Image hiding feature on hold ..., Subject to a revote, but no date set ... Options

[dogbiscuit]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...rning_re._moves

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67647934:

What is misleading with "underwater"? She is underwater. If you continue to use the move tool that way (to undermine [[COM:NOTCENSORED]] and to push POLA to Commons) you will loose it. Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No agenda here at all then.

[TungstenCarbide]

No agenda here at all then.

I was just going to note that. Where do they find these people.

The best thing WMF could do is implement a hide image feature in the software so that it can't be disabled. They will need a solid rationale. Within a few days the 'clever' people at Commons will find ways to circumvent it and then the WMF can ban them. There will be riots and dozens of editors will leave the project and start a new one, which will fail quickly, and Commons will be rid of the more radical bombasts, at least for a time.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Mon 5th March 2012, 7:07pm

[dogbiscuit]

No agenda here at all then.

I was just going to note that. Where do they find these people.

The best thing WMF could do is implement a hide image feature in the software so that it can't be disabled. They will need a solid rationale. Within a few days the 'clever' people at Commons will find ways to circumvent it and then the WMF can ban them. There will be riots and dozens of editors will leave the project and start a new one, which will fail quickly, and Commons will be rid of the more radical bombasts, at least for a time.

I suppose the underlying question is why someone like Beta_M is allowed to roam free subverting Wikipedia to his own ends, when others who seek to protect Wikipedia are driven off? Why have the advocates of one particular point of view been allowed to become so dominant, even when the WMF are supposedly on the case?

[tarantino]

No agenda here at all then.

I was just going to note that. Where do they find these people.

The best thing WMF could do is implement a hide image feature in the software so that it can't be disabled. They will need a solid rationale. Within a few days the 'clever' people at Commons will find ways to circumvent it and then the WMF can ban them. There will be riots and dozens of editors will leave the project and start a new one, which will fail quickly, and Commons will be rid of the more radical bombasts, at least for a time.

I suppose the underlying question is why someone like Beta_M is allowed to roam free subverting Wikipedia to his own ends, when others who seek to protect Wikipedia are driven off? Why have the advocates of one particular point of view been allowed to become so dominant, even when the WMF are supposedly on the case?

Beta_M is "politically anarchist, ethically vegan, spiritually buddhist, religiously agnostic, artistically poetic, sexually perverted, and queer gender-wise."

In other words, your typical commons contributor.

Here's his user page on his very own porn wiki. It doesn't look very busy.
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/User:VolodyA!_V_Anarhist

[melloden]

Looks like Jimmy is fishing for ways to spin the lack of action on the promised action.

I don't know whether this is why Jimbo is asking the question about how many categories there are, but that is certainly an argument that is sometimes made – "we have soooooo many categories that contain some adult files, we could never identify them all ... the universe would end before we'd be done".

The problem with that is that Robert Harris, the consultant who did the controversial content study, once stated to me that it would take him a couple of afternoons to identify the relevant categories. And he is right.

There must be at least one porn addict in the world willing to spend a day doing that for a hundred bucks.

[SB_Johnny]

Looks like Jimmy is fishing for ways to spin the lack of action on the promised action.

I don't know whether this is why Jimbo is asking the question about how many categories there are, but that is certainly an argument that is sometimes made – "we have soooooo many categories that contain some adult files, we could never identify them all ... the universe would end before we'd be done".

The problem with that is that Robert Harris, the consultant who did the controversial content study, once stated to me that it would take him a couple of afternoons to identify the relevant categories. And he is right.

There must be at least one porn addict in the world willing to spend a day doing that for a hundred bucks.

Fifty bucks. The WMF obviously can't afford $100.

[HRIP7]

I suppose the underlying question is why someone like Beta_M is allowed to roam free subverting Wikipedia to his own ends, when others who seek to protect Wikipedia are driven off? Why have the advocates of one particular point of view been allowed to become so dominant, even when the WMF are supposedly on the case?

Beta_M is "politically anarchist, ethically vegan, spiritually buddhist, religiously agnostic, artistically poetic, sexually perverted, and queer gender-wise."

In other words, your typical commons contributor.

Here's his user page on his very own porn wiki. It doesn't look very busy.
