Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ (/Fae/Ash), Quick, send a dossier to ArbCom and delete! Options

[Michaeldsuarez]

Okay, this is an interesting worldview...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=64653158

Here's Wnt's comment to Bali ultimate. Since Wnt loves to have a lot of information in articles, I'm surprised that Wnt is defending someone who hid information from voters.

The following comment is also interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=474430328

I haven't tracked down much of the anti-gay harassment, I think because some of the WR threads have been deleted. But I'm reasonably persuaded that harassment is the beginning of the motive here. The anti-gay tone of WR as opposed to Wikipedia should tell us that WR is not a representative sample of Wikipedia, but rather remains an outside organization with goals that are different from ours. However, I am not convinced that gay-bashing is the ultimate motive here -- rather, as with the Cirt case, I feel that a small group of deletionists is trying to take out an admin they see as opposed to their goals, or perhaps, simply to demonstrate their power and intimidate others. I think that the other admins had better stand up against these people, or eventually they too will have their chance to be voted off the island, and trumped-up allegations against their character plastered all over the internet. Wikipedia is a fundamentally communist cause, which can work, but only with the utmost respect for the rights of the individual participant; otherwise it degenerates into Leninist purges as cynical people seek control over valuable common assets. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Last time I looked, it was the Wikipedian sysops who were trying to oust Delicious carbuncle from the project:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...or_ban_proposal

The Wikipedian sysops are so hostile to the WR that they closed it as "almost enacted" (i.e. "you're not going to be so lucky next time, punk") instead of "no consensus". It's funny how they allowed someone with a clear opinion on the subject to close the discussion.

Last time I looked, it was half of the Wikipedians who were attempting to keep Selina perpetually banned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...unblock_request

I'm surprised that that discussion didn't end in "no consensus".

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Thu 2nd February 2012, 2:11pm

[Eppur si muove]

The following comment is also interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=474430328

I haven't tracked down much of the anti-gay harassment, I think because some of the WR threads have been deleted. But I'm reasonably persuaded that harassment is the beginning of the motive here. The anti-gay tone of WR as opposed to Wikipedia should tell us that WR is not a representative sample of Wikipedia, but rather remains an outside organization with goals that are different from ours. However, I am not convinced that gay-bashing is the ultimate motive here -- rather, as with the Cirt case, I feel that a small group of deletionists is trying to take out an admin they see as opposed to their goals, or perhaps, simply to demonstrate their power and intimidate others. I think that the other admins had better stand up against these people, or eventually they too will have their chance to be voted off the island, and trumped-up allegations against their character plastered all over the internet. Wikipedia is a fundamentally communist cause, which can work, but only with the utmost respect for the rights of the individual participant; otherwise it degenerates into Leninist purges as cynical people seek control over valuable common assets. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from, I think, being factually incorrect, the first half of that quote is interesting. WR is anti-gay and deletes the anti-gay material. I'm sure that Wnt would frame deletion of hate speech from WP as apositive. His/her/its biases are again coming through.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Thu 2nd February 2012, 2:16pm

[thekohser]

Last time I looked, it was the Wikipedian sysops who were trying to oust Delicious carbuncle from the project:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...or_ban_proposal

How do they get through that whole discussion without ever addressing the uncontested news reporting about Ashley?

If there had been anything defamatory or libelous in that report, wouldn't the reporter and/or publisher have been legally challenged by now?

[lilburne]

UTC)
Apart from, I think, being factually incorrect, the first half of that quote is interesting. WR is anti-gay and deletes the anti-gay material. I'm sure that Wnt would frame deletion of hate speech from WP as apositive. His/her/its biases are again coming through.

Wnt is a supreme fuckwit, lacking any redeeming features. I had a little conversation with him a year or so ago over the 1000 dicks on commons. I framed it in the context of other types of images focussing on Cyanistes caeruleus and that you didn't need 1000 images of them in order to illustrate the subject. That the 100+ out of focus, badly exposed, and multi-instance crap they had collected on commons made discovery of a decent image more difficult for the user. The lack of effective curation, is the main problem with all of the wiki projects. They are unable, either through incompetance or ignorance, to extract information from raw data. Thus they'll shove in a precise of every gossip column written about some one. 1000+ images of a penis, 1000+ images of a blade of grass, 1000+ images of a Common Blue Damselfly.

This post has been edited by lilburne: Thu 2nd February 2012, 2:53pm

[gomi]

[Mod note: some off-topic posts regarding journalism moved here.]

[Peter Damian]

What exactly is he supposed to reply to? No one brought up a dispute with the user Fæ; everyone keeps bringing two year old allegations against Ash, which - regardless of whether they are the same person or not - have nothing to do with Fæ. I wouldn't know how to fill in that spot myself if I were the subject. Even the desired outcome refers to Ash, an editor no longer active! CycloneGU (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I shall create a new account called St Anselm or something and start editing medieval philosophy articles again. There will be no sanctions against me because the account Peter Damian is no longer active, the block was nearly three years ago, all the allegations are in the distant past.

