Commons is broken

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:43 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:Having seen at least a couple of the messages that were deleted, I was willing to accept that the "fae got" incident was the result of accidentally bolding an extra word, but you seem to be saying now that it was deliberate. If that is the case, I don't see much difference between what you did and actually using the word faggot.

The difference is that one is tongue-in-cheek wordplay, which any rational adult would recognize as a "nudge nudge" and all in fun, not intended to be hateful. The other would be venomous and base hate speech. Fortunately, I know where I stand on homosexuality, and I think all of my lesbian and gay friends and relatives know that. If Fae wants to hatefully and wrongfully cast me as a gay-basher, then that's his libel, not mine.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:53 pm

thekohser wrote:
Moonage Daydream wrote:Having seen at least a couple of the messages that were deleted, I was willing to accept that the "fae got" incident was the result of accidentally bolding an extra word, but you seem to be saying now that it was deliberate. If that is the case, I don't see much difference between what you did and actually using the word faggot.
The difference is that one is tongue-in-cheek wordplay, which any rational adult would recognize as a "nudge nudge" and all in fun, not intended to be hateful. The other would be venomous and base hate speech. Fortunately, I know where I stand on homosexuality, and I think all of my lesbian and gay friends and relatives know that. If Fae wants to hatefully and wrongfully cast me as a gay-basher, then that's his libel, not mine.

Tactical error when you are dealing with Fae who you know is going to exaggerate, lie and generally do anything to cast himself as the persecuted.

It will be interesting to see on the "off site" discussion on Commons, whether anyone from the Wikipedian side will ever call Fae on his inappropriate behaviour. The classic example is rd232, who I think people had a dim view of here but he has conducted himself quite appropriately, who Fae has on his hit list simply for posting here as this is somehow giving this site the credibility that he wishes it did not have (not that it has much credibility on Wiki). If Fae wants to be left alone he shouldn't be running around hysterically badmouthing various people on every forum he can come across.

Until Wikipedia starts grasping that people like Fae generate many of their problems for them, they'll just carry on assuming that anything bad must be someone from outside Wikipedia's fault.

If Wikipedia really was concerned about off-site discussions, then they'd do well to alter the rules so that people could discuss problems on Wikipedia without being summarily deleted and banned.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:43 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:
thekohser wrote:It was a taunt, and I apologize. I'm sure no similar apology will come from Mr. Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for his taunt.

It would also appear that Van Haeften will continue his refusal to heed the advice he deleted, by critiquing me (by name) after I specifically advised him not to.

I suppose I might engage on Commons in an effort to strike my name from his comments, and I will scream "outing" and "harassment" to anyone who might complain.

Fae is also already lying about being called "faggot" here, which he was not. That offensive word was never used.
Having seen at least a couple of the messages that were deleted, I was willing to accept that the "fae got" incident was the result of accidentally bolding an extra word, but you seem to be saying now that it was deliberate. If that is the case, I don't see much difference between what you did and actually using the word faggot.

Wait, so thekosher actually dropped "Fae got" into a discussion here? Wow, who knew, the old man might actually have a capacity for lulz after all.

rd232 · Unread post by **rd232** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:03 pm

thekohser wrote:The difference is that one is tongue-in-cheek wordplay, which any rational adult would recognize as a "nudge nudge" and all in fun, not intended to be hateful. The other would be venomous and base hate speech. Fortunately, I know where I stand on homosexuality, and I think all of my lesbian and gay friends and relatives know that.

Well we're happy to hear you didn't mean it to be hateful, I'm sure. And if you have the sort of relationship with your gay friends that you can playfully call them "faggot" or make clever allusions to the word, bully for you. But in the context of your current relationship with Fae - well you should have known what it would look like, and how it would be received.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:12 pm

rd232 wrote:Well we're happy to hear you didn't mean it to be hateful, I'm sure. And if you have the sort of relationship with your gay friends that you can playfully call them "faggot" or make clever allusions to the word, bully for you. But in the context of your current relationship with Fae - well you should have known what it would look like, and how it would be received.

For the record, I don't playfully call anyone "faggot". The word is highly objectionable for me. And even in my word play, I didn't "call" Ashley Van Haeften anything. I made a statement that "It looks like Fae got upset..."

