Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poledancer in the Outdoors.png

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

File:Poledancer_in_the_Outdoors.png[edit]

1) Out of scope (educational purpose?), 2) COM:PEOPLE 3) questionalbe FlickR-picture ("member is no longer active"). Yikrazuul (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Poledancing is not recognizable, so this picture does not have any scope (sorry for you). COM:PEOPLE does apply and finally, the source (a deleted FlickR account) is not convincable. Hence, no arguments to keep (sorry for you). --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In scope and taken in public. There is no expectation of privacy for COM:PEOPLE to apply here. And Flickr-reviewed with no reason to suspect the Flickr user was license laundering. – Adrignola talk 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poledancer in the Outdoors.png[edit]

Medium resolution PNG file from a Flickr user who has subsequently been removed. Uploaded by the prolific Max Rebo Band. All signs of Flickr-washing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question as with the others, what has changed to make a deletion decision at all different? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Matt, I've replied to this question twice already and I don't feel like cutting and pasting it here as well. You know the answer so I don't know why you are repeating the question. If by asking you are implying that you intend to close the discussion, go ahead. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delicious carbuncle, your comment above confuses me. You linked to a previous comment, and implied it was a sufficient response. However, your comment above was made after I pointed out that you had asserted here that this image was "from a Flickr user who has subsequently been removed." You have not acknowledged that your assertion was not an accurate reflection of what flickr said. Flickr says "This member is no longer active on Flickr." I don`t understand why you haven`t acknowledged that your nomination unfairly implied a suspicion you can`t substantiate -- that the individual had been kicked off flickr, when they may simply have exercised the flickr equivalent of the right to disappear. I don`t understand why you would repeat that innuendo by pointing to a previous comment, as if it answered the good faith questions raised here. Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Nominator asserts this image was "from a Flickr user who has subsequently been removed." I suggest that just as we shouldn't unfairly leave implied reflections on the character of WMF contributors, we shouldn't unfairly leave implied reflections on the character of flickr contributors.

    There is no reason to believe the flickr user was "removed". Visiting the image page greets us with the message -- "This member is no longer active on Flickr." They could simply have retired.

    Contributors to wikimedia projects have a right to disappear. Is nominator claiming flickr contributors, do not have a right to disappear?

    With regard to "the prolific Max Rebo Band" -- does our nominator mean to imply a consensus was reached that this contributor should not be granted the assumption of good faith? If that is our nominator's position I request they (1) say so explicitly; (2) offer a link or links to discussions that reached this conclusion. Otherwise I suggest nominator consider apologizing Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Geo Swan, to whom should I apologize? The Flickr user who is no longer on Flickr, or Max Rebo Band who is no longer contributing to Commons under that name? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification please -- can you point to a discussion where a consensus was reached that "the prolific Max Rebo Band" had acted in a way that justified no longer extending the assumption of good faith to them? If you can point to that discussion, I promise you I will read it. If that discussion actually happened, maybe it will convince me, in which case I will explicitly say so. However, if you can`t point to that discussion I request you be clear, now, and explicitly say so. Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It really has little to do with extending good faith or not extending good faith. The person behind that account is a prolific uploader of images from Flickr. Many images that they uploaded as Max Rebo Band have now been deleted for one reason or another. Some have been quietly replaced with duplicate images and the original upload request revdeleted to disassociate the uploads from that account. I do not know how many of those have subsequently been deleted. It really doesn't matter if the original uploader was acting in good faith if the image on Flickr was a copyright violation - the end result is the same. Experience suggests that these are copyright violations. You are free to disagree with my assessment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • An ongoing pattern of uploading images that turn out to be copyright violations is a valid reason to subject a contributor`s uploads to greater scrutiny -- even if they were an innocent dupe of flickr contributor(s) who engaged in flickr-copy-violation.

      I have no memory of the upload history of "the prolific Max Rebo Band". I may have participated in other deletion or undeletion discussions of images they uploaded, but I don`t remember doing so. Essentially, aren`t you asking the rest of us to accept without question your unsubstantiated conclusion that they were a problem uploader? Max Rebo Band has a clean slate with me -- whereas you have chosen not to acknowledge there is a difference between a flickr contributor who has been removed from flickr by the flickr management and a flickr contributor who has simply retired. No offense, but this erodes my trust in your conclusions about Max Rebo Band`s record. Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You are free to question anything you wish, Geo Swan. Why don't you just take a look at Max Rebo Band's talk page, or see how many of his uploads are now red links? There is no way for me to know why the Flickr user is no longer on Flickr, all I know is that their account has been removed. If you disagree with my assessment here, that's fine, but don't make it sound like I'm trying to bamboozle anyone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at User talk:Max Rebo Band, and at Special:ListFiles/Max Rebo Band -- the list of images they uploaded.

