Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

See also: Wikipedia:Policy on private photos of identifiable models

Contents 1 User:Publicgirluk 1 1.1 User:Publicgirluk 2 1.2 User:Publicgirluk 3 1.2.1 Blocked stalker 1.3 User:Publicgirluk 4 1.4 User:Publicgirluk 5 1.5 Proposal 1.6 Publicgirluk on DRV 1.7 Working guideline 1.8 What the hell? 2 Discussion 3 Congratulations 4 Returning to Wiki 5 Discussion on the wider issues 6 Jimbo's Take 7 Oi! 8 Request for policy/guidelines on explicit photos 9 Ugh

User:Publicgirluk 1

User:Publicgirluk has uploaded a number of sexually-explicit pictures of (supposedly) herself, mostly used in relevant articles. Wikipedia isn't censored, and the user seems well-intentioned, but there's something wrong about having a significant fraction of sexually-explicit images be of a single identifiable person... On User talk:Publicgirluk there is a long string of "fan mail" requesting more images emailed, and that is definitely not what Wikipedia is for. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-23 22:17Z

it could possibly be seen as self-promotion, but I wouldn't want that kind of thinking to be used to discourage someone from releasing their work here so that it could be used in articles. In this case the pictures do appear professional in nature, but she's stated she doesn't have a website, so its unlikely she's actually trying to promote a website or anything of the sort.--Crossmr 22:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Quarl says "but there's something wrong about having a significant fraction of sexually-explicit images be of a single identifiable person" and I agree. The solution is obvious. Just as it would be wrong to have a significant fraction of Wikipedia be about things English speaking geeks care about and its solution is more articles, not less; so too the solution is for more nude images of model-quality twenty-something female wikipedians. I suggest an immediate major effort by all wikipedians to recruit as wikipedians such persons; some of whom will upload photos as this lovely giving young lady has. I would suggest people keep an eye on her just in case, but it seems she has no end of fans who are most willing to do just that. Isn't volunteerism wonderful? WAS 4.250 00:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why limit it to "model-quality twenty-somethings"? (I'd have no problem posting my own nude pics but I already get enough insults on Wikipedia as it is.)  ;) wikipediatrix 03:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's not censored, no, but Wikipedia isn't a porn site either. I'm no prude, but this sure tests my limits. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My other concern is that we need to be sure that, though the user kinda-caused it, she is not going to be heavily harrased over the images on and off Wiki. Cropping in order for some of the photos? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree cropping is a good idea. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-24 04:03Z

I don't think there is a serious issue of self-promotion since the user has made productive edits to unrelated articles. Someone should keep an eye out to make sure this doesn't turn into self-promotion, but as it is now, there isn't an issue. JoshuaZ 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way that we can be sure that this user is really the person in these photographs? I could forsee some potential legal difficulty for wikipedia if this person isn't who we think it is. Is this a non-issue or does anyone see what I am talking about?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually the only concern I have. There seem to be only good edits, and even if there is a secondary goal of some sort of internet notoriety, I don't think it will negatively impact the project or be long-lasting. Perhaps she can get her 'bf' to take a picture of herself in front of the computer reading this thread? Only slightly kidding. Anchoress 03:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, we presume that users have correctly tagged images unless we have a reason to suspect otherwise. Is there some reason there would be more of a risk making that presumption with these images than with others? JoshuaZ 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What you brought up is a not an non-issue; I am sure there will be people who will check the licensed in the future. Right now, I am going to try and use AGF and presume she is the subject that is being photographed and she gave us a free license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should worry about squeamishness, just article quality. If the images are relevant to the article in the same way that they should be for other articles, then I don't see the problem. It'd be inappropriate for us to suggest that people shouldn't do this because they may be stalked. One concern we would want to be careful about though is age issues -- it would be nice to know for sure that she's of an age that she can legally provide such materials. --Improv 03:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion here about whether there are any illegality issues regarding serving pornographic images to minors. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored does actually comment that despite the lack of censorship, Florida law still pertains. Is there an issue with pornographic images? Mike Christie (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue that was originally raised here was about her privacy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I brought this up was not over legality, but now that you mention it, yes, that is a relevant, orthogonal, issue. 18 USC § 2257 requires the Wikimedia Foundation to maintain records proving every "actress" was 18 or older (the discussion you pointed to was worried about "children viewing pornography", rather than "child pornography"). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-24 03:58Z

Me, I think it could well be a setup to mess us up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have permissions<at>wikimedia<dot>org for these kinds of things? Titoxd^(?!?) 04:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have any mechanisms in place to verify image copyright ... or, for that matter, image authenticity. Generally, we trust that users will place correct copyright tags on images they upload, unless and until someone claims otherwise.

Consider: We do not enforce WP:NOR with regards to images. If someone uploads an image of a fuzzy camelid and says that it is a llama, we assume that it really is a llama and not an alpaca or a guanaco, unless we have specific evidence to the contrary.

This editor claims that these pictures are of herself, and that she is the copyright holder. We have no evidence to the contrary. By our normal practice, we would let the images stand unless and until someone claims otherwise. --FOo 04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that copyright tags aren't verified well enough. Note that copyright is general a civil issue, whereas violating 18 USC 2257 is a criminal offense. Wikipedia could be classified as a secondary producer of sexually explicit media. See Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. IANAL. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-24 04:12Z

I didn't say that copyright tags aren't verified well enough. I said that we don't do anything to verify them unless and until they are challenged. I don't think that's a problem that can be remedied, since there doesn't exist any registry of all copyrighted works anywhere. There's nothing else we can do that doesn't basically amount to asking image uploaders to triple super-swear on a stack of Bibles that they're really the copyright holder. Fortunately enough, under the DMCA in the United States, it's up to copyright holders to report violations to service providers (such as Wikimedia), so that isn't a big issue.

Regarding the sexually explicit media, I think there may be an issue there wrt some of this user's images. However, we have no policy on the subject other than Wikipedia is not censored. If you're concerned about an 18 USC 2257 violation, I suggest taking it up with Wikimedia's general counsel for real legal advice. --FOo 04:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I've emailed juriwiki-l@. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-24 04:35Z

The images of her that that I saw that she has provided as GFDL are not pornographic according to US law. Nudity is not pornographic legally speaking in America. An image of a sex reassignment operation or a foreskin removal on a one year old in spite of violence, gore, bondage, and being underage is not porno legally speaking unless you are selling it with lurid descriptions (and why how you are selling it should make a difference you'll have to take up with legal professionals - I find that entirely weird). WAS 4.250 05:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-24 08:02Z

In order for us to assume that these images are legitimately released under the GFDL by their author, we have to believe that an attractive young woman created a Wikipedia account, saw the opportunity to improve some sexual fetish related articles, and decided to upload private, professional-looking photographs of herself, including photographs of her nude and covered in semen. This, from a user who previously uploaded a copyrighted image of a British porn model (see bottom). Personally, I find the story a little hard to believe and think that we should request that Publicgirluk substantiate that this is her in the photos, or we should remove them before the real copyright owner complains. Of course, we could take the wait and see approach, but it seems like when it comes to placing 50x50 pixel images of cartoon characters on user pages the approach has always been to be proactive in avoiding copyright infringement, and I like to be consistent. — GT 09:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A simple request to fulfill - simply ask her to make a picture of herself holding up a sign saying "Wikipedia rules". --Golbez 11:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The copyrighted image she uploaded was not misrepresented as her own work or anything like that; I see no reason not to believe the woman in the other pictures is she. There's no promotional angle; her talk page provides her with numerous opportunities to advertise a larger repository of images, which she has not done. The images were uploaded at a variety of times, which is consistent with her finding an article, thinking it needs an image, and selecting one from her and her boyfriend's personal collection. Powers ^T 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. (1) Her edits are good. (2) If she has a porn site, she's hiding it pretty well, so I don't see an advertising problem. (3) Her images aren't any worse than a bunch we've seen. I suppose she could post an image of herself holding up a copyleft license if there is serious doubt as to her identity.

Has anyone notified her about this complaint? TheronJ 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicgirluk 2

This is an interesting case, I'd never realised that Wikipedia allowed explict pictures of people recieving "facials" and the like. I can see wider problems in the UK with LEAs and public access in areas such as libraries. (BTW This is not a call for censorship just a comment).

--Charlesknight 14:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problem with regard to LEAs, libraries, or any other public institutions. In those cases, the users themselves are responsible for the content they view. If you mean that public institutions are likely to try and block access to Wikipedia on this basis I would find that possibility very, very remote. Badgerpatrol 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a rational response and not really how it would actually happen - most of those institutions (and I worked for an LEA) basically want a hassle free existance. It's not really the actuality of wrongdoing that concerns them, rather the percetion for wrongdoing. If I want into a local library and said my son was surfing wikipedia and found pornography images and what are they going to do about it? well they will just add it to their block fliter no questions asked, they don't want the hassle.

I also used to run the school networks in a number of places (when I was a teacher) and on the basis of what I've just seen, I'd stick Wikipedia straight on the fliter list - because that is far less hassle than explaining to a parent how I've failed (in their perception) in my duty of care to their child. Why would I want the headache? far easier just to take the path of less resistance.

Look how standard page protections are misrepresented in the media - you honestly think a bored journo on a slow newsday couldn't spin this into "a number of degrading images too disgusting to describe in a family newspaper".

Indeed, Because i've been out of touch with this area for a couple of years, I've just phoned a friend who is a headmaster of a comp and after talking for ten minutes, he plans to block it from his network. to me at least that says it all. --Charlesknight 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that you persuaded your friend to block WP from his school? DS 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I phoned him up and shouted "will someone not think of the children!" down the phone. No of course not - as I mentioned above, I used to work in secondary education sector in the UK and because I have been out (thank god!) of that sector for a couple of years - wanted a different viewpoint from someone still in the trenches. He looked at the images (the ones where Sperm is dripping off her face and mouth) and decided that he did not access to such a site via his school network. While for various reasons we might not agree with such a decsion, i hardly find it a surprising one for the head of a secondary school (11-16 in the uk) to take. --Charlesknight 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message on Publicgirluk's talk page to invite her to participate in this debate. I can see nothing to indicate she is other than a genuine and legitimate editor. As far as schools blocking wiki, this is an issue that goes beyond merely these images. I think we also need to extend some sensitivity to Publicgirluk over this. We are only talking about 5 images — hardly swamping the site! However, to ring the changes, it would be preferable if all images were not identifiable to the same person. Tyrenius 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry just in case I was unclear I was talking about pornography images in general and not those specific images. --Charlesknight 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't pander to those who indulge in irrational behaviour, like over-sensitive headmasters or tabloid newspapers. Provided the images are within the (=Floridian) law (on which I am not any kindof expert) and provided the user is acting in good faith (which we must assume unless proven otherwise, although some may have their suspicions) then there is nothing wrong here. If schools or anybody else choose to block Wikipedia- then it's their loss. Badgerpatrol 15:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Over-sensitive headmasters?! Are you British? If you are, can't you imagine the furore that would result if the press got wind of a story that a school was allowing access to a website with pictures of a young woman's face covered in semen?! If you're not British, let me tell you the story could see Wikipedia torn to shreds on the front pages of national newspapers. We have a ferocious tabloid press and they just love stories like this. If I were a headmaster or school IT guy here I would instantly block any site carrying such pictures, no questions asked. --kingboyk 09:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what might help, some proof that this Publicgirluk is actually the one in the pictures. I belief the standard way of doing this online is to get an identifiable picture of the person holding up a hand-written sign saying something like "I am Publicgirluk on Wikipedia". Publicgirluk, think you can handle that? Shouldn't be too hard. --Cyde Weys 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the problem here goes away if you assume good faith. Does anyone have issue with the relevence, or the encyclopedic value of any specific picture? Does anyone have any specific reason to believe the license tags are not accurate? Are people being subjected to these images when they are not looking up topical material? If the pictures are not acceptable, are the articles they illustrate any more acceptable? Just putting a few questions out there. HighInBC 16:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm able to assume a lot more good faith in the presence of verifiable evidence. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes to scrawl something on a piece of paper, take a picture with it, and then upload that picture. I don't think that's too much to ask, especially because it will help clear up a lot of issues other people may have about Publicgirluk's other pictures. --Cyde Weys 17:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But that is the opposite of WP:Assume good faith. It is an acceptable request I suppose, but should not be required. (just one guys opinion) HighInBC 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not mean "you are never allowed to ask someone for verification". Especially for copyright concerns (not saying that this is one), there are some very serious problems with just taking someone's word for it, especially if it could put the Foundation in risk of legal trouble. --Cyde Weys 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with most of what Cyde says here. Since this user has other completely unrelated contributions, I see no reason to presuppose that anything is at all wrong with the copyright tags. The strongest claim made is that she once submitted a copyrighted picture- however, many users do that before they understand the rules for what sorts of pictures can be submitted so that doesn't seem to hold much water as an argument. Furthermore, there seems to be a slight element of WP:BITE here. JoshuaZ 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that if somebody does precede to insist proof from her it should be done with a level of tact that surpasses even what is expected here normally. Be sure to let her know your precise reasoning in questioning the copyright status.