That said, given the context of my relationship with Fae, I did know it would be received as it was -- a convenient lever by which Fae could hang himself by his own rope (there I go again) incriminate himself by turning it into a bald-faced lie that "I called him a 'faggot'." Ashley Van Haeften is a serial liar and a cover-up artist. I enabled another data point to be added to that fact.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:25 pm

Fae hasn't helped himself choosing his username.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fae

Read number two.

Could he have chosen "Fae" as a way to goading people into harassing him?

"Fae" is another term for "fairy" which has negative connotations in the LBGT community. The gay men I know would not appreciate me calling them a "fae" or "fairy."

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:54 pm

I'll bet anyone here, a dollar, that this is Ashley van Heaften on UD.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.p ... ddenagenda

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:41 pm

Vigilant wrote:I'll bet anyone here, a dollar, that this is Ashley van Heaften on UD.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.p ... ddenagenda

What even the bit about the Asian girl?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:55 pm

Let's move on folks. Commons is broken, and we're here to fix it or completely break it in the attempt!

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:10 am

Zoloft wrote:Let's move on folks. Commons is broken, and we're here to fix it or completely break it in the attempt!

Well, I helped derail it. I may as well try to get it back on track.

Looking at the Requests for Comment thread, all hope does not seem to be lost. Some Commons members appear willing to work with this forum's community. That's more than how it was years ago with the BADSITES fiasco on Wikipedia. Now, whether "working with us" means mutual cooperation or "Commons will stay the same because it's perfect and WPC needs to change because of the bad people there," that remains to be seen.

The one thing that really bugs me is the denigration of "outsiders" trying to converse with the Commons community. I see it on Wikipedia and I see it on Commons. In theory, anyone that makes a single edit to a wiki is a member of that community and equal to all members. Some may have more technical rights, but the weight of one's argument should outweigh being a new member or "noob." Yet, I see Ymblanter, Fae, and other members of Commons treating new members coming in to discuss Commons' problems like they are nothing or second-class citizens. If I go over to Commons (and I do not have an account there), what guarantee do I have that my voice will be heard? Will I be blocked or banned? They do not like "outsiders" without accounts or new people, yet most people who want Commons reformed are those people. Even if you are a long-time Commons member* with ample experience, talking with "outsiders" puts you as a troublemaker or traitor.

Commons has developed an insular community that will not listen to "outside" reformers. How can we or anyone possibly change that? Even Wikipedians are skeptical they can change Commons.

*What do members of Commons call themselves?

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:14 am

The Joy wrote:What do members of Commons call themselves?

"Common thieves," if they're realistic about what they actually do.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:43 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
The Joy wrote:What do members of Commons call themselves?
"Common thieves," if they're realistic about what they actually do.

Commonerds?
I tried to type 'Commoners' and my spellchecker intervened, but I like it...

I'm actually (as one small part of our whole) willing to work with Commons and anyone we discuss. But I need a little quid pro quo. If we work on being governed by policy that Commons helps create, then when we show up there, people who attack us should be warned, and if they ignore the warning, they should be blocked.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:48 am

The Joy wrote:Well, I helped derail it. I may as well try to get it back on track.

Looking at the Requests for Comment thread, all hope does not seem to be lost. Some Commons members appear willing to work with this forum's community. That's more than how it was years ago with the BADSITES fiasco on Wikipedia. Now, whether "working with us" means mutual cooperation or "Commons will stay the same because it's perfect and WPC needs to change because of the bad people there," that remains to be seen.

The one thing that really bugs me is the denigration of "outsiders" trying to converse with the Commons community. I see it on Wikipedia and I see it on Commons. In theory, anyone that makes a single edit to a wiki is a member of that community and equal to all members. Some may have more technical rights, but the weight of one's argument should outweigh being a new member or "noob." Yet, I see Ymblanter, Fae, and other members of Commons treating new members coming in to discuss Commons' problems like they are nothing or second-class citizens. If I go over to Commons (and I do not have an account there), what guarantee do I have that my voice will be heard? Will I be blocked or banned? They do not like "outsiders" without accounts or new people, yet most people who want Commons reformed are those people. Even if you are a long-time Commons member* with ample experience, talking with "outsiders" puts you as a troublemaker or traitor.

Commons has developed an insular community that will not listen to "outside" reformers. How can we or anyone possibly change that? Even Wikipedians are skeptical they can change Commons.