      His or her talk page has notices that point to discussions over whether to delete files he uploaded. Merely directing participants in this discussion to look at the talk page is misleading. It is doubly misleading, as many of the red links are to the images that dedicated opponents to images related to human sexuality nominated multiple times.

      Max Rebo Band's list of uploads shows they uploaded something like almost 800 images. You seem to be set on representing Max Rebo Band as a vandal, or semi-vandal, with a history of having most of their images deleted. But it seems to me that a fair look at the record suggests only a small fraction of their images have been nominated for deletion. If the nominations on the talk page are the only images that have been deleted, then more than 95 percent of their images have never been challenged. And that, I suggest, makes the repeated innuendos in this nomination highly inappropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That a Flickr user "is no longer active on Flickr" is not a reason to delete media which were confirmed to be under a free license at time of upload. What is the basis for the statement about the "Flickr user who has subsequently been removed"? What are the "signs of Flickr-washing"? If you have some evidence for either allegation, please share it. Otherwise,  Keep. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Wrong. 1) The license was not free, it was just stated on FlickR to be free (FlickRwashing). 2) ExiF-data? Missing, as usual of stolen pictures. 3) Out of scope, as last time. 4) YOU have to prove that this image is free, not the other way around. Are you able to do that? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence of flickrwashing? Because if not, we AGF. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yikrazuul, we wouldn't expect PNG files to have EXIF data. The fact that this is a PNG file and not a JPG file is not in itself a reason to question the status of the file, but it is odd. When taken with the other factors, it points towards Flickr-washing. Experienced users easily recognize the signs. Other people may disagree, but there is no particular reason to keep this suspicious image, so I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't be sure about the license, hence COM:PRP. And honestly, the uploader is known to have uploaded tons of unfree or flickr-washed pictures, so, no, we CANNOT assume AGF (I have recentyl tagged an obvious copyrighted image of this precious uploader). Again, the orignial Flickr source was removed, suprise, suprise. Besides, we are talking about an image which does not add anything to commons. Taken together, get rid of that rotten apple. --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, Per Norm, stop trying to censor Commons. By the way how did :”the circumstances surrounding this file changed in a notable manner” to “re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.” -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing copyright violations has absolutely nothing to do with "censorship". If you are worried that the removal of a few images with questionable licensing will deprive anyone of understanding pole dancing, do not fear - there are plenty of properly licensed images in Category:Erotic pole dancing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have several times suggested Commons should rather work with professional adult industry performers who keep proper 2257 records of age and consent, rather than amass a stash of adult images pinched from the Internet, or "sexted" to Commons by vengeful ex-partners or exhibitionists. The present process is no way to build up a reputable educational database. Andreas JN466 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Flickrwashing concerns, COM:PEOPLE. Andreas JN466 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Switch to  Keep based on Simonxag's analysis below, which seems sound. I ran Tineye on the images in the category and couldn't find any copyrighted duplicates. Of course, this is not conclusive either, but for the moment, pending any further info, to me the balance is on the Keep side (this applies to all the images in Category:Photos by bigbk1962). Andreas JN466 19:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have created the category Category:Photos by bigbk1962 so that people can see the extent of the "problem" and also view the whole of the evidence.

  • There are 34 images and derivatives from this FlickR user on the commons. All are apparently properly licensed. Many are in use on Wikimedia projects.
  • None have EXIF data.
  • All original files start (or in one case contain) "NAP" or "nap" and appear to be from a Nudes-A-Poppin' event(s).
Some images share the same model.
Some images feature a model's number on a garter/armband.
All images seem (IMO) consistent with the same photographer, equipment and circumstances.
--Simonxag (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Based on the evidence (above) that I've put together, there do not seem to be any COM:PEOPLE concerns or possibility that any of these images is a "sexted" revenge image of somebody's girlfriend. The insinuations about User:Max Rebo Band are not merely unsupported by any evidence but are actually irrelevant. The concerns about copyright and (totally unsupported) talk of FlickR-washing do not square with the nature of this body of work: they are decent amateur images by one author from from one event, not "a stash of adult images pinched from the Internet". I don't like the fact that the FlickR usere has become inactive, but eventually all FlickR users will do this (I have personally not added anything to my FlickR photstream since I hit the free limit a couple of years ago). I do not think we would doubt a similar group of non-sex-related images with no actual evidence against them. --Simonxag (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I merely asked questions, above. I state my "keep" opinion here, for the reasons I stated above. Geo Swan (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, essentially per rationales from prior deletion discussion that was closed correctly, and comments by Geo Swan (talk · contribs) and by Gddea (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - I am closing this as keep. The nominator admits that there is nothing new in this nomination which would lead to a different result than the previous keep. Of the two delete votes, one was struck out and the other was merely unsubstantiated accusations. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Poledancer_in_the_Outdoors.png&oldid=84457395"