User:Pldx1/Sandbox

The notorious are not all of the people

Let us insist: the concern is about consent, not about content. If anyone think that "we need this kind of picture", be bold! Commons_talk:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat)&diff=prev&oldid=102700731

Case Study 1

This first File:US Navy 030317-N-5319A-016 Signalman 2nd Class Diver (DV) Harlold Bickford a mammal handler from Commander Task Unit (CTU-55.4.3) brushes the teeth of a Bottle Nose Dolphin.jpg provides an example of how a picture involving human beings should be registered. To quote the description annexed to this file:

Central Command Area of Responsibility (Mar. 17, 2003) -- Signalman 2nd Class Diver (DV) Harlold Bickford a mammal handler from Commander Task Unit (CTU-55.4.3) brushes the teeth of a Bottle Nose Dolphin in the well deck aboard the USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44) operating in the Arabian Gulf. CTU-55.4.3 is a multinational team consisting of Naval Special Clearance Team-One, Fleet Diving Unit Three from the United Kingdom, Clearance Dive Team from Australia, and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Units Six and Eight (EODMU-6 and EODMU-8). These units are conducting deep/shallow water mine counter measure operations to clear shipping lanes for humanitarian relief. CTU-55.4.3 and USS Gunston Hall are currently forward deployed conducting missions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the multinational coalition effort to liberate the Iraqi people, eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and end the regime of Saddam Hussein. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Brien Aho. (RELEASED)

We have a depicted human person, we have a consent, we have a photographer and we have a copyright release. You have even an interresting description of the context. If you want to use this picture as the basis of a cartoon entitled "Colin Powell facing a mass toothache, Navy at rescue", you have all the informations you need to properly register your own derived work.

Case Study 2

File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpgx

This second file started its career here, in http://commons.wikimedia.org, as File:Dcp01053.jpg. It has a long history of edit-wars about names, redirects, categories etc. all of them related to avoid... or to enforce the Thoothbrush Incident. But, strangely enough, the basic question of the free/non-free nature of this picture has never been discussed. The description annexed to this file is limited to:

en=A woman masturbating with an electric toothbrush|date=2011-05-06|source={{own}}|permission={{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}

At first sight, such a cryptic description seems to assert that (1) the depicted person is also the photographer, (2) this person is giving an explicit consent for an open publication, (3) this person is also releasing her copy-rights, so that the work can be universally copied, distributed, transmited and even remixed or adapted. But this is not so simple if we ask the question: how was the shutter button pressed? The answer is not clear from the picture or the description. May be an ingenious device was used, operated by the hand not shown. May be the toothbrush was an intelligent device with an embedded remote command. Or... may be the description is simply deceiving.

And therefore, we have to consider the context. This File:Dcp01053.jpg is a member of a set of 19 files uploaded by the same user, the upload dates ranging from 2008 to 2012. In this set, we have:

• a 50 years old penis (sic), with medical assertions (scars, phimosis at 5 y/o, etc) ;
• some other penises ;
• a beheaded man, the picture being named ShareIMG 6238x.jpg. May be the other penises holder ;
• a 100 lire coin, 1966obverse, with alleged grumi spermatici ;
• a series of 12 pictures, probably of the same person, described as "model Titti" in six of the 12 annexed descriptions.

The probability of all the twelve pictures being about the same human being comes from (1) the very sight of the pictures, especially concerning the moles and the very apparent vein pattern of the depicted person (2) the inital names of the uploaded files, mostly ranging from DCP01040.jpg to DCP02400.jpg (3) the EXIF data, most of them about a Kodak DC210 Zoom (V05.00) camera. In any case, it is clear that the uploader cannot be at the same time the "50 years old penis", the beheaded man... and the "model Titti". And once the deceiving nature of one or another description is proven, AGF reverts from 'assume good faith' into 'prove that you are acting in good faith'.