*What do members of Commons call themselves?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions&diff=70055922&oldid=70055823:

The seventh contribution of this user in 2012 and the first since February 14.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Carrite has uploaded over thirty images since December 2008, yet he or she is still treated as if he or she were scum. carrite isn't an outsider. If Carrite had !voted "support" instead of "oppose", would Ymblanter still had made his or her comment? This is more than just insider vs. outsider; this is about ideology. A new user sharing their ideology would probably be welcomed and accepted, but a new users who don't share their ideology or views will be met by a lynch mob. They're fighting a culture war against outsiders who might contaminate or pollute their nation / "community" with new ideas and values.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:15 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
The seventh contribution of this user in 2012 and the first since February 14.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Carrite has uploaded over thirty images since December 2008, yet he or she is still treated as if he or she were scum. carrite isn't an outsider. If Carrite had !voted "support" instead of "oppose", would Ymblanter still had made his or her comment? This is more than just insider vs. outsider; this is about ideology. A new user sharing their ideology would probably be welcomed and accepted, but a new users who don't share their ideology or views will be met by a lynch mob. They're fighting a culture war against outsiders who might contaminate or pollute their nation / "community" with new ideas and values.

Ymblanter has been contributing to Commons for less than a year. Once he has been there as long as Carrite perhaps he will have learned some manners.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:18 am

Mason wrote: Ymblanter has been contributing to Commons for less than a year. Once he has been there as long as Carrite perhaps he will have learned some manners.

His old account was Yaroslav Blanter.

He used to be an arb on ruwiki, and has a bio on enwiki. A year ago he asked for that account to be globally blocked and all his user pages to be deleted.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:29 am

tarantino wrote:
Mason wrote: Ymblanter has been contributing to Commons for less than a year. Once he has been there as long as Carrite perhaps he will have learned some manners.
His old account was Yaroslav Blanter.

He used to be an arb on ruwiki, and has a bio on enwiki. A year ago he asked for that account to be globally blocked and all his user pages to be deleted.

Huh. Well, whaddaya know, he's "notable."

(I've read that enwiki bio three times, but I still can't figure out what he's notable for.)

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:53 am

tarantino wrote:
Mason wrote: Ymblanter has been contributing to Commons for less than a year. Once he has been there as long as Carrite perhaps he will have learned some manners.
His old account was Yaroslav Blanter.

He used to be an arb on ruwiki, and has a bio on enwiki. A year ago he asked for that account to be globally blocked and all his user pages to be deleted.

What a ridiculous bio!

From 2007 to 2011 he was an active contributor for the Russian Wikipedia. He made contributions to over 10'000 articles (generally not related to his professional activity), was an administrator and a member of the Arbitration Committee. He made over thousand blockings and deleted thousands of pages

Besides there are practically no third party sources in that bio, only some lists with many names in them. I'd say if Mr. Blanter has a self-respect he should ask removing of this bio from wikipedia.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:58 am

mbz1 wrote:I'd say if Mr. Blanter has a self-respect he should ask removing of this bio from wikipedia.

Of course if he does that they might just keep it out of spite, a la Jim Hawkins.

Looks like he also has a bio on ru-wiki, and from its talk page it looks like the people there are scratching their heads about his notability too.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:25 pm

Mason wrote:Looks like he also has a bio on ru-wiki, and from its talk page it looks like the people there are scratching their heads about his notability too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Yaroslav_Blanter

The people operating enwiki's "Did you know" didn't do any head-scratching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Yaroslav_Blanter&diff=471661730&oldid=470092540:

[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Date, length and content are fine. Interesting hook that I am unable to verify because the source is in Russian but which I accept in good faith. (In case you are wondering, the pages were deleted as part of his activities as a Wikipedia editor.)

Since when did "assume good faith" apply to article content and to content displayed on the Main Page?

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:45 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Mason wrote:Looks like he also has a bio on ru-wiki, and from its talk page it looks like the people there are scratching their heads about his notability too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Yaroslav_Blanter

The people operating enwiki's "Did you know" didn't do any head-scratching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Yaroslav_Blanter&diff=471661730&oldid=470092540:

[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Date, length and content are fine. Interesting hook that I am unable to verify because the source is in Russian but which I accept in good faith. (In case you are wondering, the pages were deleted as part of his activities as a Wikipedia editor.)
Since when did "assume good faith" apply to article content and to content displayed on the Main Page?

