71.17.25.13

Emily Beecham

Hi & welcome to Wikipedia,

I see you are having a problem with an image on Emily Beecham. It probably is frustrating you, and I'd like to help. If you could make an entry on the article's talk page explaining what the problem with the image is, that'd be great.

Thanks, AntiVan (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing and seeking a dialogue, I really hate edit wars (I am used to moderating them over on wikia, so participating in one is unfortunate for me). Ive described my problem in on the requested talk page. 71.17.25.13 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

As you may have already seen, I've replied on the article talk page. Short answer, is get a new free use image uploaded, and if it's better, it'll likely end up in the article talk page. AntiVan (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@AntiVan: Hello, I've read over your reply on the talk page and noticed your ask regarding my civility when referring to other users. I was, as I hope you understand, somewhat frustrated as it was with the dispute, so being told "tough bollocks" really didn't sit all that well, even if actions followed legal policy. I apologize if I came off too aggressive. I'd also note regarding my "special access", I was not trying to brag about it, but was rather trying to establish that if necessary I could validate the request for removal since my page has a dialogue with the subject of the page, and am again sorry if that come off the wrong way. I continue to question the position taken by the site however that this is tolerable. It is simply not right to post photos of people (especially those whose career is dependent upon their image) on the internet. Even if it doesn't legally violate policy it is highly questionable, and puts the site into conflict with public figures. Wikipedia is a well established and very much "go to" sight for information on public figures, and so portraying them (physically) in a way they do not like can put their livelihood at risk where casting is concerned. I will be the first to admit that this is somewhat foreign to me as an atmosphere, since I am experienced moderating on Fandom Wikia, where such a request would almost certainly be accepted out of respect alone. Of course, Wikia also has significantly less strict photo policies, allowing for any image to be used under US fair use law, provided it is of good quality and isn't watermarked by anyone other than the network of the show the Wikia is for. Clearly policy is different here. My question now, however, is why the image cannot remain down until a replacement is provided. I understand why, policy wise, another photo isn't currently available (since policy here bars promotional photos), but am confused by the need to continue displaying the photo in question for the time being. My point in removing the photo was simply to solve the problem, without Miss.Beecham or anyone on her legal team having to look at it, and without any real fuss or conflict. I'm a concerned fan, who's interest here was simply sparring Miss.Beecham the trouble. I found it appalling that the first reply to that effort included vulgarity, and feel this whole thing would probably be less tense had the response been more dialogue friendly as yours was. I sincerely appreciate your actually taking time to talk this over, rather than simply making a vulgar comment and reverting. I understand that the user was trying to follow policy, but feel that could've been better done without making a comment of that nature in response to someone who is already a bit riled up. I'm happy to discuss this further, and will refrain from reverting again at this time, however, as I said, it would be preferable to work this out without my having to stress out Miss.Beecham with a lengthy request. Asking her to accept the status kuo and wait until another photo is available is something I'd rather not have to do if I can avoid it. Miss.Beecham had indicated that she would gladly provide another photo (and I am aware her reps, and Vera (the original up-loader), are working on it). However, I'd simply ask if (and if not, why not) it is possible to have a photo omitted in that interim period? Thanks again for your time and patience with this. Sorry again for having come off as aggressive, emotions flared unfortunately. 71.17.25.13 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately many editors remove images for all sorts of silly reasons and when you deal with this sort of thing on a more or less daily basis it can be frustrating to revert, That said it doesn't excuse or justify the language used so I apologise for the language, As I said you can kind of understand why I do when this sort of thing happens on a daily basis, I can understand why you or her want it changed I really do however we can't just replace it just like that especially when there's no other free images of her online - If there were free images I would've replaced it myself as opposed to just smacking revert, (Redacted) But anyway I simply wanted again to apologise for the language used, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thank you sincerely for the apology, and for stating your understanding of why Miss.Beecham wishes for the photo to come down. I can sympathize with your frustration if you've been having to deal with people on other pages committing senseless vandalism by removing for no reason. I've dealt with vandals over on Wikia and it can be aggravating.

