Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/False accusations of antisemitism

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

False accusations of antisemitism

[edit]

See enwiki and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jewish well poisoning allegation source insertion.png and simple. Sev6nWiki (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#False_accusations_of_antisemitism. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep on the first two. There were Wikipedia diffs mentioned in academic papers. Those academic papers along with those diffs are mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Someone screenshotted the diffs and uploaded them to Commons. Seems straightforward COM:SCOPE to me. Even if they're removed from the article, it seems like a fine thing to do to illustrate diffs from papers about Wikipedia. I also don't see anything being called "antisemitic" on the file pages, but if I've missed something anyone can just go edit the captions/descriptions. It looks like there's something else going on with the other uploader, though, from looking at that other DR. Looks like those diffs have nothing to do with any paper, and are just one Wikipedian upset at a diff, so screenshotting it, framing it as "antisemitic" (in the case of the other DR) or "tendentious" (in the case of the third nom here). That they were blocked for harassment makes me think we should  Delete the third and the one from the other nomination. I'm not involved in the underlying dispute, so it's possible I have something wrong here. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites The first two were added to:
and en:Antisemitism on Wikipedia which is a massive BLP violation. They serve no purpose other than to falsely accuse Wikipedians. Polygnotus (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't reply to what I said? Those are diffs not pulled out of thin air to attack someone but diffs described in academic papers about Wikipedia, extracted -- it seems to me -- to illustrate those diffs on Wikipedia. That's a long way from "falsely accusing Wikipedians" except insofar as you want to challenge those journal articles. The descriptions/captions do not appear to name anyone or call anything antisemitic. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be unwilling to click the links. If you want to understand the context, you gotta click the links and read the context provided. Polygnotus (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've clicked, and don't love this "You appear to be unwilling" stuff. If I'm wrong -- if ProfGray's uploads are not just screenshots of edits that are mentioned by academic papers and referenced in the enwiki article, please correct me. That's the SCOPE argument satisfied to me. If those two images are part of a harassment campaign sufficient to get over the SCOPE arguments, that's something that needs to be articulated very clearly, and isn't usually something we deal with at DR (as opposed to e.g. ANU). — Rhododendrites talk |  22:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites If you clicked the links and read the text, then you know they are "not just screenshots of edits that are mentioned by academic papers". If those two images are part of a harassment campaign Again, if you clicked the links and read the text you already knew that. Especially in this context.
And since the first 2 screenshots are unused and cannot be used, there is no reason to !vote against deletion except contrarianism. Polygnotus (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That diff is about the academic paper itself... an academic paper in JITP, which is a well respected peer-reviewed journal. I'm not getting involved in whether it should be cited in the article, but that an edit is mentioned in a high-quality journal which at least for the time being is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, satisfies COM:SCOPE as far as I'm concerned. Beyond that, the burden would be on you to show there is another solid reason to delete (i.e. that it is part of a harassment campaign). You have not adequately made your case that these two (those uploaded by ProfGray -- I'm satisfied that the one's uploaded by Steven1991 are problematic, as I said here and in the other DR) are part of a harassment campaign, but rather gestured to multiple walls of text and act as though it should be self-evident, blaming me for not combing through them to make sense of your own argument. After being pinged to the enwiki discussion and seeing your comments here, I am not interested to engage in this battleground further. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites if you are not interested in engaging in a battleground, it may be wise to not post a comment. I can't repeat everything for everyone who is too lazy to actually read the walls of text that were already posted. You have not adequately made your case I have, but you seem to be unwilling to read it, as you have admitted yourself. Polygnotus (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, diffs being in academic papers don't mean shit if the screenshots are used as personal attacks. Need I remind you and those that voted keep per you that NPA is a policy on English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons? LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 03:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How were the first two used as personal attacks? Is the argument that if material in a peer-reviewed journal article cited in an article about [criticism of] Wikipedia casts Wikipedia editors in a negative light, including it (or illustrating it) is a personal attack? If so, that's a pretty tricky argument and I'd like to see it hashed out in general terms on enwiki. I mean, we're not talking about some Breitbart or 4chan nonsense, but Holocaust Studies and the Journal of Information Technology and Politics. HS is not my area at all, but I get the sense it's pretty reputable. JITP is an area I'm familiar with, and it's reputable (though I'll admit I have no idea if it had the same reputation in 2010). I understand that some folks are challenging the source's use on the basis of the authors, and I'm not trying to weigh in on that -- I'm just making the point that those journals don't feel like good cases for saying inclusion of material in citations is a violation of behavioral policies. I appreciate folks may disagree on that point. As before, if I'm missing a smoking gun that makes it obvious ProfGray meant to use these as a personal attack, I hope someone will link to it. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I consider this addition of the image to be a personal attack. The caption is a significant misrepresentation of the actual edit, and it is in Wikipedia voice without any in-text attribution of the claim. Just because something appeared in a journal (and this image itself did not, only a link to the diff) does not mean it is above reproach, nor is it guaranteed to be in scope. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Is it the specific language of the caption that you're saying is the personal attack, or including the image at all? If the former, it seems like an effort to summarize the journal article (which has three paragraphs on that user/subject). Is it the link to the diff perhaps? If it's the image itself, I don't see how that could be any more of a personal attack than citing the source, which after all is much more critical of the user -- it has a whole three-paragraph section about the user -- and it's the blurriness between those two things that makes me uneasy to call it a personal attack. Again, not weighing in on whether it's helpful in an article, just whether illustrating a diff already described in the Wikipedia article based on a citation to a journal article, is inherently a personal attack. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said you were gonna upload insect photos instead of being counterproductive here. Why do you ask these questions that you would already know the answers to if you had read the links provided? Can you please go upload insect pictures like you promised? There are over 900.000 known insect species. If you delete your comments here I might even come help you when this is done. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I think this is where you and I disengage. If anyone else would has a follow-up, I'm open to pings/messages. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete unused Wikipedia screenshots not illustrating a software feature are clearly out of scope. GPSLeo (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per Rhododendrites. --RAN (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The first two images were uploaded by me. They serve to illustrate (or display) evidence that is (or was) mentioned in the article as cited by scholars who have studied methods of anti-Jewish bias on Wikipedia. Thus, it is evidence cited in reliable sources.
Note: Are you concerned that the images themselves are "accusations of antisemitism" -- I ask because that is not how they are presented by scholars IIRC -- and in what sense are they false? Do they mischaracterize the scholarship, or are you concerned that the scholarship is false?
The third image is not by me. It looks like a screenshot of a recent, perhaps ongoing Wikipedia editing dispute. The screenshot does not represent evidence from any reliable secondary source.
I'm inclined to agree with @Rhododendrites Keep above, though I'd like to better understand the alleged policy violation, for the first two images. Which aspect of WP:BLP or other deletion policy is at stake, with the first two images? Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ProfGray You very much understand the policy violation, and it is disappointing that you act like this.
You added the first to images to the article en:Antisemitism on Wikipedia which means you falsely accused people of antisemitism without a reliable source (as you say, the place where you got the images from do not present them that way).
Rhododendrites does not understand the context, but you clearly do or should.
You wrote Thus, it is evidence cited in reliable sources. and then you immediately contradict yourself by saying: Are you concerned that the images themselves are "accusations of antisemitism" -- I ask because that is not how they are presented by scholars IIRC If the scholars did not present those images as proof of antisemitism, then how can it be evidence of antisemitism cited in a reliable source (not plural)?
@GreenLipstickLesbian, Zero0000, LilianaUwU, and Insanityclown1: Polygnotus (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polygnotus (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The images and their use are also being challenged at the article Talk page.
It seems inefficient to discuss these concerns in both places. Should I respond here? Or better to let the evidence and policies, etc., be discussed at the Talk page? 22:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ProfGray It seems inefficient to do anything other than apologize and move on, since those images cannot be used. Polygnotus (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Speedy delete The Oboler paper (full text) that discusses the edits in the first two images was written by three authors associated with the right-wing NGO Monitor (former fellow, president, former intern). Given the association of its authors, I would not consider them to be a useful source about editorial bias. If for some reason there is a need to show screenshots of specific diffs to illustrate the Wikipedia article, we should not be using an obviously biased paper to choose those diffs, and there is no need to have screenshots of these diffs on Commons. Just being mentioned in a paper does not put them in scope.
The authors do not mention that the diff in File:Editing out the anti-Jewish critique of an NGO per Oboler et al 2010.png adds a mention of NGO Monitor as the originator of a claim, which I find particularly dishonest. The description for this image uncritically repeats the claim from the paper, and was used in enwiki for the same purpose. It's clear that the uploader intended these to push a POV, and possibly attack the editor who made the diffs, rather than as a neutral illustration of the claims made in the paper.