An important concern comes from the large gap between the generation of the pictures (mostly in 2001, from the EXIF datas and the descriptions) and the publication (mostly in 2008). Does the model Titti give a written consent for this 2008 afterwards publication over the whole World Wide Web of these pictures taken in 2001-2004 in a context (private pictures in private places) that was not implying such a consent? Moreover, does the model Titti give a written consent for being categorized under such name (i.e. is this name an additional breach of privacy, or something else)?

A last concern comes from the 2011 release of three more pictures, three years after the 2008 release. These pictures, whose original names were Dcp01043.jpg, Dcp01053.jpg, Dcp01063.jpg, are forming an hardcore series (piss, brush and protude), and everything is done to connect this series with the 2008 series (the names, the remaining exif, etc). Has model Titti given an additionnal written consent for the open publication of this additional series, in such a context that facilitates her identification and makes her the "worldwide toothbrush of the year"?

If you care for birds and want for to launch a campaign "save the albatrosses, recycle your toothbrush", may be you better search for another picture to illustrate your campaign. A free picture, for example. Pldx1 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Relationship between Russavia and the Toothbrush incident

I have investigated into the Toothbrush Incident, and what I have found is described in Commons talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people/Update_2013/Examples#Case Study 2. To summarize, the following set of three 'ex-girlfriend' pictures has been published in 2011:

Dcp01043.jpg

Dcp01053.jpg

Dcp01063.jpg

...part of the people would be ashamed if their coworkers were knowing how much of non-free media is stored here. but will this kind of curtaining be sufficient in the long term?

These pictures were allegedly taken in 2001, ten years before, and were presented as "self-pictures". In reality they were a blatant continuation of a series of nine, published in 2008 and targetting the same identified person. Each time, even an allegation of consent was missing. Was the model was a well-known person? No, she was not. Was the photographer an artist or what else? No, he was not. But what happens to these files that were quite clearly private pictures of a private person taken in several private places? A strong keep, two years long, enforced by the usual barking fan club. Here is engaged the moral responsibility of all the bureaucrats of http://commons.wikimedia.org: some of them encouraged the pack, some others turned a blind eye and this during two long years. In this context, the Pink Parrot Incident from Russavia appears as a way to back up the perpetrator of the Toothbrush Incident. Conversely, a retreat of Russavia from bureaucratship could help to solve the Toothbrush Incident. Let us try that. Pldx1 (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Cambises

The present discussion is not about deleting the files involved in the Pink Parrot Incident. And this is a great thing, since these files are strongly educative. They provide an unique and irreplaceable view from inside of http://commons.wikimedia.org. Indeed, they are so educative that a copy of them should be prominently placed in the deliberation room of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, as a kind of reminder of duties.

But the present discussion seems to be about the fact that consent is the boundary between sexuality and greed for power. There exists here a faction that considers that consent doesn't really matter and this results into using clearly non-free pictures as flagships "for http://commons.wikimedia.org is not censured" (as in the Toothbrush Incident). In this context, the very use of the Fundraising Appeal picture as basis material for the Pink Parrot Incident appears as an attempt to silent donators/contributors with a "shut your mouth, or get your own face refaite a coups de penis".

On the other hand, I must say that the "don't speak of model Titti, but only of Jimmy Wales" attitude doesn't not appears either to be the expected attitude of someone that pretends to exert a "guiding and leading" role. Is [User:Colin] this sure that Jimmy Wales is not ashamed to be presented as someone whose value and moral rights are greater than the value and the moral rights of some rank and file model of a stolen picture ?Pldx1 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

the real world exists nevertheless

Wikimedia is not the real world, but only a (small) part of it. And I am surprised that many comments here are not taking into account the very existence of a such a massive entity. What happens in the incident under scrutinity? The real-world Russavia has commandited a certain painting to be made in the real world and thereafter has orchestrated some derivated pictures of this painting to be publicly released to the real world. By now, the picture called 'Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg' exists and cannot be un-released. This apply as well to its 'making of'. This pictures have been seen and downloaded worldwide of the real world, and each of the downloaders can testify that they were released under a free license implying both the painter and the uploader. This can not be changed. Moreover, the uploader was, at the time of the upload, allready known in the real world as an elected leader of http://commons.wikimedia.org. This also cannot be changed. Both facts are (small) parts of the already written story of the real world.

