Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Jeevan Jose]

Thanks all for your opinions, suggestions and advice. I was away due to a
personal emergency; just back home today. I read all the responses above,
including Pierre-selim's advise on how to handle such cases in future. I
agree, and my intention was not to ignore in Commons discussions and make a
"commons is broken" rant as Pleclown complained above. I was in the midst
of switching off my computer and run as one of my relative just admitted in
hospital. The repeated revert on that page increased my blood pressure and
I forwarded it to here as I know I can't participate in that thread for at
least a few days.

I disagree with Pierre-selim's opinion that "In the end I just think we are
having this thread because of the topic being related to nudity (which is
clearly a not consensual topic in our communities, probably because it is
cultural) and not really because of any real breach of privacy." As a
husband of a woman who had undergone TAH-BSO at the age of twenty (ten
years before our marriage), I'm well aware of the value of our reproductive
system and the importance of educating common people about the
healthy maintenance of them. I know how photographs are more helpful than
graphical illustrations in some occasions. But we should be more careful on
verifying whether the subjects are fully consented in such cases. Moreover,
there is no need to reveal the identity of non notable persons in such
cases.

(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smoking_Crack.jpg is another
similar case where no relation to nudity; but clear real breach of privacy.
There people even tried to revert Odder. Finally I had to bring it at AN to
revedelete other versions. I still believe such a picture is not good for
our projects as we have no evidence of consent and the person can be
easily identifiable from the external links.)

Now I (glad to) see Russavia did some homework and made an alert to another
crat and (as a result) most links are removed. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MichaelMaggs#Paedophile_advocate_needs_blocking
).

Regards,
Jee


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Chris Keating
wrote:

> Though in this case it does seem that Commons has given sound advice that
> any photos submitted should be accompanied by a model release.
>
> If only more photos on Commons had model releases!
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Keating
> wrote:
>
> >
> > @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
> >> decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
> >> assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication
> >> of
> >> said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.
> >
> >
> > I don't think "there are pictures of someone on the internet" can in any
> > circumstances imply "that person has given their consent for those
> pictures
> > to be on the internet".
> >
> > Even if it is clear that the person concerned gave permission for the
> > picture to be taken, that is no evidence that they have given any consent
> > for those pictures to be circulated.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Chris Keating]

Though in this case it does seem that Commons has given sound advice that
any photos submitted should be accompanied by a model release.

If only more photos on Commons had model releases!


On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Keating
wrote:

>
> @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
>> decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
>> assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication
>> of
>> said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.
>
>
> I don't think "there are pictures of someone on the internet" can in any
> circumstances imply "that person has given their consent for those pictures
> to be on the internet".
>
> Even if it is clear that the person concerned gave permission for the
> picture to be taken, that is no evidence that they have given any consent
> for those pictures to be circulated.
>
> Chris
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Chris Keating]

> @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
> decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
> assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication of
> said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.


I don't think "there are pictures of someone on the internet" can in any
circumstances imply "that person has given their consent for those pictures
to be on the internet".

Even if it is clear that the person concerned gave permission for the
picture to be taken, that is no evidence that they have given any consent
for those pictures to be circulated.

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Risker]

Who said that there were images uploaded to Commons? There is a link to
images offered as a "free sample".  What I am disputing is one person's
ability to claim authority to release photos of another person when the
photos are taken in a non-public place.  Given how common it is for women
to find that their partners have been freely sharing nude images taken with
the understanding that it was for the partner only, personal consent is
important.  There's also a big leap between "you can put it on your
website" and "you can make it freely available on Wikimedia Commons".

Risker






On 20 May 2014 16:04, Pierre-Selim  wrote:

> 2014-05-20 22:03 GMT+02:00 Risker :
>
> > On 20 May 2014 15:43, Pierre-Selim  wrote:
> >
> > > 2014-05-20 21:35 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
> > >
> > > > @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
> > > > decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
> > > > assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the
> > implication
> > > of
> > > > said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.
> > > >
> > >
> > > +1, I guess Odder (like me) also did his homework and did use this
> > > information to take his decision. Sorry, I've tried to give a complete
> > > answer, but it's never easy in a foreign language.
> > >
> > >
> > I repeat my initial statement, why are you assuming that the woman has
> > given authorization for publication of images on Wikimedia Commons?
>
>
> Please link to the images you are talking about, because to my own
> knowledge none have been published on Wikimedia Commons.
>
>
> >
> > Risker
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Pierre-Selim
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Pierre-Selim]

2014-05-20 22:03 GMT+02:00 Risker :

> On 20 May 2014 15:43, Pierre-Selim  wrote:
>
> > 2014-05-20 21:35 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
> >
> > > @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
> > > decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
> > > assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the
> implication
> > of
> > > said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.
> > >
> >
> > +1, I guess Odder (like me) also did his homework and did use this
> > information to take his decision. Sorry, I've tried to give a complete
> > answer, but it's never easy in a foreign language.
> >
> >
> I repeat my initial statement, why are you assuming that the woman has
> given authorization for publication of images on Wikimedia Commons?


