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

[thekohser]

Wnt brings up a good point. The full version of the image wasn't uploaded until March 28, 2010:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...loeden_6052.jpg

That's very strange, because when I was sent a link to the Internet Archive, for March 17, 2010, this is the image I saw rendered.

Does Internet Archive draw on a current feed of any image references, or does it capture images as they were seen on the date of publication?

[lilburne]

Wnt brings up a good point. The full version of the image wasn't uploaded until March 28, 2010:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...loeden_6052.jpg

That's very strange, because when I was sent a link to the Internet Archive, for March 17, 2010, this is the image I saw rendered.

Does Internet Archive draw on a current feed of any image references, or does it capture images as they were seen on the date of publication?

You tell me!
http://web.archive.org/web/20010331173406/...dcamonline.com/

[tarantino]

Wnt brings up a good point. The full version of the image wasn't uploaded until March 28, 2010:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...loeden_6052.jpg

That's very strange, because when I was sent a link to the Internet Archive, for March 17, 2010, this is the image I saw rendered.

Does Internet Archive draw on a current feed of any image references, or does it capture images as they were seen on the date of publication?

If they don't have a page archived they will load a live page if available. I don't think they do that for individual images, but possibly they may use an image archived at a different date.

FWIW, the image no longer displays on archive.org. I remember seeing it there also.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100317194701/...g/wiki/User:Ash

Webcitation.org also deleted their cache of the page.

[thekohser]

I don't want to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist, but is it possible that this notion that the image of flying fish boy "changed" after Ash had the image on his user page has somehow been cooked up with a little trickery?

[HRIP7]

Wnt brings up a good point. The full version of the image wasn't uploaded until March 28, 2010:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...loeden_6052.jpg

That's very strange, because when I was sent a link to the Internet Archive, for March 17, 2010, this is the image I saw rendered.

Does Internet Archive draw on a current feed of any image references, or does it capture images as they were seen on the date of publication?

It explains why the image appears vertically compressed in the screenshot on your site. It's the result of fitting the new, portrait-format image into the old, landscape-format image frame.

[thekohser]

It explains why the image appears vertically compressed in the screenshot on your site. It's the result of fitting the new, portrait-format image into the old, landscape-format image frame.

Ah, I see! Well, score one for Van Haeften. Still about seven or eight marks against him, though. And even still, it's kind of pervy to be displaying even a cropped version of that picture on one's User page.

Here's another question: Why is there no File History tab for this page?

[Michaeldsuarez]

It explains why the image appears vertically compressed in the screenshot on your site. It's the result of fitting the new, portrait-format image into the old, landscape-format image frame.

Ah, I see! Well, score one for Van Haeften. Still about seven or eight marks against him, though. And even still, it's kind of pervy to be displaying even a cropped version of that picture on one's User page.

Here's another question: Why is there no File History tab for this page?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...jpg&redirect=no

Because the page and its history exists on Commons, not Wikipedia.

[lilburne]

I don't want to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist, but is it possible that this notion that the image of flying fish boy "changed" after Ash had the image on his user page has somehow been cooked up with a little trickery?

You are focussing on the nakedness, or not, of the image. The image could just of been of the fish and there would still be a problem. The inappropriateness of the image lies in it being by von Gloeden, and the associations that come with it, as far as I can tell this particular photo is of the youngest model that WP had a photo of at the time.

A fully clothed image of Traci Lord aged 15 would be just as inappropriate for a prospective director of a educational charity to have sported on their user page.

This post has been edited by lilburne: Fri 10th February 2012, 9:15pm

[SB_Johnny]

I can't confirm the sole purpose of WR as I've only looked at a few diffs. But there have now been several occasions where events there have caused disruption here, and I don't recall anything positive coming out of that site. I'd suggest that any editor who uses both should make a choice between the two. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[mbz1]

I can't confirm the sole purpose of WR as I've only looked at a few diffs. But there have now been several occasions where events there have caused disruption here, and I don't recall anything positive coming out of that site. I'd suggest that any editor who uses both should make a choice between the two. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

or else
Btw could you provide the link for the lazy ones

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sat 11th February 2012, 12:36am

[Selina]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ?diff=prev&oldid=476197869

I can't confirm the sole purpose of WR as I've only looked at a few diffs [diffs=Wikipedia]. But there have now been several occasions where events there have caused disruption here, and I don't recall anything positive coming out of that site. I'd suggest that any editor who uses both should make a choice between the two. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

a famous quote about censorship from the UK comes to mind:
"I haven't seen it [Four Weddings and a Funeral]†, of course, but I've heard that the opening three minutes contains a stream of four letter obscenities"
—Mary Whitehouse
† "Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, calling it "delightful and sly", and directed with "light-hearted enchantment"

I don't want to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist, but is it possible that this notion that the image of flying fish boy "changed" after Ash had the image on his user page has somehow been cooked up with a little trickery?