I do see the validity in Cyde Weys' concern, primarily the proffesional lighting in the pictures.technical quality. HighInBC 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I may know less about what professional modelings photos look like but the lighting here looks competent but not obviously professional. May I ask what about it looks professional to you? JoshuaZ 18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically I think the camera was set up very well and that the camera was of high quality. I am not expert though, this is just my impression. I do not personally think it justifies suspicion as many non professional people are capable of such photography. I was simply trying to identify with Cyde Weys' concerns. Though I still do not agree with them. HighInBC 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. These are not "professional quality", and one possible objection to them is on those grounds. There is no lighting, apart from a room light. By the look of them, they haven't even been processed via Photoshop or similar image processing software (they need more contrast for a start). I don't see anything that wouldn't be achieved by someone with a standard consumer digital camera. Tyrenius 00:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hello? Let's do a bettor's square here. If legal/if illegal. Subject: llama/subject: a woman's bare breasts covered in ejaculate. Gain/danger. Llama: Legal: a picture of a furry mammal. Illegal: potentially an upset National Geographic photographer. "Pearl necklace": Legal: A photo that titillates some boys and shows what is adequately described in the text. "Pearl necklace": Illegal: Pornographic back doors into Wikipedia, a top 50 website with enemies aplenty and political enemies aplenty. So, what's the logical thing to do? Assume good faith, or decide that the stakes are high enough that legality must be proven because the subject matter is a legal and political tripwire? However, let's look at the further evidence: the talk page is a fan club of enrapt youngsters wanting more, more, more and wanting to treat her as a poseable model for their fantasies. Given that profiting by Wikipedia is absolutely, 100% wrong. This is not just an "Oh, you're a prude" thing. Geogre 19:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a little confused at your paragraph and had trouble following it. What do you think is illegal? Do you even think it is illegal? Who is profiting how? Who called who a prude? HighInBC 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As for legal issues that is a matter for the foundation. As for assuming good faith, that is a policy. I don't see how this issue falls out of the scope of or violates in any way existing rules. HighInBC 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, I have a pretty good Geogre -> English translator here... ;-) "Wikipedia may face far greater legal exposure from photographs of this nature, *if illegal*, than it would from illegal photographs of a less sensitive nature. That, plus the tolerance by the user for the use of her talk page for non-encyclopedic purposes, calls for treading carefully here and not calling for quashing further investigation." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, he is saying images with greater potential for legal damage should be held to a higher standard(correct if I am wrong Geogre). Good point Geogre, thanks for the help Bunchofgrapes. HighInBC 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That is it. I have been having some aphasia today, I think, and even I hardly understand what I was saying, above. Grapes did a good translation. The issue, for me, is that there is very little gained by any individual photograph. While we like to illustrate our articles, we have to realize that we rarely need to take undue risks. In the case of pornographic images, or images that would be likely to be used by any of the people who dislike Wikipedia, the risks are undue. Because the subject matter is touchy, we probably need to be much more explicit in getting proof that we're not violating copyright. That is then combined with the fact that the purpose of the uploads may not be entirely salutory. I'll assume good faith when it comes to the user talk page, but we also need to watch out for those who have a vested interest in litigation against us. Geogre 00:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That makes some sense. However, if we hold any images to a higher standard that may make Wikipedia more liable for the images not held to that standard. IANAL but it seems to be analogous for the disclaimer template concern. JoshuaZ 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems to be a non-problem. If individuals are concerned they should watch closely till those concerns can be expressed by citing a policy or guideline being violated. And a person cannot be held responsible for what other people put on their talk page, her response has been very tempered. HighInBC 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

After having Tyrenius inform me on my talk page I have just finished reading this. I am suprised at the sheer volume of comment, half of which I found insulting and half of which is just laughable. Despite contributing to the project in good faith I appear to be being accused of lying, self promotion, illegal activity, sexual deviance and to cap it all getting Wikipedia banned in the content filters across the world. I don't see anywhere in the FAQ that says Wikipedia is a club, that it requires membership, nor that I have to prove or identify myself. Those asking for me to prove myself to them can start by posting of photo of themselves to show that they are not perverts and why they are entitled to ask for identity. To put the record straight on a number of items 1) I haven't posted a larger numbers of sexually explicit photo's. While accepting that everyone's difinition will vary, I think only 2 could be argued to be in this catagory. I think both of which add to their respective articles, both of which have caused some debate on the article discussion and both articles appear to have reached a consenses. I haven't changed any subsquent edit of mine as I happy with the principles of wikipedia. If you have something to say or don't like my edits then feel free to discuss or amend them on the appropraite page. 2) I am over 18 3) I can't see how my edits are self promotion but for the record I am not interested in self promotion. 4) I don't see the revelance of whether the images are professional or not. For the record they were taken in my bedsit with a proper i.e expensive camera, a canon something or other. 5) I don't have a porn site. I am not a porn star, I am a student. I am comfortable with my sexuality and sexual preferences and I am not ashamed by them. 6) I created one new page which I thought (and still do) added to wikipedia scope of articles and used what I thought was a fair use image. Others disagreed and deleted the article which I am happy to allow.

I am not going to enter further debate I don't have to answer to anyone or prove myself either. If you don't like my contributions then please delete them and my user ID. I have plenty of things to fill my life with. Publicgirluk 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think this issue has been handled insensitively and discourteously, and I am not surprised that User:Publicgirluk feels as she does. She was not even informed of or invited to this debate (until I discovered it and informed her), and as a new user would not be expected to know about it. There is nothing to indicate that she has acted in any way other than that expected of an editor (and especially a new editor). All sorts of suggestions have been made, but nothing verified, and some suggestions have been made on the basis of quite uninformed opinion. Particularly disconcerting is any negative reflection on her because of comments by other users on her talk page, which she has not in any way encouraged, but has responded to in a very restrained manner. We should be seeking to protect her, but no one has offered any advice or guidance as to how this should be dealt with. The last comment on her talk page is highly undesirable and obviously something she has found offensive. No one seems to have considered what it would be like for her to read this thread. Tyrenius 00:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Publicgirluk, you are my hero. Don't let anyone push you around. HighInBC 00:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

She has every right to feel aggrieved, and I hope Publicgirluk you won't feel dissuaded from contributing here. But, mmmm, wasn't the worry that the pictures might have been posted by, say, an aggrieved ex-bf? I have to add though, that until we have a policy which requires identification of the subjects in posed photos we shouldn't hassle this user over it unless there's a complaint. Which, as far as I am aware, there hasn't been. Move along folks, nothing to see here! --kingboyk 07:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some issues are sensitive enough that it is too late once there is a complaint, e.g. John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:18Z

I think you might be right. But, we need a policy so that in future we aren't making a mess of it as we have here (result: one editor feeling victimised, and nothing achieved). I'm a little surprised there isn't more guidance on this from the Foundation (same goes for the underage editors situation above). --kingboyk 08:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in so late, but I totally agree with Tyrenius and HighInBC's comments immediately above. This has been handled insensitively, and I feel that any new user being discussed on AN/I should be made aware of the dispute at the time of the original posting. Just my $0.02, «ct» (t|e) 10:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I too agree entirely with Tyrenius and High, et al., and intended to express such opinion earlier. The only valid concerns expressed, IMHO, were as to the provenance of the images, and even those were overwrought. Cyde's suggestion apropos of an identifying picture was, I suppose, rather reasonable, but it was never conveyed to Public. We have here a user who has contributed propitiously, and our conduct here has served to drive her away from the project and thus, to be sure, to diminish the quality of the encyclopedia in the areas in which Public worked. Whilst some reasonable arguments with respect to copyright were essayed, many unnecessary intimations with respect to Public's character—vis-à-vis both credibility and, much more perniciously, deviance—were made, and I rather think the situation could have been handled a bit better. Joe 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There were some valid concerns and these need to be addressed. But let's learn something from this. It would be best raised by a tactful communication to the editor concerned in the first instance, and let's ensure extended debates of this kind don't go on without the user being informed immediately. That should be paramount. Cyde is absolutely correct that we need to validate the origin of the photos. It is obviously far more serious for a false posting of photos of this nature than it would be for a false posting of photos of a village pub, for example, so to protect the subject it needs to be established, tactfully, that it's all genuine. I feel from the user edits and conduct that that is the case here. Tyrenius 18:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you also have to address the issue of whether or not wikipedia falls under the kind of website that would require us comply with the US law of keeping her details in the custody of a steward to prove she's over 18 (this would then have to extend to all photos of nudity).--Crossmr 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The exact same images of a nude three year old would be perfectly legal so in this case the US law you speak of does not apply. Sexual behavior images (penetration for example) might be a problem; but doesn't apply to Google's pic search nor to some bulliten board. As a practical matter, I can't see the government believing the could find a jury that would convict Wikipedia - it would instead just show the governments hand at how it is useing "think of the children" to increasingly infantilize adults. WAS 4.250 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage you then to put up an image of a 3 year old with ejaculate on her face and tell me you won't find a government official with an issue about that or did you miss that image? Google's pic search doesn't host the image, wikipedia hosts this image, there is a difference. Wikipedia is also not a search engine, its held to a different standard. Wikipedia is also not a bulletin board, so those comparisons are inaccurate.--Crossmr 23:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Take the image from the upper right from here, crop at the neck, add a caption about "cum" and you have an example of the image you refer to further nudity on the part of the child would not make it illegal. Pics of nudity are not illegal. Pics of real or fake cum are not ilegal. WAS 4.250 00:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the big concern is that she refused to verify she's actually what she says. Which could have been done easily as cyde pointed: take a picture with a paper saying "yes I'm publicgirluk at wikipedia" (which could be removed afterwards if needed). She specifically stated

 I am not going to enter further debate I don't have to answer to anyone or prove myself either. 
 If you don't like my contributions then please delete them and my user ID. 
 I have plenty of things to fill my life with. Publicgirluk 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Since she is refusing to help verifying the source of the images, I will go ahead and delete them. -- Drini 22:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref my IRC conversation with you, please do not delete these images. They are legal and correctly uploaded and released, and to ask publicgirluk to do things that other uploaders are not required to do is unacceptable to my mind. --AlisonW 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Like AlisonW, I am opposed to deleting these images. No policy has been broken with these images, they are correctly tagged. Let's all assume good faith. There is no reason to beleive that Publicgirl has uploading these images against copyright, or broken any wikipedia policy. If the requirements for uploading a picture of ones self is that with it you have to provide proof that you are who you say you are, face book is going to get a lot shorter. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The photos appear useful, and absent any complaint, I don't see any reason to hassle the uploader about them. We generally accept all claims of self copyright ownership at face value and I don't see any reason to deviate from that in this case. The only person with any real liability here would be the uploader if she is not the person she claims to be, which we have no evidence of. Assume good faith. Dragons flight 23:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting those images would be a violation of assume good faith, an act against consensus, and a little bit of biting the newbies. I still have not heard one specific complaint that applies to existing policies. If there was a serious legal issue that is not covered by existing rules then the foundation would step in, that is their job. There is a serious danger of chasing off a sincere editor here, and I will resist it. HighInBC 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm with the pro-Publicgirl camp here, most of what I'd want to say has already been said, except for one thing: the idea of taking a picture of oneself holding up a sign saying "I am so-and-so on Wikipedia" seems sort of demeaning to me. It seems a bit reminiscent of a mug shot, or of being the kid who has to hold the little chalkboard for your class on school-picture day. That's a purely subjective view, of course, and I don't want to suggest that others should feel the same as me on this, but I bet some others do feel the same as me, and I think that should be taken into account any time we're thinking of asking someone to take a picture of themselves like that. --Allen 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The most important issue relating to these particular photos is whether they are uploaded by the subject. I don't think anyone is disputing that now (if they are, then they need to say so, and why). In this case, there's nothing for admins to do, but there does seem to be a need for various policy issues to be discussed elsewhere. Tyrenius 22:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been placed on Publicgirl's talk page:

• As I see you're aware, there is some concern that you are not the copyright holder of various images, including Image:Woman Pearl Necklace.jpg, and others. I'd like to request that you upload a self-picture of yourself (clothed) holding a sign saying "I took this picture for WIkipedia." That should be sufficient to clear up the copyright issues, and avoid their deletion.