Standard procedure. If it's treeware, they'll just "assume good faith". Won't even bother to look it up in Google Books.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:42 pm

If "deleting thousands of pages" makes you notable, somebody pop over to WP:ADMINSTATS and make articles for the 500 or so enwiki admins who've managed to accomplish that astounding feat.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:02 pm

Mason wrote:If "deleting thousands of pages" makes you notable, somebody pop over to WP:ADMINSTATS and make articles for the 500 or so enwiki admins who've managed to accomplish that astounding feat.

What the hell is "event suppressions"?

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:39 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Mason wrote:If "deleting thousands of pages" makes you notable, somebody pop over to WP:ADMINSTATS and make articles for the 500 or so enwiki admins who've managed to accomplish that astounding feat.
What the hell is "event suppressions"?

If, for example, somebody creates an account called "John Doe lives at 123 Main Street in Boston, let's go kill him" teh oversighters can prevent the account name from showing up in the various public logs, such as the block log. They usually do that with "User:[admin so-and-so] molests babies" and the like.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:35 pm

I see. Surprising that NawlinWiki isn't at the top of that list, because he spent so much time chasing Grawp, who loved to do things like that.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:09 am

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... _genitalia

"Instead of deleting the darn penises, let's have a conversation about the camera used and how funny the penises look! No, we don't need to delete them, since we can't identify who is attached to the penises."

And we are supposed to cooperate with these people?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:58 am

The Joy wrote:And we are supposed to cooperate with these people?

Well, if you're editing WP articles, as I read the "official policy", you don't actually have to put images on Commons.......all it says is:

However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commons}}, {{Commons-inline}}, or {{Commons category}} templates. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images.

As I read that, if you are putting up a gallery, you "should" use Commons. If it's a single image, there is no explicit order to put it on Commons.
Think on that one for a while.

PS: ya know what kinds of images are stored on Wikipedia directly? Photos taken at meetups. Thus.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:27 am

EricBarbour wrote:
The Joy wrote:And we are supposed to cooperate with these people?
Well, if you're editing WP articles, as I read the "official policy", you don't actually have to put images on Commons.......all it says is:
However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commons}}, {{Commons-inline}}, or {{Commons category}} templates. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images.
As I read that, if you are putting up a gallery, you "should" use Commons. If it's a single image, there is no explicit order to put it on Commons.
Think on that one for a while.

PS: ya know what kinds of images are stored on Wikipedia directly? Photos taken at meetups. Thus.

But... but... why!?! Why does anyone in their right mind put a gallery of their penises on a educational project? Why does that educational project want to keep the penises, especially since that are not sure whose penises they are?

I've been doing experiments on Commons by searching for mundane things like "towels" and "hugging" and, lo and behold, I'm greeted with at least one picture of a naked woman or a penis. What on earth is wrong with these people?

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:33 am

EricBarbour wrote:
The Joy wrote:And we are supposed to cooperate with these people?
Well, if you're editing WP articles, as I read the "official policy", you don't actually have to put images on Commons.......all it says is:
However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commons}}, {{Commons-inline}}, or {{Commons category}} templates. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images.
As I read that, if you are putting up a gallery, you "should" use Commons. If it's a single image, there is no explicit order to put it on Commons.
Think on that one for a while.

PS: ya know what kinds of images are stored on Wikipedia directly? Photos taken at meetups. Thus.

Yeah but even if you dont put it on commons someone will come along and upload it there unless you copyright it and only use your image under free use in the articles you want to use it in.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:03 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:Yeah but even if you dont put it on commons someone will come along and upload it there unless you copyright it and only use your image under free use in the articles you want to use it in.

Yup. There have been some minor wiki-wars waged over whether someone who has uploaded a free image to Wikipedia can decline to have it moved to Commons. There are a couple of templates, {{keep local}} and {{do not move to commons}} that have been the subject of some skirmishes in the past.

The {{keep local}} people are either Featured Article types who get really irritated when Commons deletes an image they're using on a FA without telling them, or people who just want nothing to do with Commons for whatever reason.

It was not at all uncommon for person A to upload an image to use in an article they wrote, person B to move it to Commons without telling them, and person C on Commons to delete it because its copyright status wasn't to their liking, without person A ever knowing this happened unless they happened to visit their article, see the red link, and do some investigation.

