience of others. I've tried to keep it factual-only, so hopefully no-one will hate me too much for it! Mike1024 (t/c) 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is fairly good but I would mention linkimage and have an example of it so people know what it is.  Tables scare me or I would add it myself. kotepho 00:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good thinking. Added. Mike1024 (t/c) 10:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice work.  -kotra 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the summary say it is for the benefit of those "arriving from RFC"?  I checked there, but I don't see anything about this article at WP:RFC.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 02:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, what I meant to say was Wikipedia:Current surveys, which is linked from wp:rfc.Mike1024 (t/c) 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I made a change to the summary. I removed "deemed to be legal" and replaced with "Two people said 'keep' and two said 'delete', so it was kept".  If you follow the link given about the legal status, that was the actual result.  "Deemed to be legal" makes it sound like some court case was tried about this image, or that some Foundation lawyer stepped in and said definitely that it is legal.  As far as I know neither has happened. Johntex\talk 03:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that I hadn't looked at that page, just copied the description from a page linking to it. I'm not sure how we should go about describing the results of that discussion; based on the section of law cited, I would guess the image is legal. And we don't work out what is legal by majority vote, we work it out by examining actual laws... one would think... anyway, I might let people go to that page and decide for themselves if that's OK... Mike1024 (t/c) 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: I'd like to remind Jgiz that the more recent picture is being used as a compromise which was supposed to resolve the complaints about the old picture. And it would have, if someone didn't have the genius idea of putting the old picture back lower down in the article. Ashibaka tock 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The compromise was to lower the other picture, not remove the picture entirely.  As I said, until there is a clear consensus then status quota image should stay.  But, if such consensus were to be reached, I will not revert back the picture.  Also, on your second part: I'm interpreting it as an attack on another user.  --Jqiz 04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, I don't even remember who that guy was. Ashibaka tock 11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People who reads your comment do.  It was Hipocrite.  You should not be attacking the actions of another member with sarcastic remarks. Lets try to abide by WP:CIVIL--Jqiz 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Reading back through all the old comments above (which I wasn't involved with), it does seem that there was no real agreement on the other picture being *removed*, just a compromise on lowering the other picture. As such, sarcastic edit summaries like "appeal to tradition, not one of my favorite logical fallacies" are unhelpful and seemingly designed merely to provoke. --Fuzzie (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really prefer not to have to protect the page in "the wrong version" so if we could have more talk, less reverting that would be good?brenneman{L}  05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current version is the working status-quo version, seeing as the "remove the image" side has breeched the agreement to keep both images, with the more "offensive" one at the bottom. It would go a long way to show that they were operating in good faith if they didn't argue facetious copyright claims to try to get one of the images removed, but if they intend to argue such, the removed image will certainly be the less "offensive" one, as it is clearly less informative. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's conflating two issues.  If we had two GFDL images, it would be a different argument.  But right now we don't, so people can't override copyright with "consensus." - brenneman{L}  14:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am accusing some of the people who have hopped on the copyright bandwaggon as a reason to delete the image they don't like of acting in bad faith. If they were truely concerned with copyright, (a spurrious concern, but a seperate issue), they would not care which image remained. However, they do. This is transparently bad faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "informative"? If we want to inform readers that Lolicon images can depict naked children in extreme sexual situations it'd be better and easier just to say so. -Will Beback 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The less provocotive image, coupled with the text, coupled with the links to off-site image repositories, does plenty to inform the reader and reflects better on Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been gone over numerous times, and the conclusion was there was no consensus to remove or link the images. We can go over it, AGAIN, if you must, but I will have to insist that if my time is wasted AGAIN going over it, those who vote to remove the edit be forced to make 5 helpful contributions to the encyclopedia that are not reverted for every person that is forced to AGAIN come to this talk page and AGAIN reach an obvious no-consensus default decision to keep the images as images on the page. Given that giving an inch on moving one of the two images down the page has resulted in the taking of a mile, if we are forced to go over this decision AGAIN, I will have to reneg on the prior agreement to move the "more offensive" image down the page and will swap image locations. Have I said this before? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit wasting our time with such absurd statements.  I've already replied to you the first time you made that ludicrous statement.  You can spend your own time to look through the page history to find it.  You don't own Wikipedia, or this page, and you have no right to insist on any such thing. Johntex\talk 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you review WP:CIVIL. I did not think that the two image solution with the less "offensive" image at the top was best, and obviously, neither did you. We came to an agreement to accept that solution, which your side promptly started to hack away at - first via blind image removal without comment, and now with this spurrious copyright nonsense. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you take your own advice and stop doling it out to others.   You would do well to read WP:CIVIL.  Nothing in WP:CIVIL supports your "insistence" on getting things your way, and nothing there gives you the right to "insist" on any type of additional contributions from your fellow editors.  Johntex\talk 20:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My reverts to this article over the past 50 edits? Zero. You? 5. "My way" is getting rid of the picture of the reclining blond and leaving only the more represenative, more informative picture at the top of the article, but I haven't been arguing for "my way or the highway (you have)." I have been arguing for the compromise that was reached (and then insulted repeatedly by amature lawyers of dubious skill) over months of repetitive "I hope they don't show up this time!" strawpolls. I compromised back in the day to a mutually agreeable solution of moving the "offensive" picture down. This was taken as my preferred positon (as demonstrated) by individuals such as yourself, who have demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise and a willingness to game the system to make the opposing side look weaker for compromising in the past. The status-quo is the one picture, at the top. Let's negotate. How about we show both pictures, with the one you consider "offensive" at the bottom, eh? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no war to fight here (...other than the revert war).  I do not see how you making this polemic or suggesting you will 'reneg' on agreements is helping. kotepho 19:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not see how the massive revert warring, which I did not take part in, was helping either. I don't see how going back to a decision which has been gone back to 6 time in the history of this article is helping. I certainlty don't see how a not-lawyer with no history of being a defender of copyrights on the encyclopedia saying that policy says something that policy doesn't say is helping. What I saw is that we reached a compromise solution to include both images with the less "offensive" one below the more offensive one. I also saw that as soon as this compromise solution was reached, people who disagreed with having the "offensive" image at all wanted to move the bar. I did not like the initial compromise, and I suspect the others who took part in the discussion then did not either, but it was a perfectly reasonable middle ground. It's not being treated as such, instead as my position. We will happily start over from status-quo ante, and we can reach a new compromise. If you think that the current compromise solution is my starting positon for discussions, you are horribly mistaken. It is half-way between my side and the other side.  Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. Ashibaka tock 20:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working and playing well 