• I understand how frustrating it can be to have good-faith contributions questioned. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is under a nearly constant flood of images with inaccurate copyright information, all of which put the Foundation at considerable legal risk. For this reason, images that are marked as self-published or public domain but which appear to be of high technical quality, such as yours, tend to come under particularly strong scrutiny. Please don't take that personally. Thanks in advance. Nandesuka

I think that we've already gone through all this, right? We have certainly astablished that there is no reason to delete the images. I was wondering if anyone had any further comments on this? Thε Halo ^Θ 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And, thinking about it, is there any reason that Publicgirl needs to be clothed? Would it really matter any if she was totally naked while holding up the sign? Thε Halo ^Θ 15:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The potential reason to delete the images is that they may be improperly licensed. We cannot create a consensus to permit images that have an improper license. If 8,683,182 editors all agree that improperly licensed images should be allowed and encouraged on Wikipedia, it would not matter. Content that violates any copyright here will be deleted. Editors trying to confirm the provenance of suspicious images (and many suspicions have been appropriately raised in this discussion) are not violating WP:AGF, but simply doing their jobs. Nandesuka 15:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No one has made any coherent claim as to why we should think that these images are not her own. Give it a rest already and let the user contribute in peace. JoshuaZ 15:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, several respected editors and admins have made coherent claims as to why we might think that. Given that, asking for direct confirmation is the obvious thing to do. To all the reasons that have been given thus far, I'll add that several of these photos have been retouched, and retouched subtly, in Photoshop. Is that conclusive proof that they are not User:Publicgirluk's? Of course not. Is that another piece of evidence tending to suggest that the images might have been made for more than strictly amateur, personal use? Yes. Images that are of high technical quality or show signs of sophisticated retouching should receive a higher degree of scrutiny. Nandesuka 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this whole discussion should go to the talk page of the applicable image policies. That is where new rules go. The idea of singling out one user and demanding proof seems to smack of not assuming good faith. If a rule is to be made that pictures with nudity require greater proof that is fine, but do it in the talk page of the appropriate policy. AN/I or a user talk page is no place to create and enforce new rules. And yes, this does seem to be a new rule to me. I have never heard of the good faith of a copyright decleration being questioned without any sort of evidence. If images that are of high technical quality or show signs of sophisticated retouching should receive a higher degree of scrutiny then try to acheive consensus to make that a rule. As it stand she may not even come back to wikipedia over this incident. HighInBC 16:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my words were apparently confusing. Let me try again: images that are of high technical quality or show signs of sophisticated retouching do and will receive a higher degree of scrutiny. We don't need to make up new rules to enforce existing copyright policy. Nandesuka 16:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking in the imperative does not make something consensus. HighInBC 16:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to excuse myself from further discussion on this matter due to the fact I have made all the points I wish to make. I will of course answer any questions on the subject. HighInBC 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several issues that keep getting re-aired, here. 1) Copyright. Wikipedia is somewhat indemnified when the uploader swears that the image is her own, provided that we show due dilligence. Given the professional quality of the images, several people have believed that due dillegence requires more than just, "Oh, sure, screen name, we accept your legal affadavit!" 2) Biting. I've known prostitutes and strippers in the past, but I don't think I've known any female exhibitionists. It would have been unimaginable for either of the first two categories in my experience to have uploaded pornographic images of themselves without a remunerative motive. However, they would not have feigned blushing delicacy if the images provoked an outcry in either case, so all of these Gallahads coming to rescue the damsel in distress are hilarious. If the uploader is the model, then she had better expect some reaction. It's hard to bite when it's bait. 3) "Censorship." Wikipedia is not censored for minors, but it is also not home to any image uploaded by any contributor. It is not "censorship" to reject an image -- saying otherwise is the argument of trolls and edit warriors, consistently. Do we need to illustrate "pearl necklace?" What do we gain by it? Is the article ambiguous without the illustration? What do we lose by it? Any intelligent consideration would reject the illustration even aside from copyright issues. 4) Hoaxing. Some of us think that we are either being hoaxed or that the defenders of the distressed damsel are setting us up for hoaxing and entrapment. If you want to see similar images, go elsewhere or get a significant other, but let the normal review process and evaluation get underway. My own feeling is that this is a reincarnated troll, but I don't think even that much investigation is necessary for rejecting the images. Geogre 17:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many problems with the above. As to 1 the pictures do not seem to be of professional quality(the lighting is not perfect and in at least one of them (the latex one) the camera angle and distance are non-optimal) so copyright concern areunwarranted. 2) is irrelevant- the user is annoyed because she attempted to contribute 3) is a valid concern but should be brought up on the individual pages (and other than the pearl necklace picture the others seem well within the bounds of acceptable pictures in even some of the more prudish jurisdictions anyways). 4) The user is clearly not a troll. The user has other contributions to non-sex related topics and did not point out to anyone or anything that she had uploaded the pictures. Therefore, an accusation of trolling is also not warranted. JoshuaZ 17:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your pornography is different from mine, but the pearl necklace photo would certainly pass muster in the ones I own. To say that it is not professionally produced or produced with the intent of merchandising on the web because it doesn't pass Playboy standards is not valid. The lighting is very well controlled, and it looks sufficiently professional to raise alarms. 2) It is relevant because one of the most important things is that we not become an advertising venue or a profit center. The user's talk page was full of solicitations, and none of us can know how she responded to them. I will assume good faith, of course, but it is a rare thing when a fit, young, attractive woman uploads pictures of herself without any thought of payment, and that rarity justifies further investigation. It also makes defense a little funny. We would not want Alex Chiu marketing eternal life rings with his talk page, and we would not want a pornographer marketing his or her website through a talk page, either. 3) We have yet to have a coherent debate on levels of illustration of prurient and violent topics. Every time it begins, the same shrill voices are heard and no one gets a sane word in edgewise. Since this whole topic began on the subject of the pornographic images, it's appropriate to discuss these particular ones here. 4) I don't want to get into charges, but contributions in other subjects is hardly proof one way or the other. Some of our favorite people have used the chaffe approach. The bigger concern is simply whether there is a net gain by this kind of exposure and setting the precedent that we should not question further because of some abstract "wikilove" principle. We can love unerringly when they're photos of naked Zebrus, but maybe love with suspicion when they're purportedly exhibitionist photos from a model who seeks no fame or payment. Geogre 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicgirluk 3

Just a comment here - this saga is long and detailed and this may have been discussed previously, but what is the perceptible difference between this situation (a person uploading sexual imagery they claim to be a photo of themselves) and, say, a man (or woman) posting lurid, private photographs of an ex-wife or girlfriend, perhaps for revenge? I'm still not sure whether the poster has been positively identified as the model, or whether the photos are in fact private, and whether they have been uploaded with permission of the model. It seems to me that in the absence of certainty regarding the identity and copyright status of the photos they should be deleted - to say nothing of my personal feelings regarding the questionable encyclopedic value of such photographs in the first place. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a significant change in policy. As far as I know, for every other PD-self and CC picture on Wikipedia, we assume good faith that the image is tagged correctly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Why is this only becoming an issue now? Powers ^T 20:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Good faith is a good thing to do - but in this case, where the photos are of an explicit nature, depicting real people in sexual situations, an assumption of good faith alone does not seem to me to be adequate protection of individual privacy, nor of copyright, nor of image licenses. These images are anything but typical - and their introduction on WP seems (to me at least) to only marginally benefit the encyclopedia (if at all) while posing a serious personal/legal risk. These are not typical images, and this is not a typical situation. Policy needs to be applicable in this situation - and currently, it's sorely lacking. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka raises a disturbing issue, that high-quality photographs undergo greater scrutiny than low-quality ones. Should we really be discouraging high-quality photo contributions in favor of low-quality ones? Powers ^T 20:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, greater scrutiny is fine, but the concerned person should seek evidence or ask about it, but not make demands of proof. What if I post an extremely well written article on a subject and someone was worried it could be copyrighted? They would do some research and check around and try to find a copy elsewhere, and they may ask me if it is my material. But if the submiter has made assurances that it is legit and the conerned person cannot find any evidence to the contrary, then I think we shoud assume good faith across the board regardless of level of excellent of the submition. HighInBC 21:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we really be discouraging high-quality photo contributions in favor of low-quality ones? In those terms, no, of course not. But in the sense that 99.999% of high-quality images are copyrighted, that might be the outcome of a sensible approach towards image contributions. My philosophy is that it's better to have a encyclopedia known to be free than one that might be more comprehensive, but ripe with copyright violations. And some consideration needs to be given to Geogre's points above. In the rare event that someone needs an illustration to properly understand what a "pearl necklace" is, how hard would it be for them to find one elsewhere? — GT 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The ease of finding information "elsewhere" has never been a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. The whole point of Wikipedia is to make information available to people who would not otherwise have it available. That's like saying we don't need an image of George Bush because it's easy to find an image of George Bush elsewhere. Mainly, I'm worried about the implication that if Publicgirluk had re-taken the exact same shots with the exact same poses using an old Kodak Disc camera and candelight, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Powers ^T 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes we would. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not like saying that. There are no copyright concerns whatsoever on the portraits of US presidents that we use. Furthermore while George Bush himself and the contents of his article may be controversial, nobody has any serious issues with a visual depiction of the man. The ease of finding information elsewhere does come into play when we have to weigh benefit versus risk and that is how these situations differ. — GT 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently User:Goldom has deleted User:Publicgirluk. [[1]] Dionyseus 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked stalker

User:Goldom has deleted the userpage as it was being vandalised - the note says "to protect the real user". So it's not like Publicgirluk has been blocked or anything. Meanwhile, I have indefinitely blocked an anonymous account that had only two posts: one vandalising Publicgirl's userpage with the sexually explicit photos under discussion; the other soliciting contact from another female user. I have no particular opinion about the photos themselves. Metamagician3000 01:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The blocked account is User:80.0.27.199. Metamagician3000 02:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe should be changed to a long block rather than an indefinite one? I changed it to a month - should be enough discouragement. Metamagician3000 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to see indefblocked IP's for nothing more than a comment like the one it gave. Especially since there was about 30 or so identical comments like the ones above it. Long, not indef.. — The Future 02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicgirluk 4

A couple of points:

• The subject in these photos clearly seems to know that they are being photographed, and I would infer, based on the lighting and quality, that they were more than just candids for personal use. I think this somewhat lessens the concern that some have expressed about "protecting" the subject.

• The concern about copyright is valid, but I see no reason to treat these pictures as different from any other "high" qulity pictures. Yes, it could be from some copyrighted "adult" site, but we default to trusting the uploader absenting other evidence. Having this copyrighted picture does not expose us to any more signifcant risk than having any other copyrighted picture.