Naturally, many folks were irritated by this (now, at least, there's a bot that notifies them) and slapped {{do not move to commons}} on their subsequent WP uploads. Commons types, as is their wont, essentially say "screw you, if it's a free image we're taking it and there's nothing you can do about it."

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:08 am

EricBarbour wrote:I see. Surprising that NawlinWiki isn't at the top of that list, because he spent so much time chasing Grawp, who loved to do things like that.

He would be, but he's not got Oversight rights. The Oversighters even have their own logo, so you know they're Serious Business.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:19 am

The Joy wrote:I've been doing experiments on Commons by searching for mundane things like "towels" and "hugging" and, lo and behold, I'm greeted with at least one picture of a naked woman or a penis. What on earth is wrong with these people?

They are man-children, that should be blindingly obvious by know.

(Remember that incredible asshole Moreschi? He's a big fan of opera, which is quite untypical of a manchild-ish nerd.
However, I also found today that he is an even-bigger fan of Magic:The Gathering. And that is indeed the mark of a nerd.)

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:35 am

HRIP7 wrote:
Mason wrote:
thekohser wrote:Now, apparently, Matt Buck believes that it is not permissible to say that User:Fae is Ashley Van Haeften, even though Fae self-identifies as a trustee of the WMUK, Ashley Van Haeften.

20:01, 16 April 2012 Mattbuck (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 21 revisions on page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: content hidden (Inappropriate personal information)
This just gets ever more weird and silly.
Perhaps they'll add the site that outed him to the blacklist?

I am a Commons admin. I'm also one of the founders here, as well as a moderator. Today, as I tried to add a link to this site from my user page - same as I have on enwiki - I find that I'm forbidden (censored, if you like) from doing so

so I've brought up the matter again at the spam-blacklist talk page. I don't suppose anything will be done, but this is just BADSITES all over again. It was stupid in 2007 and it's stupid now.

rd232 · Unread post by **rd232** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:41 am

The Joy wrote:I've been doing experiments on Commons by searching for mundane things like "towels" and "hugging" and, lo and behold, I'm greeted with at least one picture of a naked woman or a penis. What on earth is wrong with these people?

What's wrong is that the search engine just isn't designed for Commons, and gives too much weight to filenames (one person's choice, often hard to change later) over descriptions and categories (more collaboratively edited). Clustered search (link) would help, but that will take time to do - probably years, unless the WMF has the good sense to make it a development priority.

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:53 pm

The Joy wrote:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... _genitalia

"Instead of deleting the darn penises, let's have a conversation about the camera used and how funny the penises look! No, we don't need to delete them, since we can't identify who is attached to the penises."

And we are supposed to cooperate with these people?

No. We are supposed to stand to one side and leave them to do what they do best: Hastening The Day(tm).

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:22 pm

Alison wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:
Mason wrote:
thekohser wrote:Now, apparently, Matt Buck believes that it is not permissible to say that User:Fae is Ashley Van Haeften, even though Fae self-identifies as a trustee of the WMUK, Ashley Van Haeften.

20:01, 16 April 2012 Mattbuck (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 21 revisions on page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: content hidden (Inappropriate personal information)
This just gets ever more weird and silly.
Perhaps they'll add the site that outed him to the blacklist?

I am a Commons admin. I'm also one of the founders here, as well as a moderator. Today, as I tried to add a link to this site from my user page - same as I have on enwiki - I find that I'm forbidden (censored, if you like) from doing so so I've brought up the matter again at the spam-blacklist talk page. I don't suppose anything will be done, but this is just BADSITES all over again. It was stupid in 2007 and it's stupid now.

Presumably, as an admin on Commons you can remove it from the list. They might cry COI and all but it's not like the people who put it on the list don't have one.

The older discussion (still not closed) is here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... -blacklist, though I'm not exactly sure how much of it has been removed and rev deleted by mattbuck.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:14 pm

rd232 wrote:
The Joy wrote:I've been doing experiments on Commons by searching for mundane things like "towels" and "hugging" and, lo and behold, I'm greeted with at least one picture of a naked woman or a penis. What on earth is wrong with these people?
What's wrong is that the search engine just isn't designed for Commons, and gives too much weight to filenames (one person's choice, often hard to change later) over descriptions and categories (more collaboratively edited). Clustered search (link) would help, but that will take time to do - probably years, unless the WMF has the good sense to make it a development priority.

