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_advocat... ).
Regards, Jee
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.comwrote:
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 chriskeatingwiki@gmail.comwrote:
@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.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe