User talk:Trisha Borsagi

Daniel Craig
I'm not sure why keep reverting a more up to date image from 2012 with an older image from 2009 which is more blurred, taken when Craig wasn't looking (see WP:MUG) and has been voted against on the article talk page. The page editors had the discussion about this and reached a conclusion. The conclusion does not breach any guidelines. If you have a problem with the newer picture I suggest you take it to the article talk page. Anna (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not permit images which are intended to disparage people, per WP:MUG. Local consensus does not overturn policy. This is explained in WP:CONLIMITED. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The 2012 photo is a press shot. The 2009 was taken by a passer by when Craig didn't know he was being photographed. It is older and blurred. Anna (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The best option is to request for someone to upload a recent and clear picture of Daniel Craig which doesn't violate policy outlined in WP:MUG as well as WP:OI. That would resolve both issues. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that the 2012 image is disparaging, what is it specifically about this image that disparages Craig? Quoting policy without explaining how you believe it is being breached is normally a pretty pointless exercise and merely suffices to put other people's backs up. Nthep (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:MUG as well as WP:OI clearly explain the issue with the disputed image. Also, note that it does not appear to be the first time that this image has led to controversy and disputes on the Daniel Craig article. This is to be expected: An image that fails to meet the appropriate Wikipedia policies can and will generate edit conflicts and disputes continuously. I've noticed that an attempt was made in the past to settle these disputes through consensus, but the problem there is that WP:CONLIMITED explains that a local consensus can not override broader policy. In summary, it's probably best to change the main image on the Daniel Craig article to another image that will give no cause for controversy or disputes, or this issue is likely to keep resurfacing over time from other editors besides me, as it already has numerous times before. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Trisha. For the dense amongst us (like Nthep, I'm an administrator here, and I can't see how the image is in violation of policy), perhaps you could explain why you think the 2012 image "presents Craig in a false or disparaging light" or "illustrates or introduces unpublished ideas or arguments"? I can't see how it does either. Yunshui 雲 水 11:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that the image has caused numerous disputes over time among several different editors besides myself and Anna is indicative of how there is a genuine issue with it. Images that were taken at unflattering moments, or when the subject was clearly caught off guard, and which apparently are used with the intention to disparage the subject on Wikipedia, are a direct violation of the policies outlined in WP:MUG and WP:OI. This notion is re-inforced by the fact that Daniel Craig has been a controversial choice for the role of James Bond, meaning there does appear to exist a motive among certain individuals to express their dislike of the actor in such ways. But this is not an issue between individuals who are either pro or anti Daniel Craig. I'm simply applying what I believe to be Wikipedia policy. Yet, I am being met with a remarkable degree of hostility and even outright aggression over it. I find it puzzling. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry but your answer to me does not answer my question. I asked specifically what about the image is disparaging and all you come back with is "policy explains the issue"  No it doesn't.  If you want a policy to be applied then you have to give explicit reasons and examples about the content of this image  and why you think that it does not meet the policy requirements. Res ipsa loquitur does not apply here and repeated trumpeting of it starts to sound like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a good line to go down. Nthep (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Trisha: I see. You appear to be misinterpreting the policy, in that case. If I've understood you correctly, you feel that the 2012 image "disparages" Craig because it is not a posed shot. That's simply not part of the WP:MUG policy, which is primarily intended to prevent images from violating the biographies of living persons policy by showing the subject in a police mugshot (implying that they are a criminal) or in some other deeply disparaging light (you couldn't use a photograph of Daniel Craig on the toilet, or picking his nose, for example). Simply being unflattering does not mean that a picture is in violation of this policy; Wikipedia is not here to make Daniel Craig look good (or bad); simply to report on published information about him. The picture is not being used in relation to Craig's role as James Bond, merely to identify the actor for readers. You are, I'm afraid, seeing some sort of anti-Craig conspiracy where none exists. Yunshui 雲 水 12:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you mistake my argument -- the issue with the image is not that it isn't a posed shot. Rather, the moment at which this particular picture was taken results in an unflattering contortion of the mouth and facial expression which is comparable to a shot of Craig "picking his nose", as it were. In both these cases, one ends up with an image that can be used to disparage the subject, which is explicitly