• Are these appropriate for an encyclopedia? Personally, I think not, but this should be debated on the relevant talk page. 12.75.0.240 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the first two points of your assessment:

• Just because the subject is aware she is being photographed does not imply she is aware these images have been uploaded to an online encyclopedia. Moreover, we do not know her age.
• The concern is not just whether these are 'professional' or 'copyrighted'. The concern is that we simply do not know whether these images are being shared with the consent of the owner of the image. And as has been discussed ad-nauseam, 'good faith' isn't enough to protect WP from what might happen if, for example, the woman in these photographs is a minor, or unaware that they have been posted to a public web site.

I do agree that they are utterly unencyclopedic. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The age issue is irrelevant, she is clearly in her 20's (if I had to guess I'd say she's either 23 or 24). As for whether or not the woman on the photos really gave consent, this is not an issue. If the woman in those photos contacts Wikipedia and asks them to be removed, they will be removed, end of issue. Until that happens, there is no reason to not AGF with the editor that these photos belong to her and that she is who she says she is. Dionyseus 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Hardly. Her consent is absolutely an issue. There is indeed reason to request confirmation of her identity and willingness for these images to be posted. With a lackadaisical attitude like you are expressing, you make it FAR too easy to simply abuse WP, employing it simply as a mechanism to post private pornographic images without license. Policy in this area is incomplete, and I am hopeful that this situation will result in a clear process that prohibits images like these being uploaded without direct approval of the models involved. Your 'comfort level' is your own, and in this case where unconfirmed, sexually explicit images of young people are being posted without clear licensing, 'waiting for someone to object' is simply unacceptable and not up to the level of a professional encyclopedia. I will refrain from more specific dialogue about these massively exploitable risks, if only to avoid WP:BEANS. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Instead of letting this run on and on and on, and getting no where, can we take this to office, and get a diffinate answer on this subject. Yes, there are legal questions that need to be answered, that much is obvious, so it would probably be best for all concerned, including Publicgirl, if office looked at this, and told us what to do from a legal standpoint. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing WP:OFFICE knows more about this than we do. Publicgirluk has already stated that she is over 18, so I don't think minors being involved is something to worry about. It's just a matter of if the Images are worth keeping.. — The Future 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear - the uploader (who claims without verification to be the model) claims without verification that the model is 18. For you, that's acceptable enough protection for possible victims of porn? Not to me. In the case of pornographic images of young women with man-batter on their faces, AP:AGF doesn't cover it nearly enough. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope that's the case from here on in, The Future, I really do. I only thought that Office might get involved because a certain group continue to bring up questions of legality (the the post directly above mine does, for example). However, I am no expert of Image copyright, at least, not in this sort of situation, and I defer to the more experienced among us. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The Wikimedia Foundation is a common carrier in the meaning of US telecommunciation law. The foundation has no liability whatsoever for the actions of the contributors to Wikipedia, provided it addresses any complaints promptly. In the absence of specific evidence that there is a problem here (and not just speculations about image quality), there is no compelling legal reason to delete the photos. Assuming good faith is exactly what the law envisions that online forums will do. If there is some malfeasance here, then it might be bad for public relations, but I can't see any reason (copyright or otherwise) to believe that these images pose a legal liability to any here other than the uploader. Dragons flight 23:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The unconfirmed licensing status is reason enough, and in the case of images of this nature, WP:AGF is not a complete policy. It does not, for example, protect against an individual posting pornographic images for retaliatory or derogatory purposes. In the absence of encyclopedic value, I can't see any reason why the images should not be deleted. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly argue about what is good editorial policy, but as I say above, the existing evidence does not make this a legal issue. Dragons flight 00:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that 18 USC 2257 arguably requires the Wikimedia foundation to have verifiable records of a certain quality on file. I'm not a lawyer for the Foundation, but as far as I'm concerned that is reason enough to delete certain images of subjects who can't provide such records. Nandesuka 23:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, per section (h)(3) of the cited law, you do not need to keep records if your activity "does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted". In addition, the administrative code interprets 2257 as applying only to commercial works and generally exempts non-profits, such as Wikipedia Dragons flight 00:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that we have mirrors, which aren't non-profits. All of our content still has to be suitable for them, which is why we don't accept non-commercial licensing on anything in Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicgirluk 5

(Edit conflicts)
This conversation does not seem to be getting anywhere, apart from raising points for further discussion. It also covers a number of different areas which doesn't help for clarification. Legal matters and editing decisions in general are intermingled with aspects of this case in particular, although there is obviously a relationship between them.

Certain things are wider in scope and need to be taken elsewhere to debate fully:

• photo copyright verification in general
• specific issues relating to explicit/sexual photos in general
• editorial decision as regards to the use of sexual photos in general

Certain things need to be decided now about these particular photos:

• nothing is done, or
• they are deleted, or
• some form of verification is required, and, if not forthcoming, they are deleted

As this is an admin noticeboard, not a policy making one, it would be helpful to concentrate on what might need action to be taken, i.e. the last three options.

I find there are some extremely unsatisfactory observations that have been made about these particular images and false conclusions therefore arrived at. I have an extensive experience of working professionally with photography, and these are definitely not what would normally be described as "professional photos", which does not mean they are without merit, appeal or inventiveness. They bear all the hallmarks of being taken by an amateur with a bit more imagination and aesthetic sense than average: that is all. Comments as to the quality of the lighting fall far short of the mark. There is either daylight or improvised lighting, but not professional lighting. I can't see any indication of the use of image processing software, and, if there has been, it has not done any of the things that would normally be done with it. There is just normal degradation of definition from file compression for web use. If anyone pronounces on the technical quality of the images, I would be grateful if they would state their qualifications for doing so.

Judgements alluding to the motivation of someone who would wish to pose for such photos are hopelessly cliched and old-fashioned. It does not surprise me at all from observations of many people I know that someone would wish to do this, nor to post them on the internet, although it is not usual on wikipedia. As Publicgirluk says, she feels comfortable with her sexuality.

There is no evidence to support the notion that the intention of the user is for commercial gain. There is no evidence of solicitation — the reverse if anything. Furthermore, there is very little point using wikipedia for that purpose, when it would be very easy to make money elsewhere with sexual images, if that was what Publicgirluk wanted to do. She was asked if she had a web site, which anyone with a commercial interest certainly would do, and would take the opportunity to promote it. She said she did not have a web site, and did not offer the address of one.

Let us just for the sake of argument assume that everything Publicgirluk has said is true and everything she has done is without dubious motivation. I do not see anything that contravenes that interpretation. If the user is genuine — and I think at the moment we have to act on this basis — then this discussion contains things that should not have been said, and I hope will not be in future.

As far as copyright is concerned, and barring any contractual agreement to the contrary, it remains with the photographer, unless they were taken by her with a timer or some other method. She has indicated they were taken by her boyfriend. If there were a verbal agreement, it would be one person's word against the others, and she has obviously given her consent to the photographer for them to be taken, so her case would be weakened. There does not appear to be any dispute between them over the use of the work, however, but it may be a legal nicety that needs to be addressed, if not in this, then in other cases.

Tyrenius 23:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, at least two of these pictures (it's left as an exercise to the reader to figure out which ones, and where) have clearly been processed with the Photoshop spot healing brush. It's as plain as day. Of course amateurs can use Photoshop too, but when combined with the other factors is relevant. In any event, even if everything publicgirluk has said is true, that doesn't satisfy the record-keeping requirements of 18 USC 2257. That probably doesn't impact the various latex/spandex photos, but is, in my mind, adequate reason to delete the "pearl necklace" and facial photos immediately. Nandesuka 23:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Per above, Wikipedia is not covered by 2257. Dragons flight 00:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I won't believe this statement from anyone who isn't the Foundation's lawyer. Wikipedia's own article on Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act points out just how uncertain the scope and breadth of this law is. Nandesuka 00:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, just so long as we can agree it shouldn't be deleted based on the legal interpretation of someone who is not a foundation lawyer. Dragons flight 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please go into detail? I would consider this the deal-breaker at which point this discussion can come to a close if we can definitively classify these images as having been retouched. Personal photos are almost never altered in this way, whereas that is a hallmark of images from online pornographic photo galleries as I personally suspect these to be from. — GT 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I retouch many of my personal photos, especially if I am putting them online. Dragons flight 00:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't quite know how to express this without breaking into very large bold capitals, but really they are for a whole variety of reasons glaringly obviously not professional photographs in any way, if we are using the word professional to indicate the complete mastery of the craft, as opposed to doing something for money (which could result in very bad photos, but I don't think that's what anyone means). Besides which there are plenty of superbly skilled enthusiast photographers, who can compete with professional standards, so the whole issue is a complete red herring and should be dropped. It won't prove anything on way or the other. Tyrenius 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, I did mean exactly what you said, that they were taken by somebody only doing it for the money. Pornographic web sites usually don't specialize in top-notch photography; all that is necessary is that it be acceptable enough to present the model in a flattering way that arouses the viewer. By professional quality, I am only referring to the standards of the garden variety internet porn sites such as the one that I suspect these images were taken from. — GT 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, you are arguing that the burden of proof lies with WP. In many cases I agree. However, in the case of pornographic images of unverifiable origin, license and subject (yes, these are questionable without insult to the poster), I would argue the burden of proof lies with the uploader. Anything else allows WP to be used as a mechanism for abuse - with zero accountability and protection of the project. We ought not wait for a complaint by the subject to verify the source. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not surprise me at all from observations of many people I know that someone would wish to do this, nor to post them on the internet, although it is not usual on wikipedia. With all due respect to your observations, unless I am mistaken, Publicgirluk would be the first female Wikipedian to even upload a naked photograph of herself, let alone one with semen all over her. Not quite commonplace then is it? And in spite of being so daring, she considers it insulting that we have some doubts that we'd like to settle? This is why I am skeptical, and why I would more readily believe that somebody just ripped these images from someone's photo gallery and uploaded them as their own. — GT 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not exactly. There have been previous conversations related to naked photos, realated to bondage articles. Anyway, my point was exactly what you have said — namely that it is not usual on wikipedia. However, there are plenty of sites where it is quite usual. It is not completely outside today's norms. It has just been outside wiki's norms. I presume she thought wikipedia was uncensored. There is nothing to say that she would have specifically objected to settling doubts, had these been presented to her in a courteous and discreet manner. What is insulting is that half of AN/I is filled up with all sorts of allegations and implications without anyone even having the consideration to let her know. That is insulting and hurtful. So your deduction is based on a false premise.

I am not arguing the burden of proof lies with anyone. I'm simply pointing out a few things that I think ought to be taken into account, whatever decision is reached.

Tyrenius 00:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Besides which a real abuser or troll or whatever would carry on gaming the system like our friend Courtney Akins further down this page. It's someone who is genuine and who has been hurt, who is much more likely to leave quietly. Tyrenius 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who did not interact with, insult or 'hurt' the uploader, I can only say that perhaps WP:BITE doesn't apply to newcomers posting images of women covered in semen. Your defense of the user is admirable, but strikes me as excessive. WP is an environment of debate, and the uploader didn't participate in that debate, instead testing an area of WP policy with 'her' images and then departing. Does not strike me as any less likely to be a troll as a user who fights 'tooth-and-nail' before leaving. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And the attacks made on her strike me as excessive. The uploader is a new user. The uploader was not told about this debate until it had reached an unacceptable point. You say she's testing policy. From her words, she seemed to think it was policy and was surprised there was anything to test. After all, her talk page had been getting a lot of compliments, so what was there to tell her other than she was doing the right thing. Nobody broached these matters with her directly. I think the whole way this has been handled is quite unacceptable. The first thing is to WP:AGF before you start laying into someone. After all, if you see a page of erect penises, why on earth should you think that anyone would object to bare breasts and the natural conclusion to an erect penis? Is there something that I'm getting wrong thinking there are some rather ambivalent, not to mention double, standards at work here. She wasn't even showing genitalia. Some porn! Tyrenius 01:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC

Just to put matters into perspective, this is what is already on Wikimedia Commons for [penis], female genitalia, vagina, breasts, masturbation. You can check out the whole category of sex. Presumably someone with an interest, as she obviously has, in contributing to sexual articles would just have come across some of these by inputting the appropriate search words, and would have concluded that explicit images are acceptable. Then she gets a load of messages complimenting her. What's she meant to think? Tyrenius 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'treatment' the uploader received as a result of his/her decision to post these images is entirely separate to this issue. I don't condone any attacks on anyone - and indeed, have NEVER interacted with the uploader - so open another incident report or RfC and stop complicating this discussion of the images with 'the way he/she was treated'. It's just confusing the dialogue.