message: Maybe it would be a good idea to put in some info about the instances of lolicon sex dolls in japan and elsewhere because it does appear to be sort of widespread... WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a nice sex doll. KingOfNigeria 04:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was referring to the dolls similar to Real Dolls, not figurines. kotepho 10:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sex dolls 

message: due to the edit war... I'm hopeful the involved editors can reach an amicable solution :) Just another star in the night T | @ | C 07:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the secret word to get it unprotected back to semi-protected?  I won't touch the image then until everyone agrees.  brenneman{L}  12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus, could we stop the penis-measuring? Let's ratchet down the rhetoric a little bit and see if there isn't some way to find a compromise. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We found one months ago, when the article was stable for an extended period of time with the "offensive" image below the fold. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it obviously wasn't a very strong one, or we wouldn't be revisiting it again right now. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to someone proposing a solution that is NOT moving the image below the fold and including the other image at the top but is a compromise as opposed to a "fuck you, give me everything I want." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hypocrite, I did propose something like that below (in-lining the image), but you are not yet supporting it. Johntex\talk 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Linking is A.K.A. "fuck you, give me everything I want." It was soundly rejected last time. You think linking is the best possible solution. I do not see how you suggesting that I should agree with you in all particulars is in any way a compromise. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And let's be clear here - both images is not my preferred positon. My prefered positon is one image, at the top, the one you find "offensive." My prefered position does not have a CSS hack to allow for easy censorship at proxy-servers or other such protection mechanisms outside of the users direct control. I have moved a great deal from my prefered position by allowing that not-representative Lolicon image, and by allowing a lame CSS hack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a final note, I believe the CSS hack increases the legal risk of article viewers. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Two edit conflicts later) Leaving it as is would also be an example of 'give me everything I want'.  Linkimage is a reasonable choice between the two extremes of including an image and not having an image.  Having read the past discussions I saw a lack of concensus for actions, but never "sound rejection". kotepho 21:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: To be clear, everything I want is the image of the reclining blonde gone, the one image at the top, and the CSS hack gone. Is there anyone actually advocating "delete all the images," or is that a strawman set up so that your starting position seems much farther away from what you actually want? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore, as they have compromised from their extreme position.  What is your reasoning for removal of the CSS hack though?  If you yourself are not a lawyer and do not accept someone else's lay opinion on copywrite matters why do you hold up your own idea that it may make it more illegal for someone as an arguable point? kotepho 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The CSS hack makes it easier for people not to view the picture. On obvious affirmative defense to viewing the image is that it was done with an absence of mens rea required to commit any crime under english common. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would put the reader in the least risk is if the image is inlined and the reader chooses not to view the image. Johntex\talk 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is your law degree from, and whose retainer are you acting under? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a common sense statement, not legal advice.  "To run the least risk of violating child pornography laws, don't view child pornography" - just like "To run the least risk of getting a DUI violation, don't drive under the influence of alcohol." Johntex\talk 22:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They already have an affrimative defense if they have less than 3 (note that 2 is less than three) and comply.  Obviously we are not putting someone at risk just by viewing this page.  Then again, I'm not a lawyer... are you?  Oh, and I'm making a huge number of assumptions such as no priors, that you are charged under certain acts, etc.  kotepho 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected 