Would that work, does anyone think?

[dogbiscuit]

everyone keeps bringing two year old allegations against Ash, which - regardless of whether they are the same person or not - have nothing to do with Fæ. CycloneGU (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There we have the bizarre logic of the Wikipedian.

We have now moved Wikipedia to a virtual world where the editor is an entirely separate entity from the person, and all that implies.

Simply stunning.

[thekohser]

Something funny I noticed just now.

Apparently, Wikipedia has a "self portrait" of George Romney that a supposed expert on Romney says is not Romney, nor painted by Romney. So, he clumsily deletes the portrait.

Of all people, Fae is there within 15 minutes to revert.

Let's follow along now, and watch how Wikipedia treats an expert like Orrom.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Something funny I noticed just now.

Apparently, Wikipedia has a "self portrait" of George Romney that a supposed expert on Romney says is not Romney, nor painted by Romney. So, he clumsily deletes the portrait.

Of all people, Fae is there within 15 minutes to revert.

Let's follow along now, and watch how Wikipedia treats an expert like Orrom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_R...l%27artiste.jpg

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/cf/htm/CSearchZ.as...bE=2C6NU0XEX2HY

Is photo.rmn.fr wrong?

[thekohser]

Is photo.rmn.fr wrong?

I don't know! I'm not a painting expert! Wouldn't it be worthwhile for some Wikipedian to contact Mr. Orrom to find out what's going on? No, that would take too much care and duty, wouldn't it?

[Michaeldsuarez]

Is photo.rmn.fr wrong?

I don't know! I'm not a painting expert! Wouldn't it be worthwhile for some Wikipedian to contact Mr. Orrom to find out what's going on? No, that would take too much care and duty, wouldn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=474561946

If Mr. Orrom doesn't reply on the wiki, I'll Email him for more information.

[DanMurphy]

Is photo.rmn.fr wrong?

I don't know! I'm not a painting expert! Wouldn't it be worthwhile for some Wikipedian to contact Mr. Orrom to find out what's going on? No, that would take too much care and duty, wouldn't it?

Wikipedia says it's "currently" in the louvre. The louvre, disagrees (though such database searches are often crap.)

[Michaeldsuarez]

Is photo.rmn.fr wrong?

I don't know! I'm not a painting expert! Wouldn't it be worthwhile for some Wikipedian to contact Mr. Orrom to find out what's going on? No, that would take too much care and duty, wouldn't it?

Wikipedia says it's "currently" in the louvre. The louvre, disagrees (though such database searches are often crap.)

http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=27222

I'm not sure if this website is reliable, but it says that it's in the Louvre.

[lilburne]

Is photo.rmn.fr wrong?

I don't know! I'm not a painting expert! Wouldn't it be worthwhile for some Wikipedian to contact Mr. Orrom to find out what's going on? No, that would take too much care and duty, wouldn't it?

Wikipedia says it's "currently" in the louvre. The louvre, disagrees (though such database searches are often crap.)

It has been re-attributed

Of several pictures falsely identified as self portraits, mention might be made of those in the Uffizi (774A) and the Louvre (RF1095); the former remains unattributed, the latter is perhaps by George Willison.
http://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/exhibitions/...iconography.php

[Michaeldsuarez]

It has been re-attributed

Of several pictures falsely identified as self portraits, mention might be made of those in the Uffizi (774A) and the Louvre (RF1095); the former remains unattributed, the latter is perhaps by George Willison.
http://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/exhibitions/...iconography.php

http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/0390...A012EAB77F.html

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/...20%3aAPTN%20%29

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/...20%3aAPTN%20%29

In order to avoid confusion, the image we're discussing (Portrait de l'artiste) is RF 1720, not RF 1095.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Fri 3rd February 2012, 3:46pm

[DanMurphy]

It has been re-attributed

Of several pictures falsely identified as self portraits, mention might be made of those in the Uffizi (774A) and the Louvre (RF1095); the former remains unattributed, the latter is perhaps by George Willison.
http://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/exhibitions/...iconography.php

http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/0390...A012EAB77F.html

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/...20%3aAPTN%20%29

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/...20%3aAPTN%20%29

In order to avoid confusion, the image we're discussing (Portrait de l'artiste) is RF 1720, not RF 1095.

So the French government, which owns the painting, says that it's uncertain who painted it, and equally uncertain that it's a self-portrait of whoever the painter is. And yet wikipedia's incorrect attribution has been repeatedly rebroadcast. Aint "knowledge" grand?

The stupid is strong in this one.

This post has been edited by DanMurphy: Fri 3rd February 2012, 4:03pm

[lilburne]

So the French government, which owns the painting, says that it's uncertain who painted it, and equally uncertain that it's a self-portrait of whoever the painter is. And yet wikipedia's incorrect attribution has been repeatedly rebroadcast. Aint "knowledge" grand?