And FWIW, as an ardent Italophile, I have no objection to sexuality, nor ejaculation, nor erections, nor masturbation, nor vaginas, nor breasts. And if this woman's identity and intent were verifiable I would likely hold a different opinion of these images. But as it stands, please don't conflate an image of a vagina and an image of a woman with semen all over her face. They are entirely different, both in content and purpose/utlity. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As Ryan said, above, it's really remarkable that the defense is so vigorous here. We have dashing Gallahads coming to the rescue of, if everything is true, a woman who has 1) engaged in pornographic photography and 2) uploaded pictures of herself with no thought of repayment, and such a person is not very likely to be shocked by having folks react. If she is, then she must live in a very, very different world than any I've visited. More to the point, what is damning here is that this defense is asking everyone to ask no more questions, to just be quiet, allow the photos up, to have no suspicions, and to begin even protecting the images. That's absurd, and it's bad practice. It's the duty of all of us to use our common sense and to keep our BS detectors running on full, especially with new users who show up and immediately know their way around. It's simple: self-made pornography among young women is rare enough that people are suspicious. That's a good thing. It's a very good thing. To suggest that it isn't because of "AGF" is absurd. Geogre 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case she does live in a very different world than any you have visited, and so do I, because, although I don't know Publicgirluk, I do know quite a number of people who are akin to her, and have even done things not far removed, although not on wikipedia. They are just ordinary people in their twenties in London. (Is there any kind of cultural divide here, I wonder?) I do feel strongly about this, because I can empathise with her position. And kindly leave out the Gallahad ridicule please. I think there is a serious issue to be addressed, and as far as I'm concerned there is a genuine user who has been treated very shoddily. You can't leave out the way she was treated, because her actions are being interpreted as a revelation of her motivations. I am not trying to stifle debate, so I hope you didn't aim that at me. I am trying to counteract assumptions and false argument, and to put this in some kind of coherent, rational context. BS detectors can be turned in more than one direction. :) Tyrenius 02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"You can't leave out the way she was treated, because her actions are being interpreted as a revelation of her motivations." Not by me they aren't. They should (and really must) be dealt with separately. Let's deal with the content issue of the images and the way this user behaved (and the way others behaved in turn) separately, in the interests of Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am quite happy to do that. And there's no need to raise your voice. I'm standing next to you! Tyrenius 02:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't shouting. By using boldface, I was being emphatic. If I TYPED IN ALL CAPS, your snark might have more juice. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What's going on here? If I say "raise your voice", is it not an exaggeration of my intent to respond that I said "shouting". Raise voice = bold. Shout = caps. Snark? What is this? I get the general drift, but it's not an expression in common use in W1. :) Tyrenius 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? ... just drop it? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

The images showing sexuality and nudity should be deleted (or stored on someone's hard drive until cropped so no indvidual is identifiable). This is because we have not established for certain that the model has given permission. Legally and technically it is probably the photographer who owns the copyright and she has given her consent for the photographs, so she will have little recourse, at least under UK law, especially as it is not being used for any commercial gain.

However, I don't think we would want to upload such images, even if legally in the clear, if the subject was unwilling. This is for two reasons. 1) Sensitivity to the subject 2) Protection of the Foundation and the negative publicity which would result in a vengeful ex-partner (for example) uploading intimate photos.

If verification can be established, possibly through OFFICE, as is done with other copyright permissions, then there is no reason, at the moment to delete them.

The above takes into consideration Jimbo Wales' clear instructions for sensitivity to living people, particularly after the Siegenthaler case for one.

It has been suggested that OFFICE should be contacted, but my own experience of doing this recently showed me that they much preferred for responsible action to be taken by users. Those closer to OFFICE than myself may like to comment on this.

Tyrenius 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. (It's a strange thing if people upload such photos and then get offended that people react. It's also strange to upload such photos, but the really weird thing is to then go, "Oh, my goodness! People are making assumptions!") Those in London might remember the case of "Brad the Cad," while those in America and Australia can remember similar cases, I'm sure. More to the point, those in Wikipedia can no doubt remember dozens of cases of users trying to use talk pages and article space to generate contacts for illicit purposes. If these purposes cannot be served, then that solves this particular problem. It doesn't solve, however, the general problem of being so ready to defend the uploader that one demands that all acceed to the notion that all claims made be accepted on faith. Geogre 09:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Publicgirluk on DRV

ALERT - At least one image has been deleted - quote :-

"00:11, 28 August 2006 Voice of All (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Facial.png" (Deleted mass bad faith or copyright violating image uploads by a single user.) "

Preempting much? exolon 01:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All deleted all 5 of her images and then undeleted 1. I have listed them of DRV, with a request that they be reviewed by OFFICE for consideration of the legal arguments, and absent any true legal problem that they be restored. Dragons flight 02:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page for the reasons, that summary is a script default for deleting several images, so it didn't really describe this particular situation to well.Voice-of-All 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, that's pretty much routine when we don't know the copyright status of an image. It's not irreversible ... deleted images are now recoverable. --Cyde Weys 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not e-mail or message Publicgirluk on her talk page asking if she was willing to give a more accurate source (i.e. proof from another website) or such that she was the model in the picture? — The Future 02:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

They were given the correct copyright permission under GFDL-self like many others on the site, so there is no justification for deleting them on that basis. "source is publicgirluk, Copyright is held by PublicgirlUK as it is a self-pic. I am happy for it to be used." Tyrenius 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, there is no other secondary website, according to her. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

True, she did say that, but I wouldn't think starting a website and posting a self-pic would be that hard, would it? — The Future 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a requirement. There are other ways to certify permission. Tyrenius 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say that but you beat me to it. :) — The Future 02:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Working guideline

To avoid such debacles in the future, I suggest we agree to a working guideline, until the matter can be thrashed out properly. This is that we do not allow certain images, unless there is verification that the uploader is who they claim they are. This verification can be done in any suitable way. The user can then be informed with normal wiki courtesy from the outset. Images in this category would be anything that identifies a specific individual where there is nudity or sexuality, or anything else that that individual might find compromising in any reasonable estimate. Tyrenius 02:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this along the same lines as what others have suggested, as a model release, that mainly applies to US pr0n sites? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was intending it to apply to situations like the present one, where someone says they are uploading their own photos, and what we really need to establish is that they are who they say they are. Then they can do the normal release through GFDL-self. Tyrenius 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that there needs to be a policy here. How can a user be expected to not take it personally if there is no policy they can be cited as breaking. HighInBC 04:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How many good contributions does one have to make before trust and good faith applies? If, hypothetically, I uploaded explicit photos would people believe I had permission to do so? And what counts as verification really? Short of uploading an "I love Wikipedia" photo, I don't see many practical ways to verify identity. If statements on wiki are no good, then presumably email and personal websites are just as vulnerable to faking. What if the photographer has permission but not access to the model (to create a new Wikipedia loving photo)? Frankly I think this whole debate falls towards paranoia, far beyond the expectations of law. Or would we prefer that only professional pornography studios be able to contribute erotic imagery (like they already do, e.g. Image:Model in stringent hogtie.jpg)? Dragons flight 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think that if an image have a Metadata section and the number of cameras used by a user is significantly less than the numbper of downloaded pictures then the images are most probably genuine self-made. Otherwise it is highly suspicious. abakharev 04:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is of course no quantifiable 'edit-count' based policy (and shouldn't be) for 'how many good contributions one must make before trust and good faith applies'... because as you know, dedicated trolls work within the rules to disrupt WP. Hence WP:IAR.

In these times of active, intentional disruption at an all-time high, WP:AGF balanced with all users trying to use good judgment is the solution.

And in this case, your judgment appears to me to be doubly (and harmfully) faulty:

1. Your declaration that those who disagree with you are 'paranoid' is inflammatory and prejudicial, and

2. That image you linked to is hardly 'erotic'. Moreover, it doesn't illustrate your point, not being a 'nude' or 'sexual' image. It's a woman tied up in blue cord. Pretty creepy, there.

However, there's no accounting for taste... so trying to improve our collective judgment alone will have to do. Are you up for it, or would you prefer to respond to other users by calling them paranoid?-- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You want something more explicit? Sure. Actually, I think in intentional disruption was a lot worse back around WoW's hey day. The current level of disruption doesn't strike me as exceptional. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I do see a number of contributors to this debate as straying into paranoid. I've already offered a number of comments explaining my position. The foundation is protected by free speech, common carrier provisions, and non-profit status. Further, I see no evidence that the uploader and the images are anything other than self-published work of a sexually liberated young woman who is what she says she is. There was only one model involved, no watermark, and they were chosen to fit sensibly into relevant topics. Those images look like the work of a sexually open amatuer trying to improve Wikipedia to me. Dragons flight 05:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion - but my point about exercising good judgment still stands. Moreover, your choice in imagery certainly doesn't speak highly of you. Dragonsflight, that was quite repulsive and shows continued bad judgment. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You criticized me for showing a tame image that missed "the point", and then you get upset when I point out an explicit image, that was labeled as explicit? Strange. If you don't like sexually explicit images, don't click on links identified that way. As far as judgment, I was one of the people responsible for verifying that User:Jbc01 had permission to upload those images, which is why they came to mind. That case involved many images with multiple models and a clear claim of belonging to professional studio, which are some of the things that made it different than the current situation. Dragons flight 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You misread my comment (on purpose?) as 'criticizing you for posting a tame image', when in fact I said it was a 'creepy', and not-erotic image. You then sought to shock with that image of breast bondage. Again, provocation and bad judgment. Apologies are welcome. And you didn't identify the link, you called it 'sure'. Misleading - bad judgment again. Sorry, but you're 0 for 3 in demonstrating any kind of good judgment. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I read "pretty creepy" as sarcasm for "that's not much", which fit with your other comments that it wasn't erotic and not relevant since it wasn't sexual. Sorry, I wasn't trying to shock you. I honestly felt you were saying that images like that, since it was clothed and not "erotic", were not relevant to the debate, so I provided an image that should be more clearly relevant. (Incidentally, I think clothed bondage and the like is plenty relevant to the debate.) "Sure" was the answer to a question about explicit imagery. I can only assume you were misreading me if you didn't expect that link to be explict. Dragons flight 05:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The Foundation may be protected, but chooses not to use that in order to safeguard wikipedia's reputation by insisting on avoidance of (unverified) negativity towards living people, and, above that, a more general sensitivity towards living people, as with Brian Peppers. There has been intervention in cases like Seigenthaler — not hiding behind Carrier protection. This sends out a clear message as to what is expected. My own dealings recently with OFFICE over comparable issues confirm this. I have no doubt that the preferred course of action in this case is caution, and also that OFFICE is expecting admins to take the responsiblity of addressing such issues on its behalf. Tyrenius 05:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are touching on the distinction between editorial policies (what should we do?) and legal policies (what can we do?). Many of the arguments in this thread are, in my opinion, irrelevant legal concerns; however, if we set that aside for now and focus on the editorial position of what should we do, then I still don't agree. Basically, I don't agree because I believe she is who she says she is. Caution is one thing, but assumming everyone who uploads a sexually explicit image to illustrate a sexually explict article is up to no good is going too far. If it were an attack image, I'd delete it, but I think contributors working to build the encyclopedia deserve good faith given no evidence to the contrary (aside from the fact that an attractive woman might know how to use photoshop). Dragons flight 06:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My concern is neither. My concern is prudent practice. I believe the user is genuine, but belief is not sufficient in the circumstances. Proof is required. It's not assuming everyone is up to no good. It's assuming that someone at some point will or may be up to no good, and it's a way of avoiding being damaged (and preventing others from being damaged) by that person, in case we don't spot them early enough. A maliciously-posted image of this kind could have serious repercussions on someone's life. Recent dealings with OFFICE inform me that we should ensure we do not run that risk. (That was about another incident, not this one, but the parallet holds good.) If it's uploaded illicitly, it becomes an attack image. The risk in waiting till bad faith is proven is too great, as by then it will be too late. Tyrenius 06:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There always needs to be a balance though. Surely you would agree we could be safer by requiring positive identification from every editor, but we don't. We aim for a balance between protecting ourselves/others and being unnecessarily burdensome. From your comments, can I assume that you'd want verification of every sexually explicit GFDL-self claim? That is a valid position, but one that I feel imposes a large burden to catch very few offenders (i.e. those few uploaders who are working to improve the encyclopedia and make fraudulent but reasonable looking GFDL-self claims). Has there ever been a case of reasonable looking GFDL-self claim on a supposed self-portrait that failed verification? (Setting aside that this thread shows disputes over what is "reasonable".) Dragons flight 06:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My only concern is where an individual could be damaged in their life if they could be identified in a compromising photo which was uploaded without their consent. It doesn't have to be sexual, but that is probably the biggest threat. In those rare cases, then verification must be obtained or else it will get deleted. An illicit upload of a bog standard self portrait is not likely to cause similar major disruption for an individual. Tyrenius 07:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I can't endorse a position that treats an otherwise good contributor's actions as harmful unless they are willing to go to exceptional lengths to prove otherwise. Dragons flight 07:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you won't acknowledge that "publishing a photo of someone I claim to be myself, with ejaculate on my face" is, by definition, "exceptional," then you are being disingenuous. Exceptionally so. Nandesuka 12:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but a method of handling this is needed to be clearly defined. Even if that method involves not doing anything. HighInBC 04:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There's already a system in place for sending permission for copyright images to the Foundation, so there's no need to invent anything new. It's up to the uploader to establish verification. Foundation is one way. Photo with GFDL-self notice is another. Dialogue with the user could produce more possibilities. They may have a credible third party willing to vouch for them, for example. It's not as though this problem is a daily occurrence, but it is likely to come up again sometime.