And now the community involved in the various aspects of the freedom of contents is facing this 'fait accompli' and has to react to this mess: better take the greater picture into account while answering. As usual, there are people who try to promote a 'no sex is needed' policy... and other people who try to promote a 'no consent is needed' policy. One of the greatest misdeed of Russavia in this story is having obscured the debate and the very fact that 'sexuality and therefore consent are needed'. Trying to divert the debate into a case 'pictures people v. articles people' is aggravating the misdeed even more.

The question to answer is twofold: what to do with the pictures, what to do with the uploader? Therefore, the answer must be twofold itself, the key point being the disclosure of how the two decisions are correlated. In my opinion, 'keep the picture, remove the trust' is the best reply to the 'fait accompli' created by russavia. For the first point, it should be noticed that 'remove the picture from the real world' is not an option for an already publicly released object, so that 'keep' only acknowledges that these pictures will be irreplaceable for any study about the real-world evolution of this well known real-world charity.

For the second point, the answer may follow the teachings we can obtain from these educative media. I am not sure that everybody here has opened the File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv and looked at it three or four times in a row. Please, examine carefully how the rushes have been cut, pasted and interleaved with precisely this real-world picture that is well-known by the real-world donators and contributors of Wikimedia. How do you think they feel, all these real-world donators and contributors? What is the answer they wait for, in you opinion?

Additional remark: obtaining more details about the forecasted real-world auction of the real-world painting would be great, especially before the closing time of this procedure. Pldx1 (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

inactive leaders

A discussion about who is voting here was launched by User:A.Savin at 2013/08/12, 12:48 UTC. This resulted in User:Faebot/SandboxX. While rediscovering the question four days later (2013/08/16 14:24 UTC), User:Cecil commented that some of the nine "elected leaders" could be completly inactive. Therefore, the page User:Faebot/SandboxX should provide also the statistics relative to these nine "elected leaders" of http://commons.wikimedia.org, the ones that will judge the case. We have the statistics relative to Dschwen, EugeneZelenko, MichaelMaggs, Russavia but those of 99of9, Cecil, Juliancolton, Jusjih, Kanonkas are not provided. It would be slightly amusing if any sleeping leader was allowed to judge who is sufficiently active among the users to be qualified as voter and who is not.
  In any case, the decision to take is judging if the community http://commons.wikimedia.org does endorse or does not endorse the public behaviour of one of its "elected leader". The case is sufficiently important and sufficiently divisive to require a written statement, as judge of the case, from each of the nine presently "elected leaders". Pldx1 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

My preceding comment was released before reading the just above comment of User:Juliancolton. This gave me the idea to look by myself into the activity of this user. Between 14 July 2012 and today, user:Juliancolton seems to have had only 100 contributions, among them less than 15 uploads. At least, it is what can be seen at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Juliancolton. May be I have missed something. May be User:Cecil could provide some useful comments about the required level of activity? Pldx1 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

this file is used here, don't remove it

Somewhere else, the File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv is discussed for removal. It seems useful to recall that this movie, the way it was commissioned and the way it was publicly released are the core of the procedure undertaken here. As of now, more than 140 contributors have stated their opinions. Due to the obvious fact that whatever decision could influence the policy followed here (and in the whole Wikimedia), this discussion has been advertised far beyond the usual drama boards. One can think that this or that advertising has been done with the intent to canvass this or that side. But (this is at least my opinion) the net result of the process will be to collect the opinion of the more important person, i.e. the rank and file contributor, the one that provide contents instead of providing tempests in bowls of <put here your favorite drink>.