He is on the Board and steering committee of Wikimedia UK with the purse strings of millions of pounds of Wikimedia's donations in the UK, it could well have been "someone edit that NOW to try protect WMF's reputation" — It's very easy to change a line like that in the database (I'm not sure what database they use but any of them might as well be a giant Excel spreadsheet of text to someone who knows what they are doing, you can change any of the dates to whatever you want if you wish) — Brion VIBBER used to do a lot of requests to change stuff like that back in the day when stuff like user renames were done manually similar to what OTRS do now. It could have just taken a minute or two, if anything it's probably even easier with better tools to edit the database as needed these days. There's no WMF policies against falsifying data, if anything the culture encourages messing around with the history. Don't believe everything you see on Wikipedia, this is why stuff like The Internet Archive is important - and even then they sometimes remove stuff due to requests like Wikipedia and Webcitation too... You had the right idea using your own site...

The inappropriateness of the image lies in it being by von Gloeden, and the associations that come with it, as far as I can tell this particular photo is of the youngest model that WP had a photo of at the time.

A fully clothed image of Traci Lord aged 15 would be just as inappropriate for a prospective director of a educational charity to have sported on their user page.

Also true, yeah. That guy seems to be considered somewhat of a martyr for the pro-paedophilia movement... banned paedophile POV-pusher Haiduc took a photo himself of his pilgrimage to the shrine which remains in the article to this day:
• wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Gloeden?diff=41553172&oldid=39789585 as well as a "nice" little comment just in case we weren't sure: "Il Moro had been Von Gloeden's lover since the age of fourteen"
As well as the "helpful" category, wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pederasty — Certainly not the other P word...
• wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Gloeden?diff=prev&oldid=110174983 - also by Haiduc

pushing against the paedophiles before anyon in charge actually started doing anything about it: wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:LGBT_notice_board/Archive_3#what_belongs_here "Deletion of pederasty-related topics is partisan, and you need to re-check the NPOV policy and guidelines before you (Mistress Selina Kyle, I'm looking at you) continue to remove these topics" .... yeeeaahhh. Thanks, 'Dave'

[..]

this reminds me of the "Haiduc" paedophile who I argued wit ha few times before giving up (in the previous links), no one listened to me I saw what they were doing because it's exactly the same kind of slimy stuff PR companies do, it was only later WP actually did anything about the paedophiles pushing it (usually as "pederasty") - wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Haiduc - and the articles still tainted - I just gave up on WP, they did a few bans for show when they were getting media attention about the networks of pedo users then continued to do nothing...




I just searched up google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipediareview. com+pedophiles+OR+pedophile+OR+paedophile+OR+paedophiles+OR+pedophilia+OR+paedop
hilia:

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=30094 Commons and Pro-Pedophilia

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=15438 Boy Scouts are for spanking?, More from Wales talk

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=34313 Self-identified Pedophile blocks (2007)

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:30:58 +0530
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

Fred Bauder wrote:
> I did, acting as an administrator, block one of these guys
> indefinitely, and got away with it. But I think I was flying under
> the radar, perhaps trading on my status. I don't think I did anything
> wrong and would support any administrator who blocks a pedophile
> advocate. The basis is disruption.

I agree with this completely.

This is a thorny issue, and I have little to add to it. We don't want a
witch hunt. We also don't want a huge press scandal.

It is inevitable that at some point a reporter is going to come to me
and tell me about a user I don't know about, asking "Why does Wikipedia
allow a self-confessed pedophile to edit articles about children?"

And my response is going to be: "O RLY? *block*"

I will use "disruption" as my reason or "useless editor" or whatever
seems to suit the circumstance.

At the same time, other than that [the media], I think our best approach is just
like our best approach with other types of problems:

1. Quiet diplomacy is good
2. Don't ask, don't tell is good

--Jimbo

THAT IS NOT WHAT DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS MEANT TO BE USED FOR JIMMY. CHRIST. >:|

That link before where I reported Haiduc on the LGBT Wikipedia board, no one on Wikipedia did a thing for more than 3 years, they (99% gay males) just turned a blind eye...