What about a tag system like Flickr or Photoshop? Could that be implemented?

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:29 pm

Tags won't fix the problem. Both 'towel' and 'hugging' are appropriate tags for the images in question. Also the descriptions and the file names are also more than likely appropriate for the images too. The issue is that when one is searching for 'towel' or 'hugging', it is not a penis that people are searching for. Raw descriptive text is a poor source of metadata when the point of the exercise is not to have penises and naked women feature prominently for 'towel' and 'hugging'. You need to superimpose some additional classification system such that nudity it not returned unless asked for.

BTW the suggested cluster system is also flawed. Because what you'll end up with is:

Hugging - people, women, men
Hugging - Naked women

As opposed to:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/hugging/clusters/

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:53 pm

lilburne wrote:Tags won't fix the problem. Both 'towel' and 'hugging' are appropriate tags for the images in question. Also the descriptions and the file names are also more than likely appropriate for the images too. The issue is that when one is searching for 'towel' or 'hugging', it is not a penis that people are searching for. Raw descriptive text is a poor source of metadata when the point of the exercise is not to have penises and naked women feature prominently for 'towel' and 'hugging'. You need to superimpose some additional classification system such that nudity it not returned unless asked for.

I think we have already established that having the ability to ask not to see nudity is censorship. The most insidious kind of censorship, since people impose it on themselves.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue May 08, 2012 6:28 pm

I would like to apologize to Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for my recent word-play quip, "Fae got upset". I had hoped that the poke would be received in the playful tone that it was intended, but I erred in that supposition. I don't mean any malice or harm to Ashley. I'm simply interested in the truth about his past and present actions on Wikipedia and determining whether or not he enjoys (or expects) a double standard to apply for him.

Except in the eventual case where he might egregiously offend sensibilities, I'm going to obey a moratorium on discussing Ashley in public.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Tue May 08, 2012 7:47 pm

thekohser wrote:I would like to apologize to Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for my recent word-play quip, "Fae got upset". I had hoped that the poke would be received in the playful tone that it was intended, but I erred in that supposition. I don't mean any malice or harm to Ashley. I'm simply interested in the truth about his past and present actions on Wikipedia and determining whether or not he enjoys (or expects) a double standard to apply for him.

Except in the eventual case where he might egregiously offend sensibilities, I'm going to obey a moratorium on discussing Ashley in public.

+1

Now, everyone can move on and Fae can stop bringing it up over and over and over and over again. He may even reflect on his actions, realize the error of his ways, and apologize for his egregious actions.

One can hope! Right, Fae?

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Tue May 08, 2012 7:57 pm

The Joy wrote:
thekohser wrote:I would like to apologize to Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for my recent word-play quip, "Fae got upset". I had hoped that the poke would be received in the playful tone that it was intended, but I erred in that supposition. I don't mean any malice or harm to Ashley. I'm simply interested in the truth about his past and present actions on Wikipedia and determining whether or not he enjoys (or expects) a double standard to apply for him.

Except in the eventual case where he might egregiously offend sensibilities, I'm going to obey a moratorium on discussing Ashley in public.
+1

Now, everyone can move on and Fae can stop bringing it up over and over and over and over again. He may even reflect on his actions, realize the error of his ways, and apologize for his egregious actions.

One can hope! Right, Fae?

Hm, what this seems like is that Fae just has to play the Victim Card(tm) to get people to lay off criticizing his activities.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue May 08, 2012 8:21 pm

Tarc wrote:
The Joy wrote:
thekohser wrote:I would like to apologize to Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for my recent word-play quip, "Fae got upset". I had hoped that the poke would be received in the playful tone that it was intended, but I erred in that supposition. I don't mean any malice or harm to Ashley. I'm simply interested in the truth about his past and present actions on Wikipedia and determining whether or not he enjoys (or expects) a double standard to apply for him.

Except in the eventual case where he might egregiously offend sensibilities, I'm going to obey a moratorium on discussing Ashley in public.
+1

Now, everyone can move on and Fae can stop bringing it up over and over and over and over again. He may even reflect on his actions, realize the error of his ways, and apologize for his egregious actions.

One can hope! Right, Fae?
Hm, what this seems like is that Fae just has to play the Victim Card(tm) to get people to lay off criticizing his activities.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
We haaaave a winnner!