File:Mellow Commons Polandball.pngg

File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogvv

click to enter

Before the present discussion is closed, i.e. before 06:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC), each and any voter need to look at the evidences by herself in order to make her own opinion instead of relying onto anyone else to choose between harassment and art in good faith. The very idea to restrain access to only the chosen people, and address the others to so and so external web sites looks rather weird. And after that? In my opinion, the harassment comes not so much from the explicit content of this file, but from the "censor or accept" dilemna purposedly created at this occasion. How the community could hold her grounds while enforcing both the 'no censorship' and the 'consent is needed' policies? Replacing the File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG in the video by another strong evocation of the Wikimedia community seems to be a possiblity. A great choice would be a statement of the revocation of Russavia from his position of 'elected leader'. Pldx1 (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

weighted by…	total	wins	-Fae	wins	-Fae+Rus(?)	wins
account creation date	−938	de-Bureaucrat	−943	de-Bureaucrat	−925	de-Bureaucrat
number of edits	+617	Keep	−312	de-Bureaucrat	+273	Keep
number of uploads	+149	Keep	−222	de-Bureaucrat	−76	de-Bureaucrat

diagnostic is a part of any healing process

Healing process? Yes, obviously. But this requires some hints about the severity of the injury and its context.

• In this respect, comparing the Pink Parrot Incident with paintings of Obama, Putin or the Queen of Australia is misleading. This three real-life paintings are, for what can be seen on the web site of the painter, stored in the painter's back office and mostly used to convince the passerby to invest 50$ in the painting buisness : "the powerfull are pictured, be one of them". But the drama here hasn't been constructed that way. Let us describe a closer analogy. A portrait of the Queen is discovered in the Ballroom, Buckingham Palace, with a movie describing the painting process that was done using a semi-flacid trowel. Quite immediatly, one discovers that the painting was commissioned by Charles himself. Of course, everybody knows the long lasting quarrel between Charles and Mom (about what he says on the phone and so on). But Charles explains: all I have done was for the glory of the Empire, If I had known what drama would have followed!. There are portraits of Obama, Putin, etc. Why not Mom?. And he launches a campaign "only native Britons should vote, who cares of this damned Commonwealth". This Charles, really, playing stupid for not pleading guilty.
• But this is not the end of the story, because all of that don't explain all of the inflamatory process. There is a background problem here, at http://commons.wikimedia.org, with the stolen pictures i.e. the pictures of private persons that were taken in private places but nevertheless publicly released without their consent, in a context of mercyless categorizing or editing. There are people who are using this fact to support their 'no sex needed' agenda. There are other people who are using the no censorship policy to support their 'no consent needed' agenda. Without a strong assertion of a 'sexuality and consent are needed' policy, the inflamatory process can only become recurrent. For example, the very idea to mix rightful erasing of a stolen picture, courtesy removing of a star with a mole on the nose and scope discussing is strongly wrong and inflamatory. This should be clearly fixed, and this should have been our main concern, instead of being diverted into fixing the present sideway mess.
• In the long term, we should not only require from our administrators to "treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect" but also to provide a minimal decorum to keep that assertion credible in the eyes of a wronged person wanting to complain about stolen pictures. Pldx1 (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

About two current subordinate cases

Two other cases have been opened, that are obvious subordinate cases of the present main case. How poorly these two subordinate procedures were/are managed bodes no good about the future of the healing process. I put my remarks here precisely because I think they are subordinate cases.