[TungstenCarbide]

I don't want to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist, but is it possible that this notion that the image of flying fish boy "changed" after Ash had the image on his user page has somehow been cooked up with a little trickery?

He is on the Board and steering committee of Wikimedia UK with the purse strings of millions of pounds of Wikimedia's donations in the UK, it could well have been "someone edit that NOW to try protect WMF's reputation" — It's very easy to change a line like that in the database (I'm not sure what database they use but any of them might as well be a giant Excel spreadsheet of text to someone who knows what they are doing, you can change any of the dates to whatever you want if you wish) — Brion VIBBER used to do a lot of requests to change stuff like that back in the day when stuff like user renames were done manually similar to what OTRS do now. It could have just taken a minute or two, if anything it's probably even easier with better tools to edit the database as needed these days. Don't believe everything you see on Wikipedia, this is why stuff like The Internet Archive is important - and even then they sometimes remove stuff due to requests like Wikipedia and Webcitation too... You had the right idea using your own site...

back in the day ... there even used to be a Wikipedia page where you could type in your own sql script and run it on the database, used mostly for queries and searches and stuff like that. Maybe 2002 or so.

This post has been edited by Selina: Sat 11th February 2012, 1:04am

[radek]

I don't want to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist, but is it possible that this notion that the image of flying fish boy "changed" after Ash had the image on his user page has somehow been cooked up with a little trickery?

You are focussing on the nakedness, or not, of the image. The image could just of been of the fish and there would still be a problem. The inappropriateness of the image lies in it being by von Gloeden, and the associations that come with it, as far as I can tell this particular photo is of the youngest model that WP had a photo of at the time.

A fully clothed image of Traci Lord aged 15 would be just as inappropriate for a prospective director of a educational charity to have sported on their user page.

This is one of these weird coincidences but as it happens one of my favorite magazines is National Geographic. Just a few minutes ago I looked through a collection of "best of NG photographs" for completely unrelated reasons, and then realized - completely unrelated to all this stuff, just a coincidence, like I said - that there's actually two of this guy's von Gloeden's photographs in there. Looking it up, this guy does have a Wikipedia article and if what lilburn and others are saying that's probably a good article to put on your watchlist if you want to catch some sketchy editors.

[Selina]

Google the photographer, Wilhelm von Gloeden. One of the first links that comes up for me is to nambla.org. WP states that one of his models became his lover at the age of 14. Let's not argue over whether or not that makes him a paedophile.

Van Haeften put the image on their WP user page. They were making a point. They knew that some people would be offended by that particular image of a nude adolescent (more so than, say, an older nude male). I believe they were saying "I can do this. You don't like it. You can't stop me from doing it. Nyah nyah".

nambla.org/gloeden.html [NSFW - paedophile site!]

nambla.org/GLBvG031c-280.jpg [NSFW - same image as user:Ash/user:Fæ/Ashley Van Haeften had on his userpage]

... woah. Recognise that from anywhere?
web.archive.org/web/20100317194701/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ash (commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gloeden,_Wilhelm_von_(1856-1931)_-_n._1764.jpg [NSFW])

wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

...

Cartman browses Wikipedia and finds some friendly men very eager for contact about The Wikimedia Foundation, Parliament, the British Library, the British Museum, English Heritage and the Wellcome Trust ([1])

creators of South Park on NAMBLA "at times we wanted to say stop the joke, this is real.. this really exists"


newgon.com/wiki/Boys_in_photography [NSFW - paedophile site!]

NewgonWiki exists primarily as a source of information on all adult-minor sexualities and an agent of change
[..]
[second sentence!] At the end of 19th century the most prominent photographer of the male nude was Wilhelm von Gloeden (1856–1931), a boylover himself

boywiki.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Gloeden [NSFW - paedophile site!]

a German photographer and boylover

joshuap2pblog.wordpress.com/tag/boy-lover child abuse, child porn, pederasta, pedofilia, pedophile, slygremixed, Solondz, todd, WikiLeaks, will McBride

Joshua CIA-P: boylover, girlover stop!
child porn stop! Pedophile pedofilia pornografia infantil
Duncan de Perm, boylover victim. Stop child porn!
[..]
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: David
Date: 2010/1/31
Subject: News from down under
To: joshua
Cc: antipedofilia.org@gmail.com
​Hi joshua,
Here’s some really great news from Asutralia regarding child pornography, and espescially cartoons like “shotakon” and “lolikon”. They’ve also adopted a new law that will make certain *all* the works by artists like von Gloeden, Will McBide and others and all the galleries of Rinrin are illegal!!! Here are the various articles and comments from the paedophiles at Xxxxxxboys.org[..]

