The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> User Sigma1986 at Commons, Uploading illegal material and still at large
Text
post Mon 16th April 2012, 2:43pm
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Sigma1986

The first files he uploaded were images of underage femalia genitalia, however the account was never blocked. In fact, some of his images managed to slip through some foreign language Wikipedias in the relevant pages about female anatomy, and remained there for some time before being detected. After they were deleted, the files were re-uploaded.
By reading between the lines it seems that the account belongs to a now over-18 woman who took the pictures herself while she was young; or a boyfriend who took pictures of the girlfriend. In theory. In reality, it could just be yet another fake.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Mon 16th April 2012, 3:55pm
Post #2


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Text @ Mon 16th April 2012, 3:43pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Sigma1986

The first files he uploaded were images of underage femalia genitalia, however the account was never blocked. In fact, some of his images managed to slip through some foreign language Wikipedias in the relevant pages about female anatomy, and remained there for some time before being detected. After they were deleted, the files were re-uploaded.
By reading between the lines it seems that the account belongs to a now over-18 woman who took the pictures herself while she was young; or a boyfriend who took pictures of the girlfriend. In theory. In reality, it could just be yet another fake.


Not any more there aren't.

What made you think they were under-age? The usual hairless argument?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Mon 16th April 2012, 5:36pm
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
Not any more there aren't.

What made you think they were under-age? The usual hairless argument?


I haven't seen them, but the user specified that the photos represented "vulva before puberty".
Now if that is just trolling and the actual photos were of an adult woman, then the users got trolled.
Since the user is still around, the police must think the images weren't illegal, or he would be in jail right now.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Mon 16th April 2012, 5:52pm
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...sviluppo_05.jpg

QUOTE

This image portrays the genitals of an underaged female? I'm not sure that is entirely appropriate. 88.88.52.7 01:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete The intention is, I'm sure, educational and there's no evidence of any connection to child abuse. However, I think this image is very likely to fall foul of the law in the US where the Commons is hosted. --Simonxag (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted: Illegal under child pornography laws of US where Commons is hosted. Also contacted WMF to get a developer purge if necessary. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)



The developer purge never arrived?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Mon 16th April 2012, 6:58pm
Post #5


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Text @ Mon 16th April 2012, 6:52pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...sviluppo_05.jpg

QUOTE

This image portrays the genitals of an underaged female? I'm not sure that is entirely appropriate. 88.88.52.7 01:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete The intention is, I'm sure, educational and there's no evidence of any connection to child abuse. However, I think this image is very likely to fall foul of the law in the US where the Commons is hosted. --Simonxag (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted: Illegal under child pornography laws of US where Commons is hosted. Also contacted WMF to get a developer purge if necessary. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)



The developer purge never arrived?


It does boil my bum, but naked, intimate photos of kids does not necessarily make them porn. Though it does have to be said that perhaps there are worse places to put them than Commons.

Context and usage is every thing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Mon 16th April 2012, 7:35pm
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Web Fred @ Mon 16th April 2012, 7:58pm) *

perhaps there are worse places to put them than Commons.

Unlikely, because they are easy to find there and can be freely re-used even in the unlikely event that the sort of site that might re-use them is worried about copyright.
QUOTE
Context and usage is every thing.

OK, so if they're re-used in a pro-paedophile article or an article on some particularly revolting sexula practice that will be fine? yecch.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Mon 16th April 2012, 8:17pm
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
OK, so if they're re-used in a pro-paedophile article or an article on some particularly revolting sexula practice that will be fine?


As long as nobody sees the picture, or doesn't see the relevant page where the picture is included...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Mon 16th April 2012, 9:13pm
Post #8


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Detective @ Mon 16th April 2012, 8:35pm) *

QUOTE(Web Fred @ Mon 16th April 2012, 7:58pm) *

perhaps there are worse places to put them than Commons.

Unlikely, because they are easy to find there and can be freely re-used even in the unlikely event that the sort of site that might re-use them is worried about copyright.
QUOTE
Context and usage is every thing.

OK, so if they're re-used in a pro-paedophile article or an article on some particularly revolting sexula practice that will be fine? yecch.gif


Actually it's the opposite.

Used in an educational context then they are fine, used for paedo porn, not fine.

Pornography is in the eye of the beholder, not necessarily the publisher.

For example, there was an image mentioned in another thread a few days ago, where there were three little 'uns nekkid and covered in mud. In my eyes, ie the eyes of a parent, the photograph was very cute, perfectly harmless and was not sexually oriented in any way and a perfectly wonderful image of three beautiful little children which just exuded innocence. But because of the way the world is now, partly due to prudery, partly due to knee-jerk reactions, partly due to media incitement and partly due to the sick demands of paedophiles this beautiful picture is now deemed to be "child porn".

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Mon 16th April 2012, 9:17pm
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
But because of the way the world is now, partly due to prudery, partly due to knee-jerk reactions, partly due to media incitement and partly due to the sick demands of paedophiles this beautiful picture is now deemed to be "child porn".


If you were the father of the three kids and saw the pic on a site where everyone can download it, would you be fine with it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Mon 16th April 2012, 9:42pm
Post #10


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Text @ Mon 16th April 2012, 10:17pm) *

QUOTE
But because of the way the world is now, partly due to prudery, partly due to knee-jerk reactions, partly due to media incitement and partly due to the sick demands of paedophiles this beautiful picture is now deemed to be "child porn".


If you were the father of the three kids and saw the pic on a site where everyone can download it, would you be fine with it?


Probably. I think that's a gorgeous image. The looks on the kids' faces is pure innocence, the fact they are nude is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately I don't have any images of my kids that are as nice as that one.

In any case, I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I'm an ex-swinger and ex-naturist, with my kids having grown up in the culture of the latter.

I also don't concern myself with what sick fucks do in their bedrooms with pictures of kids.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Proabivouac
post Mon 16th April 2012, 11:08pm
Post #11


Bane of all wikiland
*******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined: Thu 23rd Aug 2007, 8:25am
Member No.: 2,647

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Web Fred @ Mon 16th April 2012, 9:42pm) *

In any case, I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I'm an ex-swinger and ex-naturist, with my kids having grown up in the culture of the latter.

And your custom description reads "Pervert & Swinger." You were the one with a shaved vulva on your en.wp userpage, no? Do you not see a continuum between your own behavior and that of Benjiboi or Fæ? Asked another way, were Wikimedia projects legitimate scholarly endeavors, shouldn't someone in authority have taken one look at any of this and said, "wtf, no?"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th 6 17, 3:33pm