Please link to the images you are talking about, because to my own
knowledge none have been published on Wikimedia Commons.


>
> Risker
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Pierre-Selim
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Risker]

On 20 May 2014 15:43, Pierre-Selim  wrote:

> 2014-05-20 21:35 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
>
> > @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
> > decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
> > assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication
> of
> > said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.
> >
>
> +1, I guess Odder (like me) also did his homework and did use this
> information to take his decision. Sorry, I've tried to give a complete
> answer, but it's never easy in a foreign language.
>
>
I repeat my initial statement, why are you assuming that the woman has
given authorization for publication of images on Wikimedia Commons?

Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Pierre-Selim]

2014-05-20 21:35 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :

> @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
> decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
> assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication of
> said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.
>

+1, I guess Odder (like me) also did his homework and did use this
information to take his decision. Sorry, I've tried to give a complete
answer, but it's never easy in a foreign language.


> @Pierre-Selim: After a visit on the website, my concerns have all vanished.
>


Ok just a timeline problem, we did not had the same information at the time
we wrote :-)



> Pleclown
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > I do not understand why anyone would assume that the woman has agreed to
> > this, without her actually, personally, saying that she has agreed to
> this.
> >
> > Risker
> >
> >
> > On 20 May 2014 15:22, Pierre-Selim  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > As an oversight, I'd like to give an advice first. When encountering a
> > > privacy matter that you believe falls under the oversight policy <
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy#Use> you should
> > probably
> > > contact directly oversight-comm...@lists.wikimedia.org rather than
> > linking
> > > the information on a public forum (or even on a talk page), i.e. if
> there
> > > is a real breach of privacy more people will see it :(.
> > >
> > > That said, I fail to see what falls under the oversight policy as
> > explained
> > > by Odder on his talk page. The only use case that come to mind is the
> > first
> > > one *Removal of non-public personal information*, however by publishing
> > the
> > > information the couple seems to agree, for now, to have this
> information
> > > published (as far as we know, they are not lying about their identity).
> > I'd
> > > gladly suppress the personnal information if it is requested by the
> > person
> > > concerned or if it was an obvious mistake.
> > >
> > > As an administrator, it remains, [[COM:IDENT]] which is a guildeline on
> > how
> > > to proceed with photography of identifiable person, however I don't see
> > any
> > > photo in this discussion.
> > >
> > > In the end I just think we are having this thread because of the topic
> > > being related to nudity (which is clearly a not consensual topic in our
> > > communities, probably because it is cultural) and not really because of
> > any
> > > real breach of privacy. If I'm getting it wrong, I'm open to
> discussion.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-05-20 20:04 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
> > >
> > > > (...)
> > > > Now, I'm not really at ease with Odder's decision, and I think we
> (as a
> > > > community) need to discuss that, in a civilized manner. This could
> have
> > > > (and will, I hope ) happened on the pages meant for that, on Commons,
> > > > without any unnecessary drama.
> > > >
> > >
> > > @ Pipo Le Clown > Feel free to send an email to the oversight mailing
> > list
> > > or start a discussion on Wikimedia Commons in order to explain your
> > > opinion. I believe the oversight team is open to community input.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Pleclown
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely Pierre-Selim,
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Thyge  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What a kind communication! It gives me the impression that you are
> > > afraid
> > > > > to discuss matters outside of Commons.
> > > > >
> > > > > The special role of Commons as a joint resource should occationally
> > > allow
> > > > > concerns to be raised outside the community of commonites. If
> > concerns
> > > > are
> > > > > not of a general nature, please at least deal with them in a
> friendly
> > > > > manner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Thyge
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2014-05-20 17:51 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
> > > > >
> > > > > > You didn't get the answer you wanted, so you're forum shopping to
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > > "right one" ? How nice of you.
> > > > > >  Le 20 mai 2014 17:37, "Jeevan Jose"  a
> > écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people
> works?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Jee
> > > > > > > ___
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > >  > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > h

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Pipo Le Clown]

@Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication of
said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.

@Pierre-Selim: After a visit on the website, my concerns have all vanished.