[EricBarbour]

I would post my list of offensive image categories on Commons, but Selina's doing a fine job of it.

[EricBarbour]

My candidate for next year's straight shooter

Balls and integrity.

And removed ten hours later, at Fae's insistence, apparently.

[Eppur si muove]

Here's a curious post about someone who had been dead several years. The relevant article talk page (Harry Hay (T-H-L-K-D)) shows that there has been a long standing dispute related to this.

== December 2010 ==
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome]] to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographical information about living persons]] must not include [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|unsupported or inaccurate statements]]. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to [[:Harry Hay]], you must include proper [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|sources]]. If you don't know how to [[WP:Citing sources|cite a source]], you may want to read [[Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners]] for guidelines. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-biog1 --> ''To say that Hay was a "a fervid supporter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association" would require rather clearer sourcing. That he may have had controversial political or liberal views on NAMBLA does not mean that he was either a member or an active "boy lover".''

Further note; my comments are based on a partial view of the book you have cited using Google Books - {{citation | last=Timmons | first=Stuart | year=1990 | title=The trouble with Harry Hay: founder of the modern gay movement | publisher=Alyson | isbn=9781555831752 }} - if you believe that your text is a fair representation, please include an associated direct quote from the source material in the citation (try using the quote= parameter using {{tl|citation}}). Obviously any mention of NAMBLA is going to be repeatedly scrutinized for credibility and so for any such material to be retained in an article it will need explicit sourcing. Thanks, [[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Sat 11th February 2012, 3:56pm

[lilburne]

It explains why the image appears vertically compressed in the screenshot on your site. It's the result of fitting the new, portrait-format image into the old, landscape-format image frame.

Ah, I see! Well, score one for Van Haeften. Still about seven or eight marks against him, though. And even still, it's kind of pervy to be displaying even a cropped version of that picture on one's User page.

Here's another question: Why is there no File History tab for this page?

BTW for completion the internet archive site is referencing a cached image. Which is:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100317194701/...loeden_6052.jpg

Which the IA doesn't appear to have cached any longer

And if you put that url into a browser you get redirected to the live web page.

[Peter Damian]

I can't confirm the sole purpose of WR as I've only looked at a few diffs. But there have now been several occasions where events there have caused disruption here, and I don't recall anything positive coming out of that site. I'd suggest that any editor who uses both should make a choice between the two. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well

1. my research establishes beyond all doubt that uncovering the Essjay fraud was entirely the work of the Review. Brandt spotted it the previous year, and it was his persistence with the New Yorker that finally paid off. on 20th January 2007: Brandt remarked on Wikipedia Review that Stacy Schiff's interview with Jordan in The New Yorker had therefore got it all wrong. He said he would write to the paper "and complain about their fact-checking, and ask for a retraction and investigation. "

2. Getting the infamous 'spanking wiki' removed was largely the result of Greg Kohs' work, with a bit of help from me.

3. Some administrators and at least one Arbcom member defrocked as a result of campaigns here.

This is off-topic, however, I may start another thread on this. "What has Wikipedia Review ever done for us..."?

[PS on 'anything positive' coming out, I don't know what Jonathan regards as 'positive'. If it's disruption he is worried about, then of course uncovering Essjay was hugely disruptive. I wonder if that is what he means?]

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 11th February 2012, 9:03am

[EricBarbour]

This is off-topic, however, I may start another thread on this. "What has Wikipedia Review ever done for us..."?

You may do so if you wish, but I seriously doubt that you can justify WR to him. Nor is the effort even conducive to anyone else's understanding of the situation--if they're WP insiders.

The eminent Mr. Cardy is displaying mafia-like attitudes. "They ain't made men, well I'm a made man, and I don't like the bums". When you get out of the Wikipedia-as-drug and Wikipedia-as-wargame paradigms, you come down to the admin structure as resembling a Cosa Nostra gang--complete with omerta, the code of silence. And just like the real-world Mafia, they show extraordinary levels of incompetence, arrogance, backstabbery, and exclusionism.

The only bonus: if you point out a Mafiosi's personal inadequacies, he's liable to bash your head in with a chair. The Wiki-Mafiosi are such cowards and pussies, all they will do is block your account, and perhaps speak harshly of you. Hah.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 11th February 2012, 9:49am