Wikipediocracy

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Just FYI, this site is still prominently on the blacklist, along with porn sites and well-known spammers......

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=70496297&oldid=70495741

When you don't like the results of an election, claim that the election was rigged. People such as Rillke will claim that the discussion was "contaminated".

We've made our concessions (eg. the "Email Support Staff" link, a larger, more visible "!" report button for logged-in users). We accommodated them. What will Commons do in return? Will they continue to demand unconditional surrender?

Even if there has in effect been a bias in the vote, (not that these things are votes anyhow), there was precious little support and precious little argument in favour.

I don't think we should be overly worried about a further demonstration of WikiIncompetence - it'll just mean that instead of linking, when issues are raised people will start surfing the site and every now and again, one of those people will get drawn in. I think it is also a minor news story in itself, that Wikipedia so lacks self-confidence as an organisation that they are terrified of losing control of any discussion.

I was trying to think of a real world example. A while back BMW pre-launched its then new K1200S motorcycle and Kevin Ash of the Telegraph did a review that basically pointed out that the handling was a disaster - and also observed that other parts of the media were giving rave reviews. (It is not unusual for the pre-launch reviewers to take a manufacturer's word that a fault in a pre-production model will be resolved and miss this information out). BMW withdrew the launch for quite a few months while they sorted it out, but also banned Kevin from reviewing their bikes, press days and so on for a year or two. That treatment sticks in someone's mind and Kevin's reviews will still mention the infamous K1200S from 2004.

It would appear that Herbythyme who put our site on the blacklist is happily going about his business while ignoring this request of him.

thekohser wrote:It would appear that Herbythyme who put our site on the blacklist is happily going about his business while ignoring this request of him.

Herbythyme is actually one of the few decent Commons admins. He would have been in the running for a straight shooter award at Wikipedia Review earlier this year, if Commons admins had qualified.

The problem is that a little bit longer ago he had a run-in with you over the deletion of a picture of you, and was then called a number of unkind names on Wikipedia Review. He hasn't forgotten that.

(He also didn't actually put us on the blacklist, he fixed the formatting after someone else did.)

HRIP7 wrote:

thekohser wrote:It would appear that Herbythyme who put our site on the blacklist is happily going about his business while ignoring this request of him.

Herbythyme is actually one of the few decent Commons admins. He would have been in the running for a straight shooter award at Wikipedia Review earlier this year, if Commons admins had qualified.

The problem is that a little bit longer ago he had a run-in with you over the deletion of a picture of you, and was then called a number of unkind names on Wikipedia Review. He hasn't forgotten that.

(He also didn't actually put us on the blacklist, he fixed the formatting after someone else did.)

Ah, yes... I had forgotten about that. He seemed like a bit of a prick in that one.

Nonetheless, if A.Savin is really the one we need to be appealing to, I'll have to apologize here (and on Commons) to Herbythyme, then follow up with A.Savin. (This is Savin's best work?)

HRIP7 wrote: The problem is that a little bit longer ago he had a run-in with you over the deletion of a picture of you, and was then called a number of unkind names on Wikipedia Review. He hasn't forgotten that.

Don't know Herbythyme but I suppose there must be some decent admins somewhere! And when we find one let's be nice to him, OK? It's a very lonely business being a decent WMF admin and they need moral support.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Requests_for_comment.2Foffsite_discussions (permalink)

Hopefully, this would dispel any claims of "90%+" contamination.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Requests_for_comment.2Foffsite_discussions (permalink)

Hopefully, this would dispel any claims of "90%+" contamination.

Or "blatant canvassing".

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&diff=70989993&oldid=65690918

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=70990716&oldid=70989809

Incoming spikes in traffic. All logged-in users on Commons will see that sitenotice message. Streisand effect in progress. Curiosity attracts the cat to the forum that mustn't be linked.

Comment - For the record, I still support the indef banning of anyone who contributes more than a few posts to WR/WD/User talk:Jimbo Wales, those places exist for no reason other than to cause harm to Commons and Wikimedia in general. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For Mattbuck, you don't even need to say anything objectionable; your very presence here, or on Jimmy's talk page on enwiki, should lead to being "banned as [a] troll". If that isn't stifling of free discourse, then I don't know what is. Seriously!

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Streisand

You're obsessed. She's too old for you.

On the RFC:

Comment This issue is probably worst for big Wikipedias than for Commons, since articles are more likely than images to cause passionate arguments than images. Has any Wikipedia taken actions against it? If it has, a link to relevant pages could be a useful guideline.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would point out the results of the BADSITES debate and the ED/MONGO Arbcom cases. Also, pictures are worth a thousand words and can cause many, many "passionate arguments," like images of the Prophet Muhammad.

(I'm not into photography or image-making, so my responding there without uploading images would be "contamination" and "being a part of the Kohs' Family Circus," so someone on Commons can add or paraphrase this post if they wish. )

Comment - For the record, I still support the indef banning of anyone who contributes more than a few posts to WR/WD/User talk:Jimbo Wales, those places exist for no reason other than to cause harm to Commons and Wikimedia in general. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is "WD"? A spray-can lubricant?

thekohser wrote:

Comment - For the record, I still support the indef banning of anyone who contributes more than a few posts to WR/WD/User talk:Jimbo Wales, those places exist for no reason other than to cause harm to Commons and Wikimedia in general. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is "WD"? A spray-can lubricant?

WikiDickery.com, the new critic site?

Well, that was funny and predictable

I posted this and got banned, my pages deleted and my contributions rev deleted.

Here we go. I'll post some facts and then get banned:

Fae's real name is Ashley van Haeftan
Fae's other accounts on en.wikipedia include TeaHot, Ash and AshleyVH
Fae left under a cloud invoking right to vanish in the middle of an RFC that was likely going to get him in trouble
He came back as Fae and did not fully disclose this account when running for RFA
He uploaded pictures of himself to commons in bondage positions
He then got them removed in a manner that suggests favoritism
Fae has repeatedly insinuated that other people are misusing their bits without providing diffs as required to avoid violations to WP:NPA

Let's start the countdown until I get blocked and then you can ask yourselves why we discuss these things elsewhere. MmmmKay?

This is reason Ashley was on about ED
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Ashley_van_Haeften

That's your acting general manager WMUK.
Doesn't that just SCREAM professionalism?

Fae not getting the traction he hoped for?

I find this whole discussion a rather disturbing example of the sort of "regulation creep" that actively discourages potential editors from participating. Usually when these sitenotices show up, I just sigh and reflexively click the "dismiss" button. Just on a whim I read this one all the way through and found it quite shocking how far this community has gone towards redefining abuse to include disagreement and criticism. (I'll omit the usual historical analogies here as being unnecessarily hyperbolic; a mere Web site, no matter how powerful, does not (yet) have the power of life or death over its volunteer contributors. But with every new regulation, my desire to continue being one of those contributors is gradually diminished.) 121a0012 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

SB_Johnny wrote:

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Streisand

You're obsessed. She's too old for you.

Hey, man, isn't anyone allowed to have any fun? First we're not allowed to date 19 year olds, then it's Streisand. Who can we date?

Comment - For the record, I still support the indef banning of anyone who contributes more than a few posts to WR/WD/User talk:Jimbo Wales, those places exist for no reason other than to cause harm to Commons and Wikimedia in general. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So I suppose that Jimbo would have to be indef banned for editing his talk page ... say, there's an idea!

The "travelling circus" (a phrase Fæ is fond of (diffs upon request!)) seems to be those with the odd fascination of discussing these specific third party websites ad nauseum. Killiondude (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I part of a travelling circus now? That's weird. --Fæ (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a circus without a clown.


( (C) The Naughty American, CC-BY] )

[Edited to include attribution and license -SBJ]

Vigilant wrote:This is reason Ashley was on about ED
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Ashley_van_Haeften

I wonder if Fae will ever discover the identity of the individual who create that article

dogbiscuit wrote:Fae not getting the traction he hoped for?

There hasn't been any supporters since the notice went up. Just a flurry of opposition.

lilburne wrote:

dogbiscuit wrote:Fae not getting the traction he hoped for?

There hasn't been any supporters since the notice went up. Just a flurry of opposition.

I rather liked the quote I provided in that it said something that criticism sites have been saying for some time - that Wikipedia has a problem in redefining words. Whether over the years we've been successful in getting the message out or whether it is the wisdom of the crowds recognising the same issue I don't really mind, but it is interesting that someone else is prepared to stand up and say that.

I guess the other question in my mind is: looking back over the few months we've been going, what is on this site where you could genuinely put your hand up and say "This is the sort of content which shows that the site should be sanctioned." I'm struggling, there is a bit of juvenile humour, some unnecessary bad language (but so what?) and a bit of aggression and contempt, but I really don't see anything that deserves getting so worked up about.

Tippi Hadron wrote:

The "travelling circus" (a phrase Fæ is fond of (diffs upon request!)) seems to be those with the odd fascination of discussing these specific third party websites ad nauseum. Killiondude (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I part of a travelling circus now? That's weird. --Fæ (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a circus without a clown.

I just got a very interesting message on my commons talk about this image.

Maybe we're not walking the walk?

SB_Johnny wrote:

Tippi Hadron wrote:

The "travelling circus" (a phrase Fæ is fond of (diffs upon request!)) seems to be those with the odd fascination of discussing these specific third party websites ad nauseum. Killiondude (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I part of a travelling circus now? That's weird. --Fæ (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a circus without a clown.