Pleclown


On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Risker  wrote:

> I do not understand why anyone would assume that the woman has agreed to
> this, without her actually, personally, saying that she has agreed to this.
>
> Risker
>
>
> On 20 May 2014 15:22, Pierre-Selim  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As an oversight, I'd like to give an advice first. When encountering a
> > privacy matter that you believe falls under the oversight policy <
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy#Use> you should
> probably
> > contact directly oversight-comm...@lists.wikimedia.org rather than
> linking
> > the information on a public forum (or even on a talk page), i.e. if there
> > is a real breach of privacy more people will see it :(.
> >
> > That said, I fail to see what falls under the oversight policy as
> explained
> > by Odder on his talk page. The only use case that come to mind is the
> first
> > one *Removal of non-public personal information*, however by publishing
> the
> > information the couple seems to agree, for now, to have this information
> > published (as far as we know, they are not lying about their identity).
> I'd
> > gladly suppress the personnal information if it is requested by the
> person
> > concerned or if it was an obvious mistake.
> >
> > As an administrator, it remains, [[COM:IDENT]] which is a guildeline on
> how
> > to proceed with photography of identifiable person, however I don't see
> any
> > photo in this discussion.
> >
> > In the end I just think we are having this thread because of the topic
> > being related to nudity (which is clearly a not consensual topic in our
> > communities, probably because it is cultural) and not really because of
> any
> > real breach of privacy. If I'm getting it wrong, I'm open to discussion.
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-20 20:04 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
> >
> > > (...)
> > > Now, I'm not really at ease with Odder's decision, and I think we (as a
> > > community) need to discuss that, in a civilized manner. This could have
> > > (and will, I hope ) happened on the pages meant for that, on Commons,
> > > without any unnecessary drama.
> > >
> >
> > @ Pipo Le Clown > Feel free to send an email to the oversight mailing
> list
> > or start a discussion on Wikimedia Commons in order to explain your
> > opinion. I believe the oversight team is open to community input.
> >
> >
> > > Pleclown
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely Pierre-Selim,
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Thyge  wrote:
> > >
> > > > What a kind communication! It gives me the impression that you are
> > afraid
> > > > to discuss matters outside of Commons.
> > > >
> > > > The special role of Commons as a joint resource should occationally
> > allow
> > > > concerns to be raised outside the community of commonites. If
> concerns
> > > are
> > > > not of a general nature, please at least deal with them in a friendly
> > > > manner.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Thyge
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2014-05-20 17:51 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
> > > >
> > > > > You didn't get the answer you wanted, so you're forum shopping to
> get
> > > the
> > > > > "right one" ? How nice of you.
> > > > >  Le 20 mai 2014 17:37, "Jeevan Jose"  a
> écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Jee
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Risker]

I do not understand why anyone would assume that the woman has agreed to
this, without her actually, personally, saying that she has agreed to this.

Risker


On 20 May 2014 15:22, Pierre-Selim  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As an oversight, I'd like to give an advice first. When encountering a
> privacy matter that you believe falls under the oversight policy <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy#Use> you should probably
> contact directly oversight-comm...@lists.wikimedia.org rather than linking
> the information on a public forum (or even on a talk page), i.e. if there
> is a real breach of privacy more people will see it :(.
>
> That said, I fail to see what falls under the oversight policy as explained
> by Odder on his talk page. The only use case that come to mind is the first
> one *Removal of non-public personal information*, however by publishing the
> information the couple seems to agree, for now, to have this information
> published (as far as we know, they are not lying about their identity). I'd
> gladly suppress the personnal information if it is requested by the person
> concerned or if it was an obvious mistake.
>
> As an administrator, it remains, [[COM:IDENT]] which is a guildeline on how
> to proceed with photography of identifiable person, however I don't see any
> photo in this discussion.
>
> In the end I just think we are having this thread because of the topic
> being related to nudity (which is clearly a not consensual topic in our
> communities, probably because it is cultural) and not really because of any
> real breach of privacy. If I'm getting it wrong, I'm open to discussion.
>
>
> 2014-05-20 20:04 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
>
> > (...)
> > Now, I'm not really at ease with Odder's decision, and I think we (as a
> > community) need to discuss that, in a civilized manner. This could have
> > (and will, I hope ) happened on the pages meant for that, on Commons,
> > without any unnecessary drama.
> >
>
> @ Pipo Le Clown > Feel free to send an email to the oversight mailing list
> or start a discussion on Wikimedia Commons in order to explain your
> opinion. I believe the oversight team is open to community input.
>
>
> > Pleclown
> >
>
>
> Sincerely Pierre-Selim,
>
>
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Thyge  wrote:
> >
> > > What a kind communication! It gives me the impression that you are
> afraid
> > > to discuss matters outside of Commons.
> > >
> > > The special role of Commons as a joint resource should occationally
> allow
> > > concerns to be raised outside the community of commonites. If concerns
> > are
> > > not of a general nature, please at least deal with them in a friendly
> > > manner.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Thyge
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-05-20 17:51 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
> > >
> > > > You didn't get the answer you wanted, so you're forum shopping to get
> > the
> > > > "right one" ? How nice of you.
> > > >  Le 20 mai 2014 17:37, "Jeevan Jose"  a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Jee
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Pierre-Selim
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Pierre-Selim]

Hi all,

As an oversight, I'd like to give an advice first. When encountering a
privacy matter that you believe falls under the oversight policy <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy#Use> you should probably
contact directly oversight-comm...@lists.wikimedia.org rather than linking
the information on a public forum (or even on a talk page), i.e. if there
is a real breach of privacy more people will see it :(.