There were two different people mentioning firstly "nude" and "sexual", and the other the hogtie. But I would classify the hogtie as something a person might find compromising if it were done privately and then exposed on the internet. Tyrenius 04:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A particular procedure is going to be impossible, here. In essence what I've argued all along is that common sense has to prevail. The more compromising a photo of an identifiable person is, the more necessary permission would be. If, for example, there were a close up photo of a vulva, and we have several, or even of penetration, which is the big no-no in most of the English speaking nations of Wikipedia .en, that might be less a matter of concern than a topless photo showing a woman's face. The latter is identifiable: a person's face and torso are visible, and therefore she (or he, I suppose) could be personally damaged by the display to a greater degree than a single body part's owner would be. At the same time, the more legally challenging a photo (penetration and "perverse" sexual practices illustrated (and these are by community standards, not by editorial ones)), the more certain we would need to be, but these are sliding scales. Finally, the more edits of a non-controversial nature, the more likely the uploads are legitimate, but it's never certain. Each of these factor in. A very, very well established user who uploads a full body, identifiable, photo of a woman engaging in coprophagia should still have to meet the highest standards of proof, while a new user uploading a photo of a rooster (rather than a cock) might need none but an avowal. In other words, suspicion is based on the nature of the upload and the degree of history, but it should always be present when an identifying photo is uploaded. (Another important example would be any identifying photo of any child in any state of garb.) Geogre 10:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Geogre raises a good point, and it's worth noting that this exact threshold &madsh; is there an identifiable person in the picture — is the exact same line at which stock photo companies such as Getty and iStockphoto require model release forms to be on file. Even when the photographer has taken pictures of themselves. Nandesuka 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to kickstart this lengthy debate into people actually doing something about our lack of a suitable policy have created Wikipedia:Policy on private photos of identifyable models. Please just go and edit that page with what you feel is needed. Also feel free to change the name if you can think of a better one. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?

Is it just me, or has this been blown way out of proportion? What the hell makes this so different to the hundreds of other nude photos available on Wikipedia? This is certainly not a new thing, not out of the ordinary, and none of the arguments convince me that any special treatment is required. Perhaps we should have a policy WP:SCARE (Don't scare the newbies). This would certainly fall under that category — I'm pretty sure publicgirluk is sick of the discussion about her, which she was barely even informed about. We say "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors", now let's bloody well act like it isn't! — Werdna talk criticism 11:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

However Wikipedia ia censored for the protection of living individuals. I have personally removed info on porn stars for example. At this moment in time we have no way of being sure that the model in the photographs is the same person who is uploading them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

...And without any evidence to the contrary, we should Assume that they are. — Werdna talk criticism 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally support werdna on this issue. »ctails! =hello?=« 22:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot to mention, the stalkers aren't any bigger issue than those ridiculous trolls who hit on Phaedriel. If somebody's behaving inappropriately towards somebody who's contributed these photos, then I think the arbitration committee or administrators are well within their rights, and in fact, I believe it is their duty to intervene. Treating Publicgirluk in that manner borders on is disruptive harrassment, which should be a blockable offence. These people are clearly not here to write an encyclopedia, and certainly do not have the attitude towards women that is expected at this project. — Werdna talk criticism 11:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, speedy close. --Golbez 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• I agree; we're wasting too much time on useless issues. Speedy close. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How can a debate that has been going on for days be speedy closed? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Werdna & others, it's rather disrespectful to come in at the tail end of a discussion and declare that we've all been wasting our time when you don't even appear to recognize the core issue at hand. Hint: nobody here thinks these photos should be deleted on account of being too risqué. You asked, "What the hell makes this so different to the hundreds of other nude photos available on Wikipedia?" The answer is that these were uploaded by a new user and were of a nature that caused many of us to doubt that the user was the model who was depicted in the photos. — GT 14:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not completely true. Most people arguing for deletion are using the fact the photos are risque as a major part of their reasoning. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC) A few quotes from Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_27

Keep Deleted these images' content is clearly prurient and unencyclopedic, licensing is unverifiable, subject is unidentified. The encyclopedia is not improved by their presence - although the 'Womaninspandex' image might be very useful for a 'Cameltoe' article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted Images do not provide any encyclopedic content, their only purpose is shock value. Joelito (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Deleted images showing sexuality or nudity purely as a precautionary measure and request verification. I suggest this should be a standard procedure from now on. Restore the others. They are definitely not professional quality. I work with professional photography regularly. Tyrenius 02:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You have taken my remarks out of context. I am referring to "sexuality or nudity" purely within the context of the discussion about this set of photos showing an identifiable individual. It is not an objection to "sexuality or nudity" per se. That is an entirely different consideration. Tyrenius 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Accepted, stricken. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The risque part is clearly a very big deal. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about 'risque'. Prurient and risque mean two significantly different things. 'Risque' means 'slightly indecent or liable to shock'. Prurient means 'encouraging excessive interest in sexual matters'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

True, however in the context of GT's claim, I believe prurient (and Joelito's comment about "shock value") is an even stronger version of the word. Not stricken. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your views, however incorrect. I can only restate that the word does not mean what you are claiming it to mean and that my comments in no way support your attribution of some kind of Puritan or Victorian view of sexuality to the editors raising points in opposition to your own. Making blanket comments painting other users as afraid or intolerant of risque imagery because they objected to an unverifiable image of a woman with semen all over her face is a pretty disrespectful line of argument, if you ask me. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? Sounds right on the money to me. Objection to a photo - and deletion of a photo - equals intolerance of that photo. wikipediatrix 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

One can object to a photo's encyclopedic merit without being 'intolerant' of sex or sexual content, don't you agree?-- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as the image illustrates what it is intended to illustrate in an existing Wikipedia article, it has encyclopedic merit, whether it's a naked woman or a tree or a piano. wikipediatrix 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, the threshold is higher than that. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What is this threshold you speak of? What are its parameters? Who defined them? You said "content is clearly prurient and unencyclopedic, licensing is unverifiable, subject is unidentified. The encyclopedia is not improved by their presence". These all are simple matters of opinion, and I think it's been well established that there are many editors who disagree with yours. I believe the lack of consensus about what to do with these images should logically default to "keep", unless we want to throw away the "Wikipedia is not censored" section from WP:NOT. wikipediatrix 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are my opinions. I alone am responsible for them. You are likewise entitled to yours. And I won't take the bait and get into a lengthy rehashing of the 105k of this article and others. Sorry, I won't feed you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Asking you to explain your vague, dismissive, and uninformative snappy comeback "Thankfully, the threshold is higher than that" is baiting?? wikipediatrix 03:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I made my point and I read your block log. On that basis and on your tone here, I have decided not to engage with you simply to repeat what has been discussed ad nauseam. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

When I ask you to explain your own statements, you dodge and say I'm "baiting". When I ask again, you bring my block log into it, as if that has anything to do with it. (By the way, the blocks were unjustified and the admin who unblocked me agreed.) You've been bullying and shouting down anyone in this debate who doesn't see things your way, no matter how many red herrings you have to drag into it. Go ahead and add another dismissive, condescending, insulting response so you can have the last word, I give up attempting to elicit proper answers to my questions. wikipediatrix 03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. You start your thread by supporting the view that anyone objecting to any sexual image is objecting to sex. Then you claim any image is worthy of WP if it illustrates its subject - both are untrue, and I'd engage you on that if not for your record of prior incivility. And now you accuse me of 'bullying' (more complete nonsense) and misrepresent the admins blocking you. Pretty uncivil stuff and in light of your incivility, I'm not going to debate image policies or standards with you, as these have been exhaustively discussed here many times before. If you feel I've been uncivil to you or anyone else, please feel free to open an incident on AN/I or wherever. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading between the bickering here, it seems that the main issue is speculation that publicgirluk does not have permission to post these images. Per our policy regarding these sorts of accusations, I trust that those proponents of these theories have some fairly convincing evidence. I'd like to request that this evidence is presented now. — Werdna talk criticism 08:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my humble opinion:

1. The images are clearly encyclopedic (again, IMHO). They are good illustrations of existing articles. Although the images probably do appeal to purient interests, I suspect the articles do as well, and, as we all know, Wikipedia is not censored.
2. On the other hand, there is good reason to suspect that they might not actually be posted by the subject. While it is certainly possible that there is an attractive 20-something woman who wants to edit articles about the Concorde and illustrate various erotic articles, it doesn't seem like the most likely explanation. Certainly, asking Publicgirl for some additional proof doesn't seem inconsistent with the assumption of good faith, although speedy deletion probably is. TheronJ 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Much has been said in the discussion that I imply my own guilt by not contributing to what is now a lengthy discussion. For a number of admins, the reason for not contributing is going to come as a shock. Not everyone in the world, in fact the majority of people in the world don't have a holiday in the 4th July. Here in the UK, where I am (the clue is in the user name) we have something called a Summer Bank Holiday which was this weekend. As I now come to understand, Wikipedia is a little light on the subject. However, it is a tradional weekend when a significant proportion (typically around 10 to 15%) of the population of the UK disappear on long weekend break normally their last before Winter (citation here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5283820.stm?ls). As you want me to comment I shall. On some of the specifics of the attacks on me

1) I am amazed on what the experts can deduce from a low resolution, highly compressed JPG file. Or rather I am not. They were taken in my room at universtiy by my BF. There is no studio lighting, props or other professional tools. They were cropped in paintshop pro by me prior to uploaded. I thought that was good manners as I assumed you didn't want to see a shot of my sofa and wall.

