Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-04 Johann Hari/Draft photo rfc

Introduction

Dave, Felix: Please take a look at the proposed RFC below. If you think that I got anything wrong, or if there is anything else commenting editors should know, let me know. Once we agree on the description, I'll start the RFC and we can pick a second issue. TheronJ 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Draft Request for Comment: Disputed Photo

Description

This is a dispute regarding whether this image is appropriate for inclusion in the body of the Johann Hari article. The previously involved editors may offer more details below, but basically, the dispute is this:

Felix-felix would like to include the picture. He thinks that it is a good illustration of the subject, Johann Hari, pursuing his profession (journalism), and would therefore be a positive addition to the article.
According to its posting on Flickr,[1], the image is licensed under the Creative Commons 2.0 attribution license,[2] which means it's the only GDFL-compliant image currently available. (The editors are working on obtaining releases for more images, and hope to get a copyright release on this image[3] shortly. In addition, the editors could probably come up with fair use rationales for "promotional" images if the free image at issue is not usable).
David r opposes the use of the image at issue. Dave reports that Hari has confirmed to him in e-mail that (1) the picture isn't him, and (2) the clothes in the picture aren't his. In addition to believing that the picture isn't Hari, Dave also opposes the picture because Dave believes the picture to be unflattering. Dave has offered for Felix or I to e-mail Hari and confirm the e-mails, but we believe him.
Felix believes that (1) the picture is clearly Hari on its face (see generally the other Hari photos on Google images); and (2) the Flickr caption [4] identifies the photo as Hari, and reports that the photo was taken at a protest in the UK. (Hari wrote a piece about this protest[5], so there does not appear to be much dispute that he was there). He is concerned about the implications of allowing a subject of an article to veto a photo that he believes clearly is the an accurate photo of the guy in question.
The question of whether to use the image therefore raises a number of sub-issues: (1) Given that the photo resembles Hari, but that it's disputed, what are the WP:ATT requirements, and have they been met. (2) Does this raise WP:BLP issues, and how can they be resolved? (3) Does the existence of this photo prevent the editors from using promotional images under the fair use guidelines?

Thanks for commenting, TheronJ 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

It's worth bearing in mind three other factors:

(1) My understanding is that the picture was taken at a very crowded protest event where hundreds of people were milling around, and clearly the photographer has picked out somebody who looks a bit like Hari.

(2) My reason for suspecting Felix is trying to find and insert an unflattering picture is that he has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist and a particularly unpleasant one at that", accused him of supporting "the destruction of Untermenschen", and tried to insert photographs which, on another website, he linked to from the word 'unpleasant'. Links for all this can be found in the Hari discussion page, along with evidence Felix has inserted negative falsehoods into Hari's entry (like the claim he went to the ultra-exclusive private school Harrow School, when in fact his father is a bus driver and he went to a nearby school!). In light of this clear and unwikipedian agenda, I fear Felix's hostility to hari has led him to choose an unflattering image rather than the standard publicity-shot that one finds on every other journalists' page I can find on wiki.

(3) There is a perfectly good and undisputed picture that we are getting copyright clearance on in the next few days - DavidR

Remember to sign in dave, and also remember WP:ATTACK.

(1)The camp had only 600 people as recorded both here [6] and (by Hari) here [7], so the chance of finding a doppleganger seems a little unlikely, to put it mildly.

(2)The picture is not unflattering and shows Hari at work, which you might notice if you took a break from all the (inaccurate and frankly inappropriate) personal attacks. This is supposed to be mediation, remember?

(3)No-one is against the indy portrait mugshot going in when it's non-copyvio, I (and other editors) just want this one too.FelixFelix ^talk 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Where another wiki user uses decpetion, it is legitimate to factually describe that. Editors who look at the archived discussion on the Hari entry can see that felix-Felix inserted odd-looking pictures of Hari which Felix then insisted were simply "the best pictures available". Yet on another website, he linked from the word 'unpleasant' to precisely those weird and unflattering pictures, revealing that in reality he did think they were unpleasant. That's why I'm reulctant, I'm afraid, to take his protestations at face value on this new picture he is trying to insert, which is not Hari at all. David r from meth productions 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Draft RFC

Dave, Felix, just to clarify my plans,

Either one of you can feel free to edit my main description above if you think that the three of us are likely to agree to your edits.
If you have something additional to say that's more controversial, you can put it in a bullet under the "comments by involved editors" section.
If you have any questions or more general comments, put them here.

Thanks! TheronJ 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys comfortable with the proposed RFC as it stands? Also, Felix, do you want to write a "Statement by involved editor" before I post it? Thanks, TheronJ 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy, thanks again Theronj - DavidR

I think that's it too.FelixFelix ^talk 18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]