Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-04/DIY

Where is the dispute?
Do-it-yourself

Who is involved?

 * User:Delicious carbuncle
 * User:bobrayner
 * User:kencf0618
 * User:Beyond My Ken

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
 * kencf0618 (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * bobrayner (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
I have presented a counter-argument on the talk page of DIY as to whether the commercial punk DIY manufacture of fan regalia by the band One-Eyed Doll indeed serves as an encyclopaedic citation. The citation itself points to a segment of a rockumentary which details DIY manufacture and distribution (a punk business model alluded to in the article itself). The other two editors involved (including a Third Opinion) disagree that this is truly DIY, but as of this writing my rebuttal to their arguments has not been addressed.

What would you like to change about this?
My rebuttal hasn't been given due consideration. The crux of the matter is, I think, a matter of definition (of DIY), but inasmuch as this simply isn't being addressed by the other two parties currently involved, I would greatly appreciate some oversight by upper echelons.

How do you think we can help?
I've presented a case, and it's just lying there, therefore further due process is necessary to put the matter to rest.

Mediator notes
CASE CLOSED - As I cannot see any progress, I declare anything about this be removed until another case can be reopened. -- J  (t)  14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
My only involvement in the article was responding to kencf0618's request for a third opinion. Unfortunately, the opinion I gave was not the opinion that kencf0618 wanted, so they have now opened a MEDCAB case in the hope that somebody else will agree with them. Kencf0618 has accidentally forgotten to notify other parties to the mediation case; I'll fix that. bobrayner (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had mistakenly assumed that listing the other parties on 'Who Is Involved' automatically notified them. And whether my MEDCAB appeal succeeds or fails is secondary.   I am not forum shopping, I just want the issue to be thoroughly addressed, hence I took it to the next echelon.  Assume  good faith on my part, and don't impute motivations; I'll abide by whatever decision is made in this forum.  Savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't be participating in this. I believe Kencf0618 has an undeclared conflict of interest here, but it would be violating WP:OUTING to say more than that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Out away. Feel free!  Claims of sensitive information aside, and as an avowed fan of One-Eyed Doll and the creator of its Wikipedia article, I operate within the ambit of Wikipedia.  If citing a segment of One-Eyed Doll: A Rockumentary as illustrative of DIY is ultimately judged to be, say, undue weight, then that's that.  If by some alarming contingency I had a video citation of Throbbing Gristle making and distributing punk DIY fan regalia, I would have posted that had I come across it, and for the same reason I cited the OED documentary citation.  kencf0618 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, if Kencf0618's declaration on the upload of this image on Commons is true, then he or she is the author of the image, about which he or she says in this edit "It is bricolage by the gallery's co-owner". As the co-owner of the gallery, Kencf0168 has a clear COI and should look at WP:COI and WP:ADVERTISING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am neither the co-owner nor the owner; I have no financial stake in Bricolage whatsoever. I am using what happens to be commercial signage to illustrate Wikipedia in good faith.  If I had not been so detailed about the sign's provenance, you would not have known of its commercial usage at all, but I don't think its usage on Wikipedia is precluded, and if I err I err on the side of transparency.  kencf0618 (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have made several declarations, the first being that you are the owner of the rights to the artwork shown in this image such that you are able to upload it to Commons and release it under CC-BY-SA. (Source: "Own work" you wrote, and "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license" is the language of the license you selected). The second declaration came in this edit. In response to my referring to the unerdlying artwork as "student art", you wrote in your edit summary "It is bricolage by the gallery's co-owner, and not student art.".  Now, you write "I am neither the co-owner nor the owner".  All three of these declarations cannot simultaneously be accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Are you the artist reponsible for the artwork shown in the image titled "Bricolage"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing this particular discussion on my talk page. Cheers!  kencf0618 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, since you brought the issue up, let's leave it right here where you raised it. After all, if the images were not properly uploaded, and will be deleted as copyright violations, then there's no issue to mediate.  So, you've already made it clear that you're not the rights-holder to the artwork shown in IMAGE0443.jpg, are you the rights-holder to the artwork shown in ThriftStorePaintingBricolageSignage.jpg?  Simple question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kencf0618 has basically blown off this issue in a comment on his talk page, so I'll be nominating these images for deletion at Commons, where he has a history of uploading copyright violating images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not blowing off anything; I took a nap and had to gather some data. I'm sorry I haven't been clear.  To answer your question, I am not the rights-owner to IMAGE0443.jpg (at least not yet), or to ThriftStorePaintingBricolageSignage.jpg, nor am I the artist.  And of course, there's nothing to mediate here about them; this MEDCAB was opened to parse the citing of a documentary about One-Eyed Doll, not about a couple of images I'd uploaded.  I'll source my images more carefully in the future, but quite frankly I'm surprised they've taken up so much bandwidth here. kencf0618 (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My interaction with Kencf0618 is limited to deleting two images he added to the article Bricolage, and commenting on the first deletion on Talk:DIY when I discovered the conversation there through a search of his contributions. Both the images I deleted were images of artworks labelled as being created by Kencf0618, and I removed both of them as being inferior representations of the concept of "Bricolage". In regards to this issue, Kencf0618's primary concern appears to be the insertion of photographs of his own artworks into Wikipedia articles, without being overly concerned whether they are good or representative illustrations of the article's subject.  In fact, they are not, and my removing them is no more significant than if I was removing a badly written paragraph of text.  No "dispute resolution" or "mediation" is required, as the only person who appears to support the addition of these images to Wikipedia articles is Kencf0618 himself -- all other parties who have commented have opposed his images, so the local consensus against them is clear.  As such, I will not be participating in mediation, since it is unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IMAGE0443.jpg isn't the point at issue here, and never was. And neither the painting nor the manipulation of the painting are mine, BTW; I just took the photograph.  Reasonable people can disagree about the felicity of particular illustrations; I edit boldly and move on.  In any case the superior photograph I took at Bricolage recently, ThriftStorePaintingBricolageSignage.jpg, now illustrates Bricolage and Self-reference, not DIY.  kencf0618 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, reasonable people can disagree, and three reasonable people disagree with you and think that the image is not a good example of DIY. There's nothing to mediate here, since the local consensus is clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@Kencf0618: You write above, regarding : And neither the painting nor the manipulation of the painting are mine, BTW; I just took the photograph. If that is the case, then you are not the rights-holder to the artwork, and are not allowed to upload a photograph of it (which is a derivative work) to the Commons without the permission of the artist or copyright holder. Such permission needs to be made known to the OTRS people at Commons, who can guide you through the process involved. If you do not have the artist or copyright owner's permission, then you must request that the image be deleted from the Commons as a copyright violation. This goes for every other image you have uploaded, either here or on the Commons, for which you are not the rights holder. Uner certain circumstances such images may be allowed to be uploaded here under the "fair use" doctrine, but the Commons does not allow fair use uploads under any circumstances. Please be certain to take case of this immediately, as the WMF takes copyright violations quite seriously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What next?
Is there any chance of further progress, or should this case be closed? bobrayner (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mediator notice: No, I am going to think and present my opinion at the Mediator notes section. -- J  (t)  14:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that both of the images involved have been withdrawn and deleted from the Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue has been moot for a while, and I've learned a thing or two in the process, so let's leave it at that. kencf0618 (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)