forbidden by the aforementioned policies of WP:MUG as well as WP:OI. As I've already stated, the fact that this image has been the cause of numerous disputes over time among several different editors besides myself and Anna is illustrating that there is a genuine issue with it, which goes beyond subjective interpretation. It's evident that this picture in the past has led to disputes and controversy, is presently doing so again, and that it has a high degree of probability to do so again in the future. This is not conducive of a constructive editing environment, so the rational conclusion is to opt to use an alternate image from the available imagery. I am still puzzled as to why such a simple and rational proposition provokes such a militant response among some individuals. This to me suggests an emotional investment of some sort, and this is why I recalled how Daniel Craig's casting provoked a strong negative response among some groups. It's a bit dramatic to compare this to "seeing conspiracies". Trisha Borsagi (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the primary reason that you're getting some people's backs up is that this discussion has already been had - the RFC on the talkpage has established the use of the 2012 image, so all you're doing is overriding the existing concensus (and yes, I know local consensus doesn't trump policy, but in this case it is highy debatable that there is any policy violation occurring). If you're convinced that an unflattering shot is equivalent to major defamation of Craig - and in my experience, most of Wikipedia is likely to disagree, I'm afraid - then the correct course of action is to open a new request for comment. I'll be honest; I don't think you're likely to gain consensus for your position (whatever you may think, you really don't have a leg to stand on with regard to the two policies you've been citing) and so I don't recommend doing this; but if you're set on this course of action then that is the appropriate route to take. Yunshui 雲 水 12:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As stated, I'm continuously surprised at the level of hostility I receive over a simple proposition that seeks to ensure no future disputes over this image break out. It's a bit silly to point fingers at me personally for "rocking the boat" when the talk page of the Daniel Craig article illustrates how I am neither the first person to raise this issue, and am not likely to be the last one either. My objective with this is simply to avoid future conflicts. One would expect an administrator of all people to appreciate this. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say, I can't see much evidence of hostility in the responses you've been given - as far as I can tell, every editor who has interacted with you has made an attempt to explain things or ask questions in a fairly non-controntational manner. The issue I think you're missing is that we already had the discussion to avoid future conflicts - it's the existing Request for Comment - so your stated objective to avoid such conflicts is at odds with the realities of your actions (which are re-hashing debates that have already been resolved). Yunshui 雲 水 13:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A handful of good-faith edits intended to uphold Wiki policy have, thus far, led to 1) an editor initiating an edit-war with me, 2) several individuals confronting me on my talk page in such a manner that its volume has exploded in a few short hours and 3) a warning for being blocked being issued(!). I therefore can not say that I agree with your assessment of the situation. This response has been disproportionate by any measure, and ironically, it is precisely this which is making me suspicious as well as willing to pursue the matter further. What you from your part are overlooking is that, again, I am not the first individual to raise this issue and am not likely to be the last one either. Indeed, this situation is making it quite plain that the attempt which was made at settling the issue is not a viable long-term solution. Considering how swiftly a frontline has been formed against my position - in ways that begin to suggest WP:OWN I should add - it does appear to be unlikely that my case is going to be heard. But what I find most baffling is how you apparently not only favor, but indeed energetically defend, a solution that is likely to result in ongoing controversy and disputes in the future. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Trisha, choose an image (there's a number at c:Category:Daniel Craig) that you think would be a better representation and propose that image on the article talk page explaining why - not just the current image is in breach of WP:MUG - and invite comment from others. But you need to acknowledge that you will accept the result of the discussion. Nthep (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My aim is to ensure the policies outlined in WP:MUG and WP:OI are upheld on this article. Any image not in violation of these policies suffices; I have no personal preferences. As it is, I contend that the present image does not observe those policies and may be used to present the subject in a disparaging manner, which is explicitly forbidden. Whether this is done intentionally or merely incidentally is irrelevant. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MUG doesn't address whether an image may be used to disparage a subject, but whether it is used in that manner. Literally any image can in theory be used to dispage the subject; I could take the 2009 picture that you seem to prefer, Photoshop it onto the torso of a naked fat man setting fire to a kitten, and circulate that image on the internet with the caption, "Daniel Craig torches kitties!", but it wouldn't affect the use of the 2009 photo on Wikipedia. In the context of the article, the image is being used to provide visual identification of the article's subject, not to associate him with Nazis, criticise his selection as James Bond or suggest that he lights cats for a hobby. WP:MUG is therefore actually pretty much irrelevant to this particular discussion. WP:OI, which deals primarily with doctored images, is even less pertinent. Yunshui 雲 水 14:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm of a mind to proceed straight to arbitration over this issue, for the following reasons:


 * 1) WP:BLP makes it clear that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." This is the reason why the burden of evidence regarding contentious/disputed content in biographies of living persons rests with those who add or restore such content. I have yet to see any argumentation which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the disputed image file is not to be considered an explicit violation of the guidelines stipulated by WP:MUG and WP:OI. This brings us to the following point:


 * 2) I was uninvolved in the most recent disputes that this image file seems to continuously provoke on this article, and yet the controversy surrounding it has, once more, resurfaced in full. It's self-evident at this juncture that requests for comments alone are unable to produce a satisfactory resolution to this issue. The previous consensus also does not address the objection I have with the disputed image file: That it displays the article subject in a disparaging light and therefore violates WP:OI and WP:MUG.


 * 3) Of note: If this arbitration process rules in my favor, then one of the implications is that, as an administrator, you have been complicit in upholding an ongoing violation of Wikipedia policies. This certainly seems to offer some answers as to why this seemingly trivial issue is such a hornet's nest, not to mention the reasons behind the unusually adversarial/confrontational climate that is being cultivated on my talk page. The manner in which you have threatened an editor acting in good faith with blocking well ahead of such warnings becoming due has raised an alarm bell, and I will have your conduct throughout this dispute placed under the review of the Arbitration Committee. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As you're the one who claims the image breaches these two policies, I think it's incumbent on you to put forward an alternative that meets your interpretation of the policies. Insisting others make a move, which you may or may not agree with is unfair. Alternatively or in addition you might want to open a new discussion section at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where a wider range of views and advice can be sought. Nthep (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Trisha: To address your points:
 * 1) The rest of us have yet to see any argument which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the disputed image file is to be considered an explicit violation of guidelines stipulated by WP:MUG and WP:OI. In fact, you've yet to show that these two policy sections even have any bearing on the image. This is hardly surprising, since they don't.
 * 2) The "controversy" surrounding the image has resurfaced because you started edit-warring over its inclusion. Prior to that, a consensus had been established to use the picture. Claiming that the hornets nest you yourself stirred up is justification for stirring it up in the first place is, frankly, not the most convincing of arguments.
 * 3) Go for it. I did the best I could to help you and explain the situation, but if you're determined not to listen, feel free to file an ArbCom case. It will be rejected out of hand as entirely spurious, and we'll find ourselves back here again. Feel free to point out my use of a standard template message to warn you of the fact that you were edit-warring (instead of simply blocking your account outright, which could easily have been justified in the circumstances) as abuse, and go right ahead and claim my attempts to stop you breaking the edit-warring and content determination policies as a clear attempt to uphold a nonexistent policy violation. Best of luck with that. I'm done here. Yunshui 雲 水 19:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ''I'm still interested in hearing your explanation in the thread above, but note that you are the lone voice against a number of (quite experienced) editors; you are going to need to state your opposition to this image far more clearly rather than repeatedly reverting the page (which, I'm afraid, will result in your account being blocked). '' Yunshui 雲 水 12:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:EW clearly explains that "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required.". Please carefully re-read this standing Wikipedia guideline. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed it does - but you have yet to establish that your edits are actually enforcing policy. Once you have actually explained why you think the picture violates the policies you've cited, then we're in a position to discuss it, but as things stand, I could make the same claim regarding WP:EW if I reverted your edits claiming they violated WP:TITLE - it would make as much sense. Yunshui 雲 水 12:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That is a very reasonable position, and it is also a nice change from the remarkable level of hostility I've received for reasons which frankly still elude me. I'll try and explain my motivations as best I can on the article's talk page. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)