Ha! There is a photograph of a hoverfly on WP which the photographer correctly labelled as Leucozona glaucia, but someone argued that it was L. laternaria and got the damn fool ChristianBier to change the file name etc. So for two years the WP page had the wrong image, and even today Commons has the file miss identified:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Leu..._laternaria.jpg

[Abd]

Is photo.rmn.fr wrong?

Fascinating issue, in fact. Wikipedia commonly doesn't apply RS standards to images. It looks to me like a possibly controversial "fact" is being asserted, without being found in a reliable secondary source. The catalog of a museum would be a primary source, even if compiled by a museum.

On the other hand, the newbie editor in question, if that's really who they are (likely so), should be considered an expert, and ignoring the expert's explicit's advice -- and attempt to correct a possible error -- would be a classic Wikipedia error. The expert's opinion was deprecated as OR, but that missed that the *inclusion* might also be considered OR. A kind of OR that is commonly allowed, i.e., the identification of images as being this or that.

That expert should be welcomed, there should be an apology for the rather rude rejection and the nonsense about "test edits," and the editor should be engaged in a discussion on the article talk page.

Experts can generally tell you how they know what they know. If you ask!

I argued that anyone claiming expertise should be considered COI, and there was outraged opposition to this idea, because "COI" to many editors means "shoot on sight." That's the problem .COI editors should be welcomed, but restrained to participating in discussion aimed at finding consensus. Not necessarily agreement with Randy from Boise, but with editors willing to examine the evidence and make a decision without being involved personally. Experts are almost always involved personally.

Silly beasts! They imagine that their expertise means they know something that others don't know.

However, generally, they do.

When I said that expertise should imply COI, I did not mean that anyone claiming expertise should therefore be given the keys to article approval. The encyclopedia is for general readers, not experts, so the expert should be able to create the ability to verify. Sometimes expert knowledge isn't publicly verifiable, and an expert would just have to be patient, and not expect to be accepted merely because they say so.

But they should be *heard*. And where an article is being maintained contrary to (alleged) expert opinion, the talk page, at least, should reflect that.

It's also possible to vet experts, that could have become part of the Wikipedia structure. Yes, not easy, but it could be done.

[Abd]

Ha! There is a photograph of a hoverfly on WP which the photographer correctly labelled as Leucozona glaucia, but someone argued that it was L. laternaria and got the damn fool ChristianBier to change the file name etc. So for two years the WP page had the wrong image, and even today Commons has the file miss identified:
Leucozona laternaria

Mmm... the file says that the commanster web site is the original source, but the image of Laternaria there is different. As noted, the image is of Glaucia. It looks like the uploader, correctly uploaded the file to use the Glaucia name, and this was moved to Laternaria by the damned fool, indeed. This is noted on the the talk page by Nastytroll.

Now, maybe the damned fool is correct, though it's seeming unlikely. But what is the source for this information? The file history doesn't give any clue, but the change was approved by ChristianBier, allegedly. I was unable to find, in the time I could give, what justification was given, but the actual change was made by bot, so there must be some control file or something like that. The Laternaria file appears under the Category:Leucozona glaucia.

Looking at CB contributions, I see the massive contributions record of a wikignome. I saw large piles of blue-linked deletion requests. Very active user, and large numbers of unsuccessful deletion requests, probably semi-automated, can reflect vast wastes of time. But I didn't investigate.

I've claimed that massive deletion requests should never be made without prior discussion of the issue, with, say, an example. If deletion of some category of images, articles, etc., is confirmed as within consensus, *then* large numbers of deletions can be requested or done. Better requested, because it gives more opportunity for someone with an interest to object.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Ha! There is a photograph of a hoverfly on WP which the photographer correctly labelled as Leucozona glaucia, but someone argued that it was L. laternaria and got the damn fool ChristianBier to change the file name etc. So for two years the WP page had the wrong image, and even today Commons has the file miss identified:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Leu..._laternaria.jpg

http://www.commanster.eu/commanster/Insect...laternaria9.jpg

http://www.commanster.eu/commanster/Insect...na.glaucia9.jpg

I believe that the confusion with the bug images might have occurred when Sarefo accidentally uploaded "Leucozona.laternaria9.jpg" (instead of "Leucozona.glaucia9.jpg") onto Commons as "Leucozona.glaucia.wing.detail.jpg".

ChristianBier then had the misnamed "Leucozona.glaucia.wing.detail.jpg" re-uploaded as "Leucozona_laternaria_wing_detail.jpg":

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...wing_detail.jpg

ChristianBier probably mistakenly believed that "Leucozona.glaucia.jpg" was misnamed as well and had had it reuploaded as "Leucozona_laternaria.jpg":

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t..._laternaria.jpg

I can't tell for certain since I can't view the deleted history, but it appears to be an honest mistake.