message: People interested in this issue (re the image) might also be interested in ongoing discussion at Talk:Gokkun. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of interest 

message: After trawling the image boards (both the currently linked and the old) for fan-art creators, I've:
*Emailed several of them asking if they'll create or (release) GFDL images.
*Further cemented the opinion that there is no encyclopedic reason for linking the image boards.
brenneman{L}  00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few people I've asked and am awaiting responses from. kotepho 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There might not be a need to find GFDL picures if we're about to poll to decide the fate on the controversial picture soon.  --Jqiz 03:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Free images are always perferred over non-free.  If we have an image that is just as good that is free we should use it. kotepho 03:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case then all commerical articles on animes series, mangas series, games, pornography, etc. would look like crap, since garbage fanarts are always available.  --Jqiz 04:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those have clear fair-use cases whereas this one may not be; also notice how I said 'just as good' not 'crappy fanart'.  Just because an image wasn't published in a lolicon manga does not make it not lolicon or representitive of lolicon. kotepho 04:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to see the pictures to judge. --Jqiz 04:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing GFDL images 

message: What is the image supposedly adding to the article? All the debate seems to be about the image, but if it does not appropriately add to the article, the point is moot. My issue is partially artistic - I've seen better Lolicon images, but perhaps they are not available due to copyvio. If the scouring in the section above bears fruit, this may all be scrapped.  KillerChihuahua?!? 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why would it be scrapped?  Is there a policy that states we have to use a GFDL image over fair use that I'm not aware of? --Jqiz 03:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements Ashibaka tock 04:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Yes, people might be using the fair use claims as a way to remove the images.  Yes, there is unequal treatment.  That doesn't change the fact that fair use has been questioned and I think there is a legitimate disagreement.  Debating about uneven treatment is a strawman at best and does nothing to help solve the fair use dispute.  Also, could we at least have the debate pertain somewhat to the headings we are discussing under... please?  kotepho 19:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it bespeaks a hidden agenda, does it not?  It's the difference between do they care about fair use (very commendable) or do they care about fair use for this image in particular.  Reason for removal:This has nothing to do with what I think of the image, it's simply because of fair use laws.--Jqiz 20:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, so how are we suppose to interpret the fair use rationale, when it is a guideline?  I'm dumbfounded on how to approach this.  It does not seem anyone have answer the query on WP:CV, either.  --Jqiz 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you accusing Ashitaka of having a hidden agenda in wanting the image removed?  That would be ludacrous. kotepho 20:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I refuse to elaborate beyond this.  Take it however you want.  --Jqiz 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, as the person who pointed out and argued through the copyio in the first place (and who has now put the images up for deletion, see below), I can assure you that there's no hidden agenda on my part. I won't be disengenous; I find the image beyond loathsome, and while I have no problem whatsoever with pedophiles, I consider anyone defending the placement of this image on Wikipedia to have quite lost their moral compass. Nothing hidden there. Herostratus 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that you find the image beyond loathsome proves you have a hidden agenda.  There is nothing immoral about this image, it's a perfectly nice image, there's nothing wrong with it.  The Psycho 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That assumes there is nothing wrong with an image of child pornography. Johntex\talk 02:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should learn to distinguish between real child pornography and cartoon child pornography. The Psycho 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, let's not get into this; no good will come of it. kotepho 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "The fact that you find the image beyond loathsome proves you have a hidden agenda." Doesn't it prove he has an unconcealed agenda? :) Ashibaka tock 05:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol right Ashibaka, glad somebody got that. I'm not going to be disengenuous about that, even if it weakens my arguments in the eyes of some. Because that would be dishonest.  It would be neat if other editors would be honest enough to say "Well, OK, I do see this as just one battle in the Great Mission to stick it to the Uptighto-Fascist cultural-Falangist clique that rules society with an iron fist!" or whatever they're on about... but I don't expect that, because of course that can't be true. Can it? Herostratus 17:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  headings and hidden agenda 

message: I'd like to add that the another reason that has been given for prohibiting computer/actor faked imagery is that as a matter of enforcement it is much easier to enforce a ban on everything than forcing the gov to distinguish between the real and fake ones and prove realness beyond a reasonable doubt. If no one minds this edit, I'd like to request an admin to unprotect the page briefly so I can make it. JoshuaZ 15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already included: Also, the legality of simulated child pornography could make the prosecution of actual child pornography more difficult..  No need for redundancy.  --Jqiz 15:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind. Sorry about that. JoshuaZ 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit I'ld like to make 