2) I am not a sock puppet but I am 22 (It is nice to know I look 5 years younger)

3) My BF and I make a lot of use of Wikipedia in our studies and wanted to contribute to the project. We have two great pastimes - our sexuality and english heritage. Sorry if that is a bit wacky and not like the people you know but that is the way it is. We have made a number of small edits on topics which we felt we could add value. By the way I can recommend the Concorde trip at Filton and no I wasn't the only girl on the tour.

4) I personally find it odd that certain admins feel there is difference between a picture of me with semen and a girl tied up, wearing a ball gag and suspended simply because they are dressed. I also fail to see how using one of pictures to illustrate a "cameltoe" is not sexual either but it takes all sorts

5) Just because comments are made in the third party and sprinked with weasel words. It doesn't prevent the comment from being personal or insulting.

6) Again, it is going to come as a shock, but no I didn't think the contributions would cause this debate. Wikipedia as far as we could tell, has lots of sexually explicit photos, has a boldly presented WP:AGF policy and doesn't detail any form of approval / moderator process. Most of our edits have past without comment. One photo was deleted as it didn't match the topic - something I disagreed with but happy with the consensus. One other had a lively debate which quickly reached consensus and everybody moved on. After a significant period of time I am alerted to pages of debate somewhere else in Wikepedia where I appear to have been hauled before the great and the good of Wikipedia admins. My own POV is that every article should have an image - an image describes a thousand words. Wikipedia can do this, and it sets it apart from printed rivals because it can. If an article is not worthy of an image then the article is not worthy of inclusion. In hindsight there is a difference which is that the other pictures are uploaded by males and are not self-pics. I can't help wondering if the BF uploaded them under a male ID whether anyone would raise an eyebrow for being outside the norm.

On some of the wider issues raised 7) Wikipedia does need a policy on whether living persons have to prove ownwership of pictures if it is to move forward with a consistent and fairly applied approach to articles or images they may offend in certain cultures. Alternatively it can stay as it is and bite when a picture offends the POV or offends the sensibilities of some of the admins for "not being normal behaviour"

8) I can understand the legal arguments but they apply to many pictures. More importantly, wikipedia is hosted on servers in several countries whose own laws, different to that in the US, apply. This implies that wikipedia would have to operate at the lowest common dominator yet no discussions has taken place on what this is, again a reoccuring theme of US law and US attidue dominate.

9) The number of edits is not a measure of worth. From what I can see most edits on wikipedia consis of formating and correcting typographical errors. I do not have the time to do this and have limited myself to edits which I believe add to the information content of the article.

When I joined wikipedia I did so with a view of what it was, two important elements were it was international in nature and that everyone was equal and had a valid POV. The debates have shown me that this is not the case, that wikipedia is in fact dominated by US editors and contributors who despite their well meaning and obvious loyalty to the project continue to display stereotypical behaviour showing a lack of understanding of anything outside their own borders and judge the world by their own values and beliefs.

Which leaves me on having to decide the way forward. I appear to have two choices; withdraw - delete my images, contributions and ID while undoubtedly hearing a chorus of "no smoke without fire" behind me; or post a photo of me is some kind of verifiable pose to satisfy those who can not believe that a girl is comfortable telling people that she likes a man to ejaculate on her face.

Wikipedia is not what I thought it was, while there appear to be genuine understanding people here, there are others who I do not want to be associated with. I posted under WP:AGF and if that isn't sufficient then I am not going to perform like a circus lion for the benefit of a small few. I said in a previous post that I am comfortable with my sexuality, I am not ashamed but proud and I have no problem listening to the "I told you so"'s. I would be grateful if an admin could delete my contributions/images as I no longer give permission for their use. Publicgirluk 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Once you release something under the GFDL you cannot then go back and "un-release" it, so your contributions aren't going to be deleted. Besides, imagine how impossible it would be trying to run Wikipedia if dozens of people were insisting we had to go back and delete their contributions, some of them over a year old. It's impossible, but luckily, releasing something under the terms of the GFDL cannot be reneged upon. --Cyde Weys 20:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So sorry to see you leave, you were a good editor. HighInBC 20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change my opinion in favor of deletion now, given her request. Reasoning is mostly Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Cyde is quite correct that GFDL can't be just withdrawn in a legal sense; however, in this case, when the images are clearly rather personal, we should follow her request and remove them. Not because we have to, because we don't; but because it's the right thing to do. This is very unfortunate on all grounds, and I hope she changes her mind and comes back to us, and I think this is more likely if we are nice to her than if we are not. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to her text contributions. Obviously her image contributions should be deleted as lacking source verification (regardless of whether or not she wants them deleted). --Cyde Weys 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Publicgirluk, the reason there has been such passionate argument over your contributions is because they happened to touch upon a few areas where Wikipedia policy and procedure are either undefined or inconsistent. I hope you do not take any of the above personally, as we are only trying to iron out our kinks, and you uploading these images just so happened to be the catalyst for our discussion. If it were only about your few pictures, I'm sure a lot of us would just say "Even if there is some suspicion, we should just assume good faith and let them go," but this is sort of turning out to be a precedent with much greater ramifications -- so we have to use your images to represent what we want to do with all others that we might get in the future under similar circumstances. As somebody from the other side, so to speak, I can only say that I consider it of the utmost importance to uphold the "free" part of "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". In that context free refers to the lack of restrictions and impediments (think free speech), and so I would prefer to eliminate as much as we can the possibility that we have copyrighted images that are improperly licensed. You must admit that images of the nature of the ones you uploaded are very easy to find on the internet, and it wouldn't take too much effort for somebody to find the same woman in a few different outfits and poses and then upload them here. Therefore it would be much appreciated if you were willing to work with us (in whatever way suits you) to verify that you are legally permitted to release these images under the GFDL, as they would make fantastic additions to their respective articles. — GT 21:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even if Publicgirluk had not been blocked and the images deleted, it was very likely they (and possibly the articles they were intended for) wouldn't have mattered; Theresa has raised the question of whether those articles even have sufficient notability to remain or whether they should be merged into main articles on sexual practises. I'm not decided on that myself, but it appears to me that consensus is leaning towards merging them; the images would likely have been deleted or orphaned anyway. Kasreyn 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to all the small minded, petty, prudish, and plain mean-spirited editors/admins who questioned, insulted and attacked this contributor for daring to actually attempt to contribute to wikipedia. You must all be very happy now. Well you haven't just lost one contributor, I quit too. I don't want to be part of a project that thinks treating people like this is acceptable. exolon 00:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK well that's your choice, but bear in mind the concern of many admins was that the girl in the photo really was the girl who uploaded the pics and that she really was happy about having such pictures uploaded. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. I'm not sure I want people like that editing Wikipedia. Eilicea 14:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not nice! Please don't be rude. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Returning to Wiki

I have posted an invitation to Publicgirluk for returning to Wikipedia on User talk:Publicgirluk. -- Tyrenius 01:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the wider issues

Are we having a policy debate on the issue of uploading photos somewhere else? If not - I guess the following goes here. Further to my earlier points, I've been enquiring further about the guidance that the DFES (the UK Department of education) provides to schools and it appears that Wikipedia is not suitable for use in UK schools (because of the presence of "pornographic" images). I am trying to get clarification about which particular part of the guidance covers this and will post it, once I get it.

--Charlesknight 08:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We are having a debate here Wikipedia:Policy on private photos of identifyable models. At the moment I am not aware of any UK schools prevented access to Wikipedia. Certainly the schools that I've worked in all allow access (for the moment). This is an adult encylopedia though. Schools should do what they feel best but I don't think we should take that into account whatsoever.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should alter policy on that basis but in terms of risk assessment, I think that we should be aware of the possibility of changing public perception of wikipedia in some regions when more and more people become aware that it hosts pornography images. I've been editing for over a year and I never realised until I saw this debate. --Charlesknight 12:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's Take

Here and here.

"It is unfortunate that there was any debate at all here. This was pretty clearly a case of trolling. I would recommend a checkuser on various parties involved to see who else we ought to block in this nonsense. People are really missing the point if they think we should allow this kind of nonsense to go on. This is an encyclopedia, not a free speech zone for trolls.--Jimbo Wales 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)"

Hope that helps. Nandesuka 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems a stunning violation of AGF to assume publicgirluk was trolling without any evidence of it. My respect for Jimbo just dropped a couple of notches, though I expect others will feel the opposite. =) Powers ^T 21:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited to add: isn't his second comment (indef block publicgirl and speedy the images immediately) pretty much an admission that we can never have free-use images illustrating certain things? I mean, if not these then what? Powers ^T 21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think so. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then what kind of images would be acceptable? If the image publicgirluk uploaded isn't suitable to illustrate Facial (sexuality), what image would be? Or are we restricted to illustrations rather than photographs on certain topics? Powers ^T 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we are necessarily restricted at all. But these are sensitive matters and should be discussed on the individual article talk pages and a consensus reached. And it should be done on a case by case basis. Illustrations are certainly appropriate for certain topics for sure. Blanket statements mean nothing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You issue a call for adherence to process, Theresa, but practically every process was short-circuited or ignored in this case. The images were speedied without even a hint of consensus beforehand, little explanation afterwards; the user was blocked because Jimbo, in what I think may have been an offhand remark, commented that she "looked" like a troll (oh yes - and that those of us attempting to assume good faith were "suckers" for doing so). These are not examples of WP procedures being faithfully followed. The community lost its head on this one and is still losing it. So yes, I agree with you, consensus would be nice. But currently, it would appear no consensus is required when a pretty woman uploads sexually explicit self-pics. It's far more meaningful to examine what a system or group does than what it says it will do. Already we have lost at least two editors over this, and those are just the ones we know of. So we can't just say "work the process and it'll go away"; we need to get that new policy page in shape and then use it. Kasreyn 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Note that these issues, by and large, were not decided by the editors on the talk pages of the associated articles (such as Facial and Pearl Necklace. They were decided by editors largely having nothing to do with those pages. So clearly something is not right, eh? Kasreyn 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I simply don't share your views on Publicgirluk's motives here. I don't see her as a poor innocent who was treated badly by the nastly wikipedians. My own views are pretty close to those of Jimbo's although I personally wouldn't have blocked her, Two editors lost? So what? People are always foot stamping and storming off. I've seen it dozens of times before and i simply don't care. Anyway back to the point in hand - I'm not saying "work the process and it'll go away" I'm saying we cannot use this incident to state that " we can never have free-use images illustrating certain things". Is it necessary for us to illustrate perl necklace? I don't think so, I don't even think we need the article - surely it's a dictionary definition? But that's just my personal opinion. The community may think different, but it's pretty clear that someone uploading a picture of a girl covered in spunk should expect to at the very least be willing to assure people that the girl is willing to have the photo appear hear. The fact that Publicgirluk feigned indignation speaks volumes to me. Please do come to the policy debate page. Actually doing something constructive, rather than the endless talk (which is happening on this page) feels good.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spot-on. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd. I thought Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate was the "policy debate page". I'm not sure why you think Publicgirluk "feigned indignation" but it seems like begging the question. And if I recall correctly, the person uploading the picture did "assure people that the girl is willing" -- it's just that a lot of folks didn't believe that person. And if Jimbo's suggestion had been followed (namely that she's an obvious troll, indef block, and speedy all the photos ASAP), she never would have had a chance to do that. Powers ^T 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't debate policy on one incident only. This page is just a waffle/rant page. Actual policy debate is going on here. Wikipedia:Policy on private photos of identifyable models. Please feel free to come and edit, or discuss things on the talk page there. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, LtPowers. Jimbo's word carries astonishing force at WP. I'm sure he has his reasons for thinking Publicgirl_uk was a troll, but he needs to explain what those are. If they're good reasons, I'll be satisfied. I'm not satisfied by an encyclopedia where his mere opinion of an editor gets them blocked. I've left a comment on Jimbo's talk page to this effect. Kasreyn 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo needs to justify his comments. --Golbez 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is about as wrong on this issue as the sun is hot. My respect for him (as well as a number of other persons involved) did indeed drop, and not just by a "couple of notches". —Nightstallion (?) 11:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things still bother me about this. First, that Jimbo failed to provide any reasoning for why publicgirluk was so obviously trolling, and at which point future contributors who try to submit similar material should be considered similarly trolling -- immediately after upload, or only after refusing to take a special "Yes it's me" picture? The second thing is that Jimbo was not obviously speaking ex cathedra -- if his intent was that publicgirluk be blocked immediately he could certainly have done so himself. It seems to me he was expressing an opinion, and a few admins who happened to agree took it as justification for an immediate block without community consensus. Powers ^T 19:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the admin who restored the block after it was reverted claimed that Jimbo had informed him more fully in an email conversation. I don't know what precisely Jimbo said in that email; no one, to my knowledge, has yet requested that information. It occurs to me that when Jimbo's remarks are made in his capacity as (essentially) chief administrator of Wikipedia, such remarks should definitely be on-the-record rather than private. (Of course, his private conversations, when not engaging in his official role, are his own business.) Kasreyn 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oi!