That said, I fail to see what falls under the oversight policy as explained
by Odder on his talk page. The only use case that come to mind is the first
one *Removal of non-public personal information*, however by publishing the
information the couple seems to agree, for now, to have this information
published (as far as we know, they are not lying about their identity). I'd
gladly suppress the personnal information if it is requested by the person
concerned or if it was an obvious mistake.

As an administrator, it remains, [[COM:IDENT]] which is a guildeline on how
to proceed with photography of identifiable person, however I don't see any
photo in this discussion.

In the end I just think we are having this thread because of the topic
being related to nudity (which is clearly a not consensual topic in our
communities, probably because it is cultural) and not really because of any
real breach of privacy. If I'm getting it wrong, I'm open to discussion.


2014-05-20 20:04 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :

> (...)
> Now, I'm not really at ease with Odder's decision, and I think we (as a
> community) need to discuss that, in a civilized manner. This could have
> (and will, I hope ) happened on the pages meant for that, on Commons,
> without any unnecessary drama.
>

@ Pipo Le Clown > Feel free to send an email to the oversight mailing list
or start a discussion on Wikimedia Commons in order to explain your
opinion. I believe the oversight team is open to community input.


> Pleclown
>


Sincerely Pierre-Selim,


> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Thyge  wrote:
>
> > What a kind communication! It gives me the impression that you are afraid
> > to discuss matters outside of Commons.
> >
> > The special role of Commons as a joint resource should occationally allow
> > concerns to be raised outside the community of commonites. If concerns
> are
> > not of a general nature, please at least deal with them in a friendly
> > manner.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Thyge
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-20 17:51 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
> >
> > > You didn't get the answer you wanted, so you're forum shopping to get
> the
> > > "right one" ? How nice of you.
> > >  Le 20 mai 2014 17:37, "Jeevan Jose"  a écrit :
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity
> > > >
> > > > Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Jee
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Pierre-Selim
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Pipo Le Clown]

I can see a least 5 pages on Commons where this kind of matter can and
should be raised. But Jee chose to send a mail on this mailing list. Jee is
a seasoned contributor to Commons, and he has found those pages in the
past. He knows our policies and this email was (in my opinion) an attempt
to surf on the "Commons is broken" trend occuring around here.

Yes concerns can be raised outside the community of commonites, when those
concerns coudl directly affect other projects. This is an internal problem,
where Jee tried to enforce his vision of COM:IDENT, was reverted twice, and
went on an bureaucrat's talk page to ask for revdel, outside of Commons
usual ways... When he didn't get what he asked, he sent this email, and
quitted:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jkadavoor&diff=prev&oldid=124451019

Now, I'm not really at ease with Odder's decision, and I think we (as a
community) need to discuss that, in a civilized manner. This could have
(and will, I hope ) happened on the pages meant for that, on Commons,
without any unnecessary drama.

Pleclown


On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Thyge  wrote:

> What a kind communication! It gives me the impression that you are afraid
> to discuss matters outside of Commons.
>
> The special role of Commons as a joint resource should occationally allow
> concerns to be raised outside the community of commonites. If concerns are
> not of a general nature, please at least deal with them in a friendly
> manner.
>
> Regards,
> Thyge
>
>
>
> 2014-05-20 17:51 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :
>
> > You didn't get the answer you wanted, so you're forum shopping to get the
> > "right one" ? How nice of you.
> >  Le 20 mai 2014 17:37, "Jeevan Jose"  a écrit :
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity
> > >
> > > Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jee
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Thyge]

What a kind communication! It gives me the impression that you are afraid
to discuss matters outside of Commons.

The special role of Commons as a joint resource should occationally allow
concerns to be raised outside the community of commonites. If concerns are
not of a general nature, please at least deal with them in a friendly
manner.

Regards,
Thyge



2014-05-20 17:51 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown :

> You didn't get the answer you wanted, so you're forum shopping to get the
> "right one" ? How nice of you.
>  Le 20 mai 2014 17:37, "Jeevan Jose"  a écrit :
>
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity
> >
> > Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jee
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Pipo Le Clown]

You didn't get the answer you wanted, so you're forum shopping to get the
"right one" ? How nice of you.
 Le 20 mai 2014 17:37, "Jeevan Jose"  a écrit :

>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity
>
> Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works?
>
> Regards,
> Jee
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Jeevan Jose]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity

Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works?

Regards,
Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,