The screenshot uploaded by Steven1991 was for harassment and has zero value. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on AN...  Speedy delete and OS them. It's insane that someone thought this was anything but an horrible idea. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 01:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I have a feeling that the underlying purpose of these files is to publicly humiliate and encourage harassment on the involved contributors, I don't see why someone would upload this to Commons when an edit log is available on enwiki and simple. Sev6nWiki (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Indeed, I noticed that the diff #2 added attribution of the claim (while defanging it). It's not clear why we would waste space with visual representations of information that can be linked to just as efficiently (except that adding it to commons allows for the addition of a filename orienting the viewer's experience of the diff). I was unaware that the academic article was also associated with the same NGO. As for the first image, I don't see the point in preserving and further spreading such nonsense from 12 years ago... SashiRolls (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear abuse of Commons to further accusations and debates on other wikis. The text shown in the first one is without doubt objectionable, but if it is relevant to an article it can be quoted with context. The uploader of the third one has been indeffed on en.wiki. Zero0000 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep as per Rhododendrites (and potentially delete the third one that may not be sourced adequately to the article) Andre🚐 02:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Pi.1415926535 elucidates my thinking here. The 'academic sourcing' here doesn't pass general reliability, and this is clearly an attempt to defame editors contrary to Wikimedia norms (we can't control the standards of other publications, we can absolutely control how we express them here.) David Fuchs (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who doesn't appear to be already involved in the underlying dispute and someone whose judgment I think is good in general, I'm curious what you're seeing that backs up clearly an attempt to defame? When this popped up on COM:AN, I looked and saw two double-blind peer reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals (not the sort I'd put scare quotes around), which were -- and still appear to be -- cited in a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia, explicitly mentioning diffs that are likewise mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and someone creating an image based on that diff for display in that Wikipedia article. Unlike the files uploaded by Steven1991, there doesn't appear to be name-calling or spin put on the description, beyond how they were described in the journal articles. If the authorship of the articles makes them unfit for inclusion in the article (something which, based on their persistence in the article, I presume has not been sorted out yet), then there's room to disagree on COM:SCOPE grounds, and I won't lose sleep over a SCOPE-based deletion here. But in either case I'm really struggling to see how material from a cited journal article could possibly be NPA territory, nevermind defamation. I appreciate that the relationship between external sources and Wikipedia editors is complicated, and that there are powerful people actively trying to censor or chill speech by harassing/threatening our editors, but just lifting something from a journal article? Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pi that the papers' authors are clearly not unbiased sources. That's fine in the context of cultivating neutral POV and due weight in an article (I don't see anyone arguing they should be called out-and-out unreliable and removed), but it's unacceptable to use their illustrations to essentially argue their POV is the correct one. Beyond that it's also a simple editorial point—why are these edits being illustrated versus using summary style? Quotes should always be minimal. The pattern of intent is clear and at odds with our NPOV and harassment policies across WMF projects. The project loses nothing losing these images. David Fuchs (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial resolution: there seems to be strong consensus to delete File:Serial erasure of content in a Jewish history article by a user engaging in tendentious editing.jpg, and I shall do so. Please continue discussion for the other two files. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Thought long and hard about this. Firstly to associate an identifiable non-notable yet identifiable individual with a negative trait (antisemitism, Holocaust minimization, ect) should require incredibly strong sourcing. One case study in a reputable journal almost gets us there, but not quite. Given that the GA reviewer has a stable online identity and is trivially identifiable, I'd like multiple sources, over some period of time, discussing the Good Article review in screenshot 1 before allowing it on Commons.
    The Evelyn727 diff (screenshot 2) is a little different; that account has very few edits, and is essentially anonymous. However, the text they are removing in that diff is criticism given by NGO Monitor, the association that the paper's authors have connections to. As such, there's a inherent conflict of interest between the authors of the paper and NGO Monitor's work - of course the organization might have a vested interest in having their opinions spread further on Wikipedia, of course they might be annoyed if they were edited out or changed. Given that COI, I don't think we should keep that screenshot either. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: This is going to be a bit of a longer close rationale, but I feel it necessary. At time of deletion, the two remaining files were not in use. Simple screenshots of Wikipedia edits are generally out of scope for Commons unless they illustrate a software feature or are being actively used in educational or informational content across Wikimedia projects. While the diffs may be mentioned in academic papers, the screenshots themselves are not published or referenced directly in those sources, and their presence on Commons appears unnecessary. If the intent is to illustrate the edit content, local projects such as English Wikipedia recreated these using en:Template:Text diff or link directly to diffs (or choose to host such images locally under project-specific policies). Moreover, the descriptive captions and past use in article space have raised concerns that these files may misrepresent source material or contribute to editorial disputes, particularly in BLP-sensitive areas. Commons must not be used as a platform to pursue grievances, harass individuals, or carry on off-wiki conduct disputes by proxy. Hosting files with the apparent aim of discrediting or pressuring users on another project violates the collaborative spirit of the Wikimedia movement and is inconsistent with Commons' educational mission. Some may argue that these screenshots provide historical context or documentation of a notable editing dispute, but Commons is not a repository for archiving every version of on-wiki content, particularly when the material is already preserved in the page history or accessible through permanent diff links. If the educational value lies in the substance of the edit rather than its visual form, diffs and locally rendered text diffs are more appropriate and less prone to being taken out of context or misused. Without clear integration into educational content, the retention of these screenshots becomes indistinguishable from hosting them for the sake of documentation or personal dispute tracking, which is contrary to COM:NOTHOST and COM:SCOPE. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/False_accusations_of_antisemitism&oldid=1057524648"