message: Not having received any contrary advice at the request for third-party comment, I have nominated :Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg and :Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg for deletion. Editors may view/comment on the case at WP:IFD. Herostratus 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copytright isssues don't go to IFD, which is why it says right at the top of that page "For copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Copyright problems."  I won't do it because I've been involved in disacussions here, but someone perceived to be neutral should. - brenneman{L}  00:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry, I didn't see that. (Although it does seem that a lot of the other IfD's are copyvio issues too.) Herostratus 07:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion at IfD looks pretty much to be going toward no consensus, and will expire soon. Also, arguments made their did seem kind of convincing. I personally still think its marginally copyvio, but it's almost on the bubble, and its clear that enough editors feel its on the other side of the bubble, so I don't think a deletion for copyvio can be achieved, if it is indeed even valid. So I've requested a close with no consensus at IfD and I've moved on the the next step, see below. Herostratus 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images at IfD 

message: Anyone willing to disagree with this? - brenneman{L}  01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are always better with images. The article needs a image that meets Wikipedia guidelines. If none is available, no image can be used for now. There is always tomorrow.  FloNight talk 01:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs an image 

message: This also is taken as read, correct?  If we get a few of those then the next section becomes moot. - brenneman{L}  01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it is always possible that WP will rule out fair use images. We need to use copyleft (free) if possible. --FloNight talk 01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, good luck finding someone who draws decent copyleft lolicon. SlashDot 04:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, again. The page was protected with the disputed image present. (I still think that is odd!) Much better to unprotect, remove the image and let others edit the article. There are other images that can be used. It may take some time to find them. But I am sure the community will find an appropriate image for the article. FloNight talk 01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether the article is unprotected or not, it seems that removing the image is appropriate due to the fair use issues, if only to allow addition of text which allows fair use of an image. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The current image needs to be removed or the page unprotected, or some text introduced that supports the fair use of this image. (We don't need to unprotect to do that, really.)  Just about anything that isn't the current situation is preferred.  Kotepho 02:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ook. You are correct of course, it's possible to request edits to a protected page. o_O  Can I suggest that we add "Revomal of disputed fair use image," to this list? - brenneman{L}  03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. - brenneman{L}  05:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The preference is a free image 

message: This is an obvious point to apply pressure.  Let the page be unprotected, remove all images until there is agreement on copyright stuatus, and the text is edited. - brenneman{L}  01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, again. The page was protected with the disputed image present. (I still think that is odd!) Much better to unprotect, remove the image and let others edit the article. There are other images that can be used. It may take some time to find them. But I am sure the community will find an appropriate image for the article. FloNight talk 01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether the article is unprotected or not, it seems that removing the image is appropriate due to the fair use issues, if only to allow addition of text which allows fair use of an image. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The current image needs to be removed or the page unprotected, or some text introduced that supports the fair use of this image. (We don't need to unprotect to do that, really.)  Just about anything that isn't the current situation is preferred.  Kotepho 02:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ook. You are correct of course, it's possible to request edits to a protected page. o_O  Can I suggest that we add "Revomal of disputed fair use image," to this list? - brenneman{L}  03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. - brenneman{L}  05:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current page doesn't provide fair use rational for ''any'' comic book cover 

message: I have asked Jimbo directly to delete this image by fiat, as basically a WP:OFFICE-type action.
I did this based solely on the content (not any possible copyvio status), mainly for raison d'etat. Basically I don't think Jimbo is gonna want to be blindsided by this image at some TV interview, I don't think the image is likely to be helpful to fundraising and publicity efforts, and all-in-all is just not a good image for Wikipedia to be displaying, at least in this context. Jimbo might agree or he might not, and even if he does he may well do nothing, but then again he may.
Here's what I figured: the logical next step would be to take the issue to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. But if I do this, then will follow a great deal of heated discussion, with most likely no clear consensus obtained (which defaults to Keep), after which I would appeal to the Jimbo/the Foundation anyway and the image might be deleted by fiat after all.
While on the one hand I don't like to short-circuit the process, on the other hand I don't want to ask people to waste more time arguing if the image is going to be deleted anyway. And feel ill-used after expending their time and emotional energy on what would have proved to be a moot point.
If Jimbo/the Foundation doesn't want to delete the image by fiat, fine We'll then go to RfC, although consensus is unlikely IMO.
You may now enter the vilification of your choice below. Just to clear up one point, yes, this does prove that I'm worse than Hitler. Herostratus 16:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal for [[WP:OFFICE]]-type action