I'm just encountering this craziness now and have to wonder why people always run around like chickens with their heads cut off when these things happen. Wouldn't it have made more sense to temporarily delete the pictures and ask User:Publicgirluk to upload a photo of herself holding a 'yes, this is really me' sign or somesuch to prove her bona fides? If none were forthcoming then we could block without controversy. If it were proved that user and girl in photos were the same person then we could calmly discuss the potential pitfalls of allowing pornographic 'self promotion' on Wikipedia, come up with guidelines in regards to it (possibly something remotely sane like only allowing relevant photos and limiting the number which can be of any one person) and then see whether this user followed any consensus established. Yes, we can skip all that basic common sense type stuff and instead go with 'assume she is evil and ban her' vs 'assume she is good and fight the nasty people being mean to her'... but why exactly did we? Whichever side turns out to have assumed right is frankly irrelevant given the wholly unneccessary disruption both groups generated. --CBD 14:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We did make such a request before the photos were ever deleted and Publicgirluk's response was "I posted under WP:AGF and if that isn't sufficient then I am not going to perform like a circus lion for the benefit of a small few.". — GT 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh well then. While it might have been nice to have that discussion quietly before the big brouhaha... once the user refused there was little else to be done about it. We can't just 'assume good faith' with possibly libellous material / copyright violations / underage pornography when there is an easy way to resolve such concerns and the user declines to do so. The situation might well have been annoying for them, but the legal implications for the foundation are also quite real and can't be ignored. I've reviewed it a bit more and she did clearly decline to verify her identity more than once... at which point I'm surprised people are still arguing. Yes, we can assume good faith... I can still find it not wholly implausible to believe that this user was for real (I encounter greater AGF strains on a regular basis), but a person's word is not enough in regards to legal jeopardy. Even if she was legit if she wouldn't provide verification of that there was no other choice but to remove the images. We might still refrain from blocking, but that 'failure to AGF' on the part of some admins was fairly mild in comparison to other breaches I've seen. --CBD 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she refused to verify them, and her prideful action seems to have rankled some. But in the same breath, she asked that her images be removed. So her pride cost us precisely nothing. Therefore, the real question is, why was the user blocked? Any so-called "disruption" was clearly unintentional and done with. The user was not, to my knowledge, continuing to upload similar images, and gave every sign of being honest about being done with submitting images. So what harm could it have done to let them continue making text edits to this project?

I am still waiting for anyone to point to a single instance of PGUK's being deliberately disruptive to this project. It has been claimed that PGUK has been very disruptive and her actions constituted trolling. If that is the case, there must be quite a few specific examples of disruptive behavior in the edit histories. The onus is upon those making the claim, of course. I suspect the reason no one has chosen to satisfy my curiosity - because I will be satisfied if anyone shows me some evidence of her "disruption" - is because there is no such evidence. Just one clearly disruptive edit summary will do. Kasreyn 23:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While you are waiting you might care to read Moral panic, Scapegoat, Witch-hunt, Crowd psychology and reflect on the differences between Playboy and National Geographic. Being a sexually liberated pretty white woman is very threatening to many people. Disruptive even. Her crime was being pretty. WAS 4.250 12:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Having read through the discussion, I have to agree that deleting the images was the right thing to do. I don't think the indefinite block was the right thing to do, as my feeling is that the editor could have been genuine. A warning would have been more appropriate, referring the editor to the appropriate policies and guidelines (if those exist concenring uploading sexually explicit material). Carcharoth 14:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. Regarding the "chickens with their heads cut off" comment, is it time for Wikipedia:Headless chickens? :-) Carcharoth 14:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, WAS 4.250, I was strongly tempted to say exactly that myself in the comment you replied to, but then I thought, "no, I should assume good faith on the part of my colleagues and trust that prudishness was not the prime motivator here." I've read up on the topics you mention, but I continue to trust and hope, even when I disagree strongly with them, that my colleagues are not allowing such pettiness to rule their behavior. Kasreyn 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, can I suggest you review WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA? I don't believe that anybody on "my side" ever speculated at any point as to why any of you might be so passionately supporting Publicgirluk except out of a sincere interest for the betterment of the encyclopedia and I simply won't tolerate you not having the same courtesy. — GT 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree such aspersions are not helpful or courteous. You might care to suggest the same here also.[2] Tyrenius 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Nandesuka's comment on Jimbo's talk page is implying that those who supported Publicgirluk did so for non-altruistic reasons? :-) I actually came to the debate too late to actually see any of the pictures (they had already been deleted), but I just used my imagination. Carcharoth 17:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The obvious interpretation is that Nandesuka is implying the subject of a pretty woman (or perhaps a semi-naked pretty woman with semen on her face and chest) has had an appeal to editors, who do not agree with his view, so that they are not able to remain objective. As one of the editors presumably referred to, I found the comment frankly insulting, but have not responded. It would be much better if GT, as a non-aggrieved party, pointed out that this remark is inflammatory, does not AGF and violates NPA. It is no more logical to argue that some form of romance or prurience has distorted editor's judgements than to argue that some form of misogyny or prudery has affected editors' judgements. I prefer not to speculate on motives, but to judge facts. Tyrenius 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you infer something doesn't mean that I implied it. Nandesuka 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So not only do we have headless chickens, we have people worrying more about the civility of editors, rather than looking at the bigger picture. Editors coming to debate issues like this need to be able to work past their personal feelings and quickly come to a consensus on what to do when something like this happens again. Most debates on Wikipedia can come to a consensus fairly quickly, but editors need to be able to recognise cases when such consensus will be difficult to reach, and both sides should then voluntarily enter some form of mediation by a neutral party. That neutral party would (a) not be involved, and (b) would not make the final decision, but would steer the two sides towards a consensus. I've heard of mediation areas on Wikipedia. Do they do something like this already? Carcharoth 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have little hope for the establishment of consensus in an issue where communication has frozen completely over on the most important points of contention. Without communication, there can be no resolution. Kasreyn 06:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) Nandesua, you said:

I was sort of disturbed by how many editors' critical facilities seem to have been turned off in this case. I can guess why, but there's no need to say it out loud.

In the context you made your remark, it seems fairly obvious that people would interpret it in the way I have. If you did not mean for it to be interpreted this way, then a statement to that effect would clear the matter up. Nevertheless, the statement is still an insult to editors who had sound reasons for disagreeing with your point of view. Tyrenius 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The context in which I made the remark was that there were a large number of editors that were falling over themselves to make excuses for and go to unreasonable lengths to protect someone whom, in my personal opinion was an obvious troll. Why they were doing so is not half so important as the fact that they were doing so. While some editors surely did have sound reasons for disagreeing with my point of view, many did not (I'm thinking specifically here of those whose attitude was "Regardles of whether these images put Wikipedia in peril, we should just assume good faith forever.") If it helps, you may assume that my comments were directed at those editors. Nandesuka 02:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I have no wish to further the analysis here. Tyrenius 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor I. I find the premise that this was a troll credible and worthy of consideration, but not worthy of pursuit in view of her clear refusal to push the issue. I again want to say thank you for her offerings. I accept that everyone has acted her with the best motives but regret that Wikipedia seems to be incapable, at the present time, to accept what seem to be perfectly good offerings of exceptionable quality on a subject on which Wikipedia has very little coverage. If this was a troll, well I was well and truly taken in. I was asked to contact this editor with a view to checking her identity, but took it for a joke on my goatish personality. I should cocoa! --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You should cocoa? Powers ^T 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You're braver than me... I didn't want to reveal my incomprehension of slang. ^_^; Kasreyn 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for policy/guidelines on explicit photos

This may not be the correct forum for discussing the general case, rather than the specific. If not, we need to start a new discussion on that general case.

We need policy and guidelines for handling the general case of explicit photos.

The focus of most of my edits are the sexology and sexuality articles, and so I run into this more often than most. I know that this is a topic of discussion on the Masturbation article, for instance.

On the one hand, clearly, we don't want any form of censorship. On the other hand, protecting the long term best interests and viability of Wikipedia in a international environment that has been trending towards conservatism needs to be kept in mind.

Although I don't know, and have never met Jimbo Wales, I respect his position of authority in Wikipedia, and especially when that relates to maintaining the long term viability of Wikipedia.

From a theoretical perspective, we ought to allow any image that is legal to be put on Wikipedia. That's easy to say, and makes sense. However, theory usually is not as effective in practice as it sounds, and this case would likely be no different.

Allowing some sexually explicit photographs, is likely to jeopardize the long term viability of Wikipedia, for a variety of reasons:

• Sexually repressed people, and some religiously conservative people will view some of these images as "obscene". In the U.S., this could make it a legal issue. But, outside of the legal issues, attacks against Wikipedia could be generated by the kind a subset of the religious right some people call zealots.
  • legal issues, could cause unnecessary legal fees.
  • legal issues could cause an attempt at banning and boycotting Wikipedia, or having it labelled as Pornography.
• Some people might consider such images as an affront to their conservative values. I may not agree with them (and in fact do not) but their values and feelings should be respected within reasonable limits.

If it were up to me, and my project, I would let any legal photo be displayed, as long as it was in the correct context of the article, and the most constructive image available for presenting the concept involved. But then, I would probably go down fighting the case in court, perhaps intellectually "right", but losing in the court of public opinion, and against an overwhelming number of right wing zealots.

I'm happy to continue editing on Wikipedia, and following the guidelines provided for me by those who are steering the project. I may not agree with them on some things, but at least I can have confidence that Wikipedia will survive, and that I am following some kind of agreed upon policy or standard when putting in images for articles.

Atom 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You might be looking for Wikipedia:Private photos of identifiable models. Powers ^T 23:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I opened a page for discussion of this topic in more detail. See template to the right. Atom 01:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh

I just got linked to WikiTruth, where I read about this situation], and it made me ill and a little embarassed to be a part of Wikipedia. I just put a project together to keep comics article editors from getting burned out, but this may have done me in. Ugh. I may have to at least take a break now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See [3] Tyrenius 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. For those just joining us, the whole thing was a troll scam, and the pictures were of a porno actress who is not a Wikipedian. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No one knows if Publicgirluk is the girl in the photo or not. No one knows what the intent was. Publicgirluk might be a porn actress or might be someone misappropriating her photos. Whichever the case is, there was no trolling by Publicgirluk; only a lot of talk by other people about her. She created a stir, was offended by accusations, asked to withdraw the photos, said she no longer wished to be a part of Wikipedia, then was banned. We have no rule against porn people contributing. There was reason to delete the images as we didn't and still don't know if Publicgirluk has copyright ownership. there was never any reason to ban someone who did not say anything trollish, and had already left. By the way, even if the porn "star" now claims to be Publicgirluk, it could be a matter of her finding out about all this and trying to generate publicity for herself. The site Chris Griswold read claims they talked with her and verified what she said was true; but we can't know if they are telling the truth or not as they don't provide evidence. But its over. Let it go. Time to move on. We trolled ourselves. WAS 4.250 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)