How about this: When Ashley van Haeftan can muster the sand that ScottyWong did and apologize to those he's smeared, own up to his own bad actions and try to do better in the future, then I'll stop talking about him.

Until then, he's my new summer hobby.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue May 08, 2012 9:12 pm

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

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Wed May 09, 2012 2:30 am

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

Well, it is how wikipedia operates. Me,Peter and others like us are still on the banned users list together with pedophiles and vandals. It is what makes wikipedia a really sick place.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Wed May 09, 2012 3:49 am

Vigilant wrote:
Tarc wrote:
The Joy wrote:
thekohser wrote:I would like to apologize to Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for my recent word-play quip, "Fae got upset". I had hoped that the poke would be received in the playful tone that it was intended, but I erred in that supposition. I don't mean any malice or harm to Ashley. I'm simply interested in the truth about his past and present actions on Wikipedia and determining whether or not he enjoys (or expects) a double standard to apply for him.

Except in the eventual case where he might egregiously offend sensibilities, I'm going to obey a moratorium on discussing Ashley in public.
+1

Now, everyone can move on and Fae can stop bringing it up over and over and over and over again. He may even reflect on his actions, realize the error of his ways, and apologize for his egregious actions.

One can hope! Right, Fae?
Hm, what this seems like is that Fae just has to play the Victim Card(tm) to get people to lay off criticizing his activities.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We haaaave a winnner!

How about this: When Ashley van Haeftan can muster the sand that ScottyWong did and apologize to those he's smeared, own up to his own bad actions and try to do better in the future, then I'll stop talking about him.

Until then, he's my new summer hobby.

I have no objections to talking about Fae's actions, especially since his actions on Wikipedia and elsewhere affect the image of Wikimedia UK. He needs to back away from Wikipedia, WMUK, and all Wikimedia projects and go on vacation far away from computers for a very long time. My and others' concern is that Fae is becoming the new SlimVirgin of this forum and that does not bode well. We should try to keep the number of Fae-related subjects to a limited number (i.e. WPO: OTHERNONSENSEEXISTS). And while my hope for Fae to change his ways and apologize may have been satirical, I have been surprised before. Kelly Martin used to be a major Wikipedia big-wig cabalist and now she's a moderator here! Huzzah!

I fear these thread about Commons has been Faentasized. Let's try to get back on topic.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed May 09, 2012 4:09 am

The Joy wrote:My and others' concern is that Fae is becoming the new SlimVirgin of this forum and that does not bode well. We should try to keep the number of Fae-related subjects to a limited number (i.e. WPO: OTHERNONSENSEEXISTS).

I said as much in another thread. He's the New Demon, and we don't need any more demons. Wikipedia has an ample supply of them to go around.

So how do we get this forum off the bloody spam list? Harassing Buck until he gives in?
How about doing what Peter Damian did: having content they need, and can't get elsewhere?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed May 09, 2012 4:18 am

The Joy wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Ding! Ding! Ding!
We haaaave a winnner!

How about this: When Ashley van Haeftan can muster the sand that ScottyWong did and apologize to those he's smeared, own up to his own bad actions and try to do better in the future, then I'll stop talking about him.

Until then, he's my new summer hobby.
I have no objections to talking about Fae's actions, especially since his actions on Wikipedia and elsewhere affect the image of Wikimedia UK.

He has so little self awareness that he can't see what a millstone he is around the neck of the WMUK charity. He's so self absorbed that he's going to do something really stupid, like take grant money for himself while being the awarding agent, that he's going to take down the whole structure.

He needs to back away from Wikipedia, WMUK, and all Wikimedia projects and go on vacation far away from computers for a very long time.

Indeed. He needs a hobby besides being a bully and a professional victim on WP.
I will take it unto myself to only mention him in a few places.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Wed May 09, 2012 8:12 am

Vigilant wrote:
He needs to back away from Wikipedia, WMUK, and all Wikimedia projects and go on vacation far away from computers for a very long time.
Indeed. He needs a hobby besides being a bully and a professional victim on WP.
I will take it unto myself to only mention him in a few places.

I think the picking up on his humbug is entirely proper. The only issue we have is making sure that people don't give him the wriggle room to justify his words to himself.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Wed May 09, 2012 8:44 am

For the next few weeks can we at least we can refer to the WMFUK as "WikiMedia Fael UK"?

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:01 pm

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?