Discussion utilisateur:Brandon Rhea

Desinformation : Hugues Sion

Hi, why did you delete that article ? Did violation of terms of use, without any justification, is a good reason ? That's not the first time that the wikia staff delete an article without any reason, or at least without informing us (administrators). Then, I can defend that article : it's about a public man, who has been trapped by a french reporter during his election campaign, plenty of amateurishness ! We reacted like everybody, without insulting him more than his dumbness, which has already driven him famous and laugthed. OK, my english is poor, but the fact that your french must be as poor as well doesn't mean that you can judge that it's abusing or defamatory, just because you don't understand the subtilities. Yes, this article was hard, but it was justified by the facts and it's the consequence of his own acts. I ask for the restoration of that article, cause it's a shame for the freedom of expression, a policy of open door to permit arbitrary censorship. χλςmith ΤrismégistΞ ⇒ juillet 29, 2014 à 16:13 (UTC)

• Hi XySmith. The reason we removed it was because of what I indicated in the edit summary: the subject requested we remove it by contacting us at Special:Contact, and it was a privacy issue. While we certainly don't like removing content, especially from a parody wikia talking about public figures, European countries have stricter privacy laws than the United States, so it's our policy to generally remove such content upon request. - Brandon Rhea<staff />^(talk) juillet 29, 2014 à 16:20 (UTC)

Well, he is a politician, with a Facebook page who has featured in a TV program, so not exactly a private person. Are we supposed to abstain from jokes about François Hollande or Dominique Strauss-Kahn ? At least, your decision is pretty stimulating for us, because we are going to write a shit ton of articles about him, now. --Psychoparten,  Combattant sanguinaire, mais humaniste juillet 29, 2014 à 16:48 (UTC)

Don't threaten our guest ^^. But it's not false... So now we have a question : can we restore this article ? Cause I assure Wikia, and I assume totally what I m about to say (in addition to the fact that I m personally, irl, a legal professional), that we have the right, in the french law, to do that kind of articles. And thanks to ! χλςmith ΤrismégistΞ ⇒ juillet 29, 2014 à 16:53 (UTC)

@XySmith - You can certainly argue the merits of restoring it, and we'll certainly listen, but I can't guarantee anything. Odds are, it'll stay deleted. @Psychoparten - François Hollande and Dominique Strauss-Kahn didn't send us a complaint. :) Keep in mind that if you write more articles about this person, odds are they will just ask to have them removed. - Brandon Rhea<staff />^(talk) juillet 29, 2014 à 16:59 (UTC)

Not yet. Are we supposed to delete François Hollande and Domi Nique-Strauss-Kahn ? After all, if they send a request, we would be forced to... By your logic, it would certainly be more reasonable... As XySmith remark, the "European laws" argument doesn't hold. By the way, French TV doesn't seem to be worried about legal implications. --Psychoparten,  Combattant sanguinaire, mais humaniste juillet 29, 2014 à 17:13 (UTC)

Like I said, you can argue the merits of its restoration, and we will listen. Hypotheticals about the President of France aren't really going to change anyone's mind. - Brandon Rhea<staff />^(talk) juillet 29, 2014 à 17:22 (UTC)

Look, maybe we've started this discussion on the wrong foot. I've made a translation of the article. Please, take time to read it, and then tell us if there's anything that really affects the private life of an elected politician who was the "star" of a documentary broadcasted nationally. --Psychoparten,  Combattant sanguinaire, mais humaniste juillet 29, 2014 à 19:29 (UTC)

If you all want to argue why it should be restored, by all means please make your case. We'd be happy to hear it. Any decision about restoring it would be made by our executive team, so they'd need to see the argument clearly laid out in order to make a decision. - Brandon Rhea<staff />^(talk) juillet 29, 2014 à 19:36 (UTC)

Which will be hard, since all we know about the reasons for deleting is that it is "a privacy issue" - pretty paradoxical for an article that is a litteral (though sarcastic) account about a TV program. I've generally been satisfied with how things were going between Wikia and the community - when there were problems on some articles, we generally reached an agreement on either deleting or reworking it - but this time... how could we rework an article when we don't know what the problem is, or defend it when we don't know why there even was a complaint in the first place. --Psychoparten,  Combattant sanguinaire, mais humaniste juillet 29, 2014 à 19:51 (UTC)

The complaint was vague, but it can be assumed that it was alleging offense/libel. - Brandon Rhea<staff />^(talk) juillet 29, 2014 à 20:21 (UTC)

So make our request running, please, or trduct it by the good ways, because it can turn into arbitrary censorship. Listen : the complain was vague. You can realize by yourself that is too less to take those radical mesures. Proportionally much (all things considered). And please, let's inform us for the next complains. We can also defend us. χλςmith ΤrismégistΞ ⇒ juillet 29, 2014 à 21:35 (UTC)

As an activist of Moderately Free Speech, I think Brandon is right. This site is humouristic and aims at bringing joy and happiness to everybody. If anyone feels offended or simply bothered by what he reads, he must complain to the authorities and they must pee in their pants and remove the article immediatly even before reading it. Now, let's go back to writing sane articles about nice flowers and pretty animals. --Bazoumboy Deluxe (discussion) juillet 30, 2014 à 09:49 (UTC)

---

Hi, Brandon. I am the author of the infamous article Before explaining myself about the so-called article, I'd like to clear a point. You and the Wikia staff can't assure us that "[we] will be heard" if we "make [our] case" AND explaining "the complaint was vague". We are not talking about the syntax or the colors of the logo; we are talking about censorship, here. You know, Brandon, some people actually die for/because of it around the world, especially when it comes to politics, and especially when this is the kind of politics that once claimed that "gas chambers were a detail in History". This is serious. As an involved admin and the author of the article, I can't understand why you did not even inform me in the process (neither the other admins). You and the Wikia staff are the ones who have to come with an argument in the firt place. And you lack of those. Your description of the complaint, as well as the involved laws is more than blur. In a word your are treating us like children, leaving us with nothing than the sentiment that having an actual discussion about an actual change of mind is a polite no-no. Beyond the existence of the article, this is what really annoys me.

About the article itself. This is not a very good one. Most of it just narrates what we all nationnaly saw on TV, with a sarcastic style. And the documentary was not about Sion's private life, it was about his political career, and the choice he made to have this public career. Beyond that I made a joke about him being a ginger and another one about his mama (we are indeed reaching the most horrible frontiers of "joking" here). And a certain dose of classic dark humour about the party, the Front National; a political party that knows well what a complaint is. And the article is more about how the report was dramatically a failure for Hugues Sion than about Hugues Sion himself. I actually felt a little sad for him despite despising his political beliefs. As for the end of the article with a pun on his name (Fion (meaning ass) instead of Sion) and a picture of a targetted ambulance, a reference to a french expression : shooting an ambulance, which means attacking someone who is already harrased or on the ground (metaphorically). And that last visual joke sums up exactly the intention/tone of the article.

Then, the TV channel (D8) which made and broadcasted the documentary is being sued by the FN (and I dont know if it's still a thing). Something you'd be glad to hear about I guess. But everyone tends to agree that it's legally a non-sense, just a statement that had to make a targeted political party. It doesn't treat by any manner of private life, again just of public life, public and chosen life. And about politics, something we are supposed to be encouraged to make fun of in a free country. The undercover journalist has done his job according to both french and europeen laws, what it's about is i.e. legally a matter of interest, information, debate and, i.e., of mockery as well. So if you come with a complaint, it should be severely pecise, don't you think ? And if the article is finally removed, there should be a good and precise solid reason. A reason that is, again, not the respect of private life considering this subject is not involved nor attacked here at all.

So comes the question of the right to be forgotten on the Internet, something I care. Well in France and in Europe it legally concerns the private life informations, submitted by the users or from other sources. We are talking here about someone who went public, then got publicly humiliated about his public carrier and who would now want everybody to forget this public failure episode. No private life. If President Clinton wanted to delete all traces of his affair with Miss Lewinsky, that would more concern his private activities and still, that would be nearly impossible even by your standarts, you tell me. So the right to be forgotten should not work here, in my opinion of course. Plus the whole thing about his political failure and humiliation in the documentary was to put a light on a vaste situation among the FN's candidates during a recent campaign throughout the country. It literally talks about political matters, no more. And did I precise that, of course, Hugues Sion is still in fonction in Lens' municipal council ? That's right, he did not even go to quit his political career after his public humiliation, so this is still something we should talk about.

So, whether or not this article should stay deleted is not very important considering its actual value in terms of quality. But that's not your problem, we (the admins) have the final word when it comes to quality. What is important is that you (the Wikia staff) owe us a solid and legally founded reason to come with the decison of deleting an article.

Please, I'd like to hear your sentiment about that. Cordialy, { Cédric Spatiotemporel } juillet 30, 2014 à 01:16 (UTC)

• Thank you for laying out your argument in this manner. I will talk to our executive team about this. I can't guarantee that we will restore the article, however. - Brandon Rhea<staff />^(talk) août 5, 2014 à 16:31 (UTC)

Hello Brandon I am the tolosa of desencyclopedie and speaking myself of the suppressing about article who is NOT the bad article but you can yourself find the article funny (maybe you told "lol so funny this article" by reading this article, "lol" meaning yourself laugh mucho mucho (it is the english term right?)) and I want myself to the article be NO DELETED because humour is funny (remember? "lol" and so-on). Kisses   Ici Tolosa...    Se ma tanta avia de ròdas ne faria un cari.   août 5, 2014 à 21:39 (UTC) PS : Cedric, please use yourself good english when you talk on the user page of the Brandon Rhea of the wikia! Examplo: "throughout" -> NO INSULT PLEASE YOURSELF QUIET

@tolosa : thancks you a lot for help me into the process to talk in the english.

@Brandon : Thanks for taking my point of view in consideration. We've had our own debate about the article. All of us think it should not have been deleted, but some considere the documentary methodes were maybe too much for a single man who just got into politics, and therefore the obtained informations and footages too unfair to get broadcasted. This is why, and to appease the debate, we would agree to have the article restored with the name changed for a nickname/pseudonym, plus maybe some sentences changed a little. In this way we could keep the subject while eluding direct references to M. Sion. { Cédric Spatiotemporel } août 6, 2014 à 17:42 (UTC)

---

Je vais écrire en français, parce que je n'ai pas envie de me prendre la tête à traduire en anglais.

Je viens de retourner lire les conditions d'utilisation de Wikia et les termes sont on ne peut plus clairs.

Vous êtes personnellement responsable du contenu, y compris mais pas limité les images, profils, informations, messages, résultats de recherche,
modifications et autre contenu que vous importez, publiez ou affichez (ci-après « soumettre ») sur ou via le Service, ou transmettez aux ou
partagez avec les autres utilisateurs.

Et un peu plus loin.

Bien que nous dispensons des règles et règlements pour les soumissions et le comportement des utilisateurs, la Compagnie ne contrôle pas et
n'est pas responsable de quelque manière pour tout contenu soumis au Service.
La Compagnie n'est pas responsable du contenu ou du comportement, que ce soit en ligne ou hors ligne, de tout utilisateur du Service, Contenu
multimédia, autre site ou service qui pourrait être référencé, ou lié, dans le Service. De plus, vous comprenez et reconnaissez qu'en utilisant
le Service vous pouvez être exposé à du contenu que vous trouvez offensant, indécent ou répréhensible et que, à cet égard, vous utilisez le
Service à vos propres risques.

Alors il faut être un peu cohérent. Si Wikia se dédouane de toute responsabilité vis-à-vis du contenu des sites, le staff wikia n'a pas à intervenir directement en cas de plainte au sujet du dit contenu. Au pire, ils peuvent renvoyer le plaignant à leurs conditions d'utilisation, au mieux, ils peuvent transmettre la plainte à l'auteur de l'article et en informer le plaignant. En tout état de cause, un tel litige ne saurait se régler qu'entre l'auteur du texte et le plaignant, directement ! Donc devant les tribunaux français, sur des fondements de droit français, entre bons Français (ha ! ha ! humour !).

Sérieusement, ils ont peur de quoi chez Wikia ? Que M. Sion se déplace jusqu'en Californie pour leur coller un procès, comme il est tenu de le faire selon les termes des dites conditions d'utilisation ? Faut arrêter le délire... Il n'est pas question de droit d'auteur, ici, ils ne sont pas soumis au DMCA.

-- Un lecteur assidu de la Dé quoique non inscrit

This debate takes a new dimenSion Mr.fdp (discussion) juillet 30, 2014 à 19:08 (UTC)

Yes, it's in french, but he is right : if Wikia deny all responsability in his own policy, wich is readable in his website, why do his admins intervene ? ? Moreover, it seems that it's not concerning DMCA, just copyright, wich are well treated by the Wikia law : it's at the own risk of the uploader. χλςmith ΤrismégistΞ ⇒ août 6, 2014 à 17:26 (UTC)

Pol-Pot

Hi,

why did you delete Fichier:Pompotes-leg.jpg ? It was a real advertisement twisted : Pom-Pote (the food) -> Pol-Pot (the dictator), are you kidding ? ? That kind of parodical website can't twist pictures in modidying it ? ? Please, telle me. χλςmith ΤrismégistΞ ⇒ août 6, 2014 à 17:09 (UTC)

• We received a valid DMCA takedown notice from the copyright holder alleging that it violated their copyright. As I indicated in my deletion summary, this wiki is welcome to send a DMCA counter-notice if you all disagree that it violates the copyright of the rights holder. You can read about the counter-notice process here. If the community sends us a counter-notice, we will then notify the complaining party of the counter-notice. They will then have 2 weeks in which they can initiate a lawsuit. If they don't, then we will restore the image at the end of the 2 weeks. So this option is open to the wiki, but just remember that it can lead to a lawsuit. - Brandon Rhea<staff />^(talk) août 6, 2014 à 17:14 (UTC)

  May I have a link to post the counter-notice, please ? χλςmith ΤrismégistΞ ⇒ août 6, 2014 à 17:20 (UTC)

  The counter notice would be sent to Wikia via Special:Contact. Please note, however, that in order for the counter-notice to be as valid as possible, I would recommend that you have the permission of the community to file a counter-notice in its name. - Brandon Rhea<staff />^(talk) août 6, 2014 à 17:22 (UTC)

  I m an admin, chosen and at least concerned by the future of that wiki, and for that kind of things we are quite standing together. Then, the author of the article, Papa Schultz, is my brother-in-monkey. So it's a family business too. Thanks for your answers. I wonder if you're not treating all the notes about us those time, at the same time. If that's it, don't hesitate to do it once and for all, then we ll be able to make a global counter-notice. Regards, χλςmith ΤrismégistΞ ⇒ août 6, 2014 à 17:32 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "treating all the notes about us those time, at the same time." I'm not sure what you mean. - Brandon Rhea<staff />^(talk) août 6, 2014 à 17:36 (UTC)