1. A recently closed procedure to remove the movie File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv was opened at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_(the_making_of).ogv. From the begining, quite all statements in this procedure were alluding or even explicitely referring to this main crat/decrat procedure and the case should have been speedy closed as non bis in idem.
2. Instead of what, the discussion ignited. At the end, the inflamatory nature of this subcase was even more than apparent and was strongly requiring for a well worded closure, stated by an non-involved admin. In an ideal world this could even have been a simple "in use in a pending case" ruled by one of the sleeping bureaucrats.
3. This procedure was nevertheless closed by a clearly involved person ruling the case by a non-neutral closing statement. Some strongly worded comments (in a strongly worded discussion) are a reason to step back. Instead of what, we got an "I don't see that" in the closing statement. Such wording is horrible and should have been "the community hasn't see that". And this ends by a sarcastic comment, that amounts to assert: if the movie has been about painting without a semi-flacid trowel, nobody would have complain about painting with a semi-flacid trowel.
4. This was inflamatory. Not only for the delete voters. But also, and even mostly, for the keep voters, myself among them: we doesn't deserve to be presented as a bunch of biased people.
5. And obviously, this has ignited an easy-to-ignite person, that got cited and sentenced in (18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)) – (17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)) i.e. in one hour and sixteen minutes. I am satisfied to have used above an analogy with the Queen of Australia rather than with the other possibilities at hand, since this gives only: the dissenter was sent to London Tower by the Prince of Gibraltar himself, and three other sergents.
6. After a period of astonishment, the case has been reopened, invoking some kind of habeas corpus. Here again, a procedural closure as non bis in idem should be ruled, the inflamatory comments by User:Ottavia Rima counted as a shame for the de-bureaucrat voters and the unappropriate behavior by admin:mattbuck counted as a shame for the keep voters.
7. As a final remark, I reassert my opinion that the "crat/decrat" conclusion should be redacted by the college of the nine people in charge. One reason is ensuring and asserting independence and authority in this divisive and controversial mess. Another reason is that I am curious of what could be the statement, as a judge, of the 'elected leader' Russavia over the pending case. But not only. I am also curious to *see with my own eyes* the statement, as a judge, of each and every other 'elected leader' over this case. It is clear that the way the decision will be written will be of paramount importance and that elevation of thought and consideration of the broader picture will be required for the decision to be accepted, useful and healing rather than adding more ignition to an already ignited situation. Should we re-elect any 'elected leader' that would be reticent to prove 'leading capabilities' when required?

Pldx1 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing opinion, taking the larger picture into account

It exists here, at http://commons.wikimedia.org/, a controversy about some specific files with explicit content but without explicit consent. Part of the contributors is acting for these files be kept 'as is' and even used as a flagship for "Commons is not censored". Part of the contributors are acting for these files be removed on the very basis of their content. Finaly, the last part of the contributors is acting for the decision of keeping be delayed until a version of this kind of files is obtained with an explicit consent of the model. In this context, it was, perhaps, not the best idea to make a move that as even more ignited an already ignited discussion about the best policy to adopt. What could have been interpreted as yet another way to in a more peacefull context has been interpreted, by a not so small minority, as yet another way to despise their opinions and feelings. Let this larger discussion not get derailed again.

If it is broken

Here is another proposal.

In controversial situations, one of the duties of an 'elected leader' is to decide (by herself or collegiately) who has a sufficient activity to emit a full force statement and who hasn't. Therefore each and every such elected leader is required to maintain a decent level of global activity in the community. Being a volunteer, each of them is obviously allowed to an honorable retirement if their commitment evolves or if any circumstance in their life requires such a retirement (or even such a retirement for a fixed duration). In any case, a removal from sysop due to inactivity will imply a removal from any extended rights. On the contrary any procedure against a bureaucrat for a removal as sysop should be proceeded as a removal for both functions.

But I am not sure this is the topmost priority: discussing about a policy for rightful erasion is largely more urgent.

so just where is the problem that needs to be solved

So just where is the problem that needs to be solved?

finally a use for this file

Quoting the just above text, that was available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. Pldx1 (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The closure should be restated

User:Jkadavoor don't like the way User:Mattbuck closed the discussion about the Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_(the_making_of).ogv. I don't like it either, may be not for the same reasons. Let us recall this discussion. It was together:

• an attempt to reopen the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg without further arguments.
• an attempt to create a diversion inside the Commons talk:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia (de-Bureaucrat), trying to make a point by opening a subordinate case.

Combining the three discussions, the consensus was a *clear and massive* keep. And this is the reason why one or another of the 8 remaining Bureaucrats should discard the closure written by User:Mattbuck and replace it by something like:

Despite the fact that I dislike this file, I must close the discussion by saying that, according due weight to all of the assertions, the result is Keep, and is likely to remain Keep should a 5th deletion request be open.

Indeed, the minority voters (User:Jkadavoor among them) deserve a non-inflamatory closure, and the majority voters (User:Pldx1 among them) deserve a closure that doesn't suggest that these Keep voters could be a bunch of unfair people. Pldx1 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)