Talk:The Mad Pooper

Strange article in my opinion

how strange to have a Wikipedia article on this isolated case! I think it would have been more appropriate to create a general article about this topic - people defecating in public on purpose?? People defecating to vandalise someone's property? People suffering from runny tummy?? I am surprised this article passed notability criteria if it's only about one single person. EMsmile (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@EMsmile: Yes, it's notable; after The Washington Post covered the story, it went national and many other reliable sources of national circulation devoted non-trivial coverage to it. Game, set and match. Not something we can pick and choose about.

Though I am glad you agree that a article on this general phenomenon would be warranted by those same criteria. I can think of more examples: people crapping in fitting rooms at major American clothing retailers, especially on Black Friday. I'm sure enough research can find good sources. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Oh, and how could anyone forget Jerry Finneran? His military and investment banking career probably made him notable in his own right, too. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yea, well, not sure I would waste my precious Wikipedia editing time on this but fair enough. I find it odd though that you have added a photo of that woman. Couldn't that lead to a witch hunt? What if someone thinks they recognise who that person is etc.? Is it allowed to use any photo from the press in a Wikipedia article, are they all open access licence? - But yes, overall a more general article on this phenomenon - using one's feces to express anger - could be better than just listing isolated cases. Wether the term "public defecation" is suitable for such an article, I am not sure. Maybe you could initially incorporate it into the existing article on shit. EMsmile (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@EMsmile: The photo's not a particularly good one, and as for starting a witch hunt it seems that the rash of coverage got the woman to stop, at least temporarily (I also think the onset of cooler fall weather, particularly in a place like Colorado Springs which is around 2000 m above sea level, in the mountains, may play a part). We also have other articles about unidentified people suspected of crimes where we have sketches or even similarly badly taken photographs. (And this photograph was widely reprinted in the media coverage. If it was going to result in a witch hunt, it would have happened in mid-September when this story hit the news).

It's a copyrighted image, but I have justified its use in the infobox under our fair-use criteria. See the image page.

Based on the limited research I've done, it seems that "public defecation" is used to refer to behavior such as this, i.e. willfully defecating in something other than a toilet indoors (even in a bathroom), or without concealing the action and the feces when outdoors, in a situation where one would have the option of using a nearby toilet and there is no emergency reason to do so, as opposed to the open defecation which that article (which I see you have done a lot of work on; congratulations for taking on an article about such an unpleasant subject) is about, the sanitary and public health problem that results when people have no choice but to use a public outdoor place.

I do think the former would be best served by a standalone article, rather than incorporation into any existing article. However, were I to create one, I would want to include more than just a glorified listing of incidents, I'd like to have some discussion of why people might do this, and I have not yet found any good sources (i.e., articles in academic journals) that would go into it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the topic of open defecation is unpleasant but as it affects millions and millions of people on this planet, I also found it a quite satisfying and wortwhile topic (plus it's related to my day job). Any chance you'd want to join "WikiProject Sanitation", by the way? - And here's an idea: how about creating a new disambiguation page called "Public defecation". It could have at least two entries: one leading to open defecation and one to this page (and further pages if there are similar ones out there). At some point in future it could then still be built up into a fully fledged page. - there might be information on Wikipedia already somewhere about children playing with their feces - smearing it on walls for example. That behaviour could be somehow related. (but I am no expert on this) EMsmile (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Photo removal

Does anyone else think it’s inappropriate to have a photo of a person, taken without permission (not by a government entity), who hasn’t been tried or convicted of a crime, on this article? Zanahary (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve removed it. Zanahary (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to remove an image only six minutes after starting a discussion. Looks like you wanted to eat your cake and have it too.

I would point out that the person is not really identifiable in the image as their face . We have posted images or sketches of people wanted for crimes taken or made by private actors before with no objection. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I consulted the BLP policy after my Talk post and decided that this should be removed without discussion. I never like this argument, but in the case of your comment I think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. This is a photo taken without permission, without confirmation of the pictured figure's identity, without confirmation of the alleged subject (who is accused of an embarrassing criminal behavior)'s guilt. Zanahary (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Because of this, I'm removing the image and would appreciate it if we could get consensus on including before the image is restored. Zanahary (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you wanted to eat your cake and have it too.

And this is unnecessary. Zanahary (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry about saying that, and I apologize. But still, in the future, remember that it's customary that if you feel unsure enough about something as to open a discussion on the talk page, to leave that discussion open for a good bit more than six minutes before you take action. I usually wait a day or so.

Now, as it happens, I have reflected on this since this morning and would agree with a different reason for removing this image: it's been seven years (almost) since this incident, thus the woman is highly unlikely to be identified, much less apprehended, due to the complete lack of continuing coverage since late 2017. In addition, it's a fair-use image, so we need more justification than we would if it were a free image. There's really no more need for us to have it.

So, I won't revert you on this revert you just made.

But think about it: If you had waited to make your edit until I or someone else responded, we could probably have had a more amicable discussion and come to this same conclusion.

Would you consider that behavior in the future? Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Initially I felt unsure and opened a discussion, but upon reading the BLP policy I became sure that this photo should not be on Wikipedia, and that it was a serious violation of BLP ethics. I thought that any amount of time that the photo was kept up was too long, and that if anyone had a big problem with that, they could generate consensus and reinstate the photo later—it's more chronically urgent, if I'm right, to remove the photo, than it is, if I'm wrong, to put it back up was my thought process. So that's why I removed it before anyone could give input. I'm not compelled by an argument that I could have chosen a different course of action from the one I chose (which I maintain was done in good faith and was the right thing to do) to avoid your rudeness. I don't mind that you got rude, but to me it's clear that "We could have had a more polite, still-productive interaction if you had made a different choice" is an argument that should be applied to you, not me. Zanahary (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If you had explained why you were making your decision when you said you were removing it, I probably wouldn't have gotten so upset either.

I'm not trying to make you feel guilty or bad about what you did—it's over and done—but others may not be as forgiving as I. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What are the unmerciful others going to do to me? Accuse me of having and eating cake? Zanahary (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are there any other articles where you think images like this should be removed? Or just this one? Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Haven’t done a search. I’d say any article with a photo taken without permission, of a figure unconfirmed to be the subject, who is only the subject of untried allegations, should have its photo removed. Zanahary (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. I did a search. Looking at Category:Unidentified criminals, I'd say:

• Geezer Bandit,
• Max Headroom signal hijacking
• Piggy Bank Bandit, and
• Too Tall Bandit

would meet that cut at first.

And how do you feel about sketches, BTW? Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel really sensuous and feminine about sketches! They make me excited about what’s next while still evoking the past. If I had to choose between a sketch and a nice hot pizza, let’s just say I’d have some trouble! 😅 Zanahary (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for just breakdancing instead of answering you. My answer is that those photos are all less concerning to me, mostly because they were published by the U.S. government. Zanahary (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but BLP is blind to copyright issues.

I would further note that the Max Headroom photo is not a federal government product. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I said "mostly". I’m unconcerned about that one because it was a public stunt, and the photo is of a mask.

You can remove it if you’re compelled, I wouldn’t oppose. What do I have to do with this? Zanahary (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)