I'd also like to clarify for you per your above comment that Miss.Beecham has not been running around on twitter trying to tell fans to remove the image. She politely asked the original up-loader to remove the image, and was initially met with hostility and a personal insult. While her reps have since intervened and a solution is (to our knowledge) in the works with the up-loader, we as a fan page administration decided last week, following the personal attack, that it would be best to simply remove the image temporarily until a solution was worked out. I have been the only person (sanctioned by our page anyway) removing the image, as we felt it best only one person handle this, to avoid confusion, and my Wikia experience meant that I'm not entirely clueless with regards to how to, physically, edit pages. When we took the photo down last week and it remained down for about 9 days, without anyone contacting us, or the up-loader protesting, we figured it was fine, since talks on replacing the photo are still ongoing. My intent in continuing to remove (thus starting an edit war, with we both can agree is silly) was simply to keep the photo down in the interim, and start a dialogue with anyone willing to talk about finding a solution, in such a way that Miss.Beecham does not need to be actively involved and further stressed out by this issue. Admittedly I came into this encounter already primed for hostility, given the way Miss.Beecham was treated on her twitter, so the initial response set me off somewhat, as it was mildly reminiscent of the behavior we saw there. We (and when I say we I refer to myself and the other page admins on social media), wish to keep this issue contained to avoid having to see Miss.Beecham deal with another hostile encounter, to avoid this turning into a larger issue involving legal reps or what have you, and to avoid this spilling over and causing who knows how many fans who have no clue what they're doing to flood the page. Keeping the photo down temporarily occurred to us as the best way to do this, as it makes clear to all observers (ex. fans) that a solution is in the works and Miss.Beecham is being respected. I understand where you are coming from, and would just like to clarify that in doing this we were ultimately trying to avoid either Miss.Beecham having to be caused stress or further conflict, and to avoid the general fandom running wild because they believe the site is unwilling to compromise and is behaving as the one editor did in her initial encounter on twitter. Committing senseless vandalism was never my, or our, intent here, rather I was hoping to deescalate the situation for the public, and protect Miss.Beecham from further blatant attacks on her personality. I apologize for reacting in a heated way, and just wanted to make you aware of why I was already in such a foul mood with regards to language when I saw your revert, and was thus so easily frustrated. In the end I was merely trying to protect the public image and well being of both Emily Beecham and Wikipedia, and in my emotional state it appears that is not the image I gave off to you at all. Once again, thank you for the apology and understanding, and for taking the time to message me here. Hopefully a solution can be found more quickly and properly now that we all understand each others positions and reasons for having been quick to frustration. Thanks again 71.17.25.13 (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi 71.17.25.13,

The guiding principle for most editors on Wikipedia when making these decisions is what's best for the article. In my view, the article is better with a picture of the subject than without it. I can't see any suggestion that this image of a celebrity was taken without the subject's consent, or in a private space, or that it unfairly demeans or ridicules her. If any of those were the case, my stance would likely be different. You can read more about Wikipedia Image Policy here.

Of course, I am not the boss of Wikipedia, I'm just an editor like you and Davey2010, and it's possible (although I doubt it) that a different editor would read the policy differently. If that was the case, there'd be a discussion in the article talk page to reach a consensus about it. If you were interested in pursuing this, there's a couple of different mechanisms to do so. The first (and quickest and simplest) is to seek a third opinion or the more formal dispute resolution. Both of these options are described on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page. If you did want to go down that route, I'd highly recommend registering and getting a user name. It makes things much simpler.

Thanks for sticking to this arrangement, when I know it's frustrating you. It is important that you continue to show restraint in not removing the image; to do so would look like warring and as you are involved the article subject would most likely lead to an IP block and/or page protection. More frustratingly, it would make the ultimate solution - of having a better image on the page - further away. Good luck, AntiVan (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@AntiVan: Thanks for the information and patience. I appreciate the help and guidance, and am happy to pursue a more peaceful resolution. I think we all just got off to bad start, given that we both had reasons to be frustrated and came into this expecting hostility, and that just became a self fulfilling prophecy. Edit warring is something I'm used to moderating, not partaking in, so I'm glad we've gotten to the point where we can discuss this instead, as I truly despise edit wars. Thanks again 71.17.25.13 (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah in that case I apologise for that comment aswell which I've redacted, Again many BLPs get their fans etc to try and change things,

I don't mean this in any funny way but you've really surprised me in the way you've handled this - Instead of ignoring everyone and doing whatever the hell you like you've actually discussed this and actually have been very peaceful and respectful which is certainly a credit to you and is something I extremely appreciate,

If I knew you worked on Wikia things would've been handled much differently but I guess in some ways it's an eye opener for all of us

Kinda random but thank you for discussing this - After my revert it's very easy to say f it, carry on and get blocked but although we did play revert tennis you did still want to discuss this which again is something I appreciate so thank you :),

Back on topic - I had no idea the image was ever removed and when I did realise I ofcourse reverted, Usually the best ideal situation is to ask first on the talkpage whether it's fine the image is replaced (We always want the best quality and there's many articles that use for instance 2007 photos when there's like 8 taken between 07-17) or leave the image no matter how bad it is, arrange for her to be photographed (or plan to see her at an event) etc etc, and then once photographed upload the image on Commons and the come to the talkpage and perhaps start an WP:RFC, if you got no reply on either scenarios after 30 days or so then change it,

I know that process seems like a pain the backside but unfortunately we have ways of doing things and it's always best to seek consensus first otherwise people are going to revert - As you probably noticed we're extremely strict when it comes to images etc but we're only strict because we only want the best for articles if that makes sense,

But anyway thanks again for discussing and as I said being very peaceful and respectful - It's greatly appreciated :), If only we more people like you here :), –Davey2010^Talk 14:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Photo

There is a developing conversation at Talk:Emily Beecham about this. I think the ideal solution that would please all parties is to use a different photo, ideally a professional shot of Ms Beecham, but it must be freely available under a Creative Commons license that permits users to share and re-sell it. For example, the established photographer Allan Warren has made a hugely positive contribution to Wikipedia by putting his historical photographs of British royals and dukes under such a license. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

---