I just got a very interesting message on my commons talk about this image.

Maybe we're not walking the walk?

Well ... The author, one The Naughty American, hereby credited, is no longer active on Flickr. The eponymous dotcom link points to a hardcore porn site I didn't want to link to on a family-friendly forum.

Welcome to Commons. Where commercial porn peddlers can advertise for free while critics are put on the spam blacklist.

Welcome to Commons. Where commercial porn peddlers can advertise for free while critics are put on the spam blacklist.

Can this be our new tagline?

Vigilant wrote:

Welcome to Commons. Where commercial porn peddlers can advertise for free while critics are put on the spam blacklist.

Can this be our new tagline?

There were people clanging this bell years ago, before commons even existed. Back in 2003/2004, if you suggested any mature editorial judgement of objectionable images -- at all -- you were vilified and harassed and badmouthed behind your back on irc.

Tippi Hadron wrote:

SB_Johnny wrote:Maybe we're not walking the walk?

Well ... The author, one The Naughty American, hereby credited, is no longer active on Flickr. The eponymous dotcom link points to a hardcore porn site I didn't want to link to on a family-friendly forum.

Welcome to Commons. Where commercial porn peddlers can advertise for free while critics are put on the spam blacklist.

I added the license to please the crowd.

The uploader of that clown image with someone called Gohe007. Let's look in on what Gohe007 has been doing recently. On 26 January, he uploaded a number of images of porn starlets from Flickr user planetc1. All of those images are now marked "all rights reserved". He also uploaded a number of images from "lasvegasvegas.com". That site has a the following attribution displayed under all of its images:

All material © LasVegasVegas.com under the creative commons license unless materials are under existing copyright and said materials are the property of of their respective copyright holders. LasVegasVegas.com expressly disclaims any warranty relating to any content of any pages or any links provided on these pages. Please read our terms and conditions and privacy policy for more information on this site.

Whoops! I guess those images will all be deleted now.

...and we're spammers no more. Thanks, John V!

SB_Johnny wrote:...and we're spammers no more. Thanks, John V!

Isn't John Vandy one of "the traveling circus", though?

thekohser wrote:

SB_Johnny wrote:...and we're spammers no more. Thanks, John V!

Isn't John Vandy one of "the traveling circus", though?

I'm sure he registered an account in an investigative spirit - to see the topics hidden from non-members in order to discern exactly how bad we are.

I created an account here when invited to by a regular. I've yet to decide whether this site is for me.

jayvdb wrote:I created an account here when invited to by a regular. I've yet to decide whether this site is for me.

It's not a binary matter, much like Wikipedia...

"Glass half full, glass half empty, glass mostly full, glass mostly empty, what the hell is that stuff in the glass anyway?"

I'm about +80/100 on WP and +50/100 on this site myself.


RfB

Randy from Boise wrote:

jayvdb wrote:I created an account here when invited to by a regular. I've yet to decide whether this site is for me.

It's not a binary matter, much like Wikipedia...

"Glass half full, glass half empty, glass mostly full, glass mostly empty, what the hell is that stuff in the glass anyway?"

I'm about +80/100 on WP and +50/100 on this site myself.


RfB

Don't be a goober.
Unless you're in hard vacuum, the glass is always full. Always.

Vigilant wrote:Don't be a goober.
Unless you're in hard vacuum, the glass is always full. Always.

It's hopeless. Tim is from an alternate universe, where people actually care about Karl Marx.

News just in! Y'know the ancient office party prank of photocopying your bare ass and pinning it to the notice board? Well why not take it one step further and post it to Wikimedia Commons?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... -_stnu.jpg

File:Scanner ass - Flickr - stnu.jpg
Ass on a scanner. That's new. Half a bonus point for useless creativity. Still, I would argue this is not reasonably useful for educational purposes. Actually, it's really not useful for much of anything other than giving the scanee something idiotic to do for 6 seconds and giving Commons editors yet another asinine (a pun!) file to delete. – JBarta (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep This is an illustration of a cultural phenomenon, and it shows the texture of the scrotum quite well. Handcuffed (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, unique usage of light and shadow in depiction of popular cultural phenomenon. -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per handcuffed and cirt russavia (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons - what a joke!!

it shows the texture of the scrotum quite well. Handcuffed (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I should write a whole separate volume about Commons, and call it "It Shows The Texture Of The Scrotum Quite Well".

Alison wrote:News just in! Y'know the ancient office party prank of photocopying your bare ass and pinning it to the notice board? Well why not take it one step further and post it to Wikimedia Commons?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... -_stnu.jpg

File:Scanner ass - Flickr - stnu.jpg
Ass on a scanner. That's new. Half a bonus point for useless creativity. Still, I would argue this is not reasonably useful for educational purposes. Actually, it's really not useful for much of anything other than giving the scanee something idiotic to do for 6 seconds and giving Commons editors yet another asinine (a pun!) file to delete. – JBarta (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep This is an illustration of a cultural phenomenon, and it shows the texture of the scrotum quite well. Handcuffed (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, unique usage of light and shadow in depiction of popular cultural phenomenon. -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per handcuffed and cirt russavia (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons - what a joke!!

On Jimbo's talk ...

EricBarbour wrote:

it shows the texture of the scrotum quite well. Handcuffed (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I should write a whole separate volume about Commons, and call it "It Shows The Texture Of The Scrotum Quite Well".

Well, it has a ring to it. (At least some of them on Commons do.)

Hey look, Naibot, Russavia's friend...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UkrainebaIl.PNG
Importing stuff that got russavia banned on en.wp for a year.
Is he a meatpuppet?

Vigilant wrote:Hey look, Naibot, Russavia's friend...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UkrainebaIl.PNG
Importing stuff that got russavia banned on en.wp for a year.
Is he a meatpuppet?

I don't think that's related - it's probably due to the fact that Euro cup is coming up and Ukraine is co-host.

Volunteer Marek wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Hey look, Naibot, Russavia's friend...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UkrainebaIl.PNG
Importing stuff that got russavia banned on en.wp for a year.
Is he a meatpuppet?

I don't think that's related - it's probably due to the fact that Euro cup is coming up and Ukraine is co-host.

You think?

I could be wrong...

Vigilant wrote:Hey look, Naibot, Russavia's friend...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UkrainebaIl.PNG
Importing stuff that got russavia banned on en.wp for a year.
Is he a meatpuppet?

You're confusing UkrainebaIl.PNG (capitalized "I") with Ukraineball.PNG (lower-cased "l").

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Hey look, Naibot, Russavia's friend...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UkrainebaIl.PNG
Importing stuff that got russavia banned on en.wp for a year.
Is he a meatpuppet?

You're confusing UkrainebaIl.PNG (capitalized "I") with Ukraineball.PNG (lower-cased "l").

You think that this is a coincidence?

Vigilant wrote:

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Hey look, Naibot, Russavia's friend...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UkrainebaIl.PNG
Importing stuff that got russavia banned on en.wp for a year.
Is he a meatpuppet?

You're confusing UkrainebaIl.PNG (capitalized "I") with Ukraineball.PNG (lower-cased "l").

You think that this is a coincidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3AUkraineball.PNG

Ah, I see what you're trying to say now. I've decided to aid the alleged "plot" x)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ukraineball.PNG&diff=494861592&oldid=483286044

MaksKhomenko's football image will be deleted from enwiki, and then the Polandball image on Commons will take precedence

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=72957963

I could fully support the points of view by Marek and similar as long as it is clear to all of us that they either are completely unaware of the amount of valid complaints about Kuiper's uncivil and rude behavior over several years, or else are willing to put up with any amount of such behavior from Kuiper even in the future. Other than that, it's hard to understand where they are coming from, and why they are doing so much mudslinging against all of us who object to that behavior and, with it, find Commons a very uncomfortable place to spend our leisure time trying to do as good of work as we can for the project. [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You find commons an uncomfortable place to spend your leisure time?
Bet that would stop being the case if you didn't keep violating copyright laws...

The dumb, it burrrrnnnnssss us.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=72961584

Technically true, but misleading. Pieter Kuiper regularly nominates files for deletion as an act of revenge; the fact that these files are suspected copyvios is incidental to the process. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't upload copyright violations and you won't get mixed up in Pieter's domain.
The illegality of violating copyrights is a vastly more egregious injury to the copyright holder, and illegal to boot, than someone being mean to you by finding said copyright violations amongst your contributions!

FFS Commons...

Bravo!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=72961719

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=72973819

I was 13 when I used the Nefesf9 account. People change. --[[User:Claritas|Claritas]] ([[User talk:Claritas|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Smells like bullshit given the contributions of his various accounts.

Vigilant wrote:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=72973819

I was 13 when I used the Nefesf9 account. People change. --[[User:Claritas|Claritas]] ([[User talk:Claritas|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Smells like bullshit given the contributions of his various accounts.

For a 13-year-old, he sure was quite interested in 19th century historians.

Also those were his first 50 edits. Right.

Headshot!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=72994986

He's going to need some ointment for that.

Vigilant wrote:Headshot!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=72994986
He's going to need some ointment for that.

So, basically, the arguments don't matter, it's whose making them ? I can be hypocritical if I want to, I don't hide my interesting patterns of editing at Wikipedia. -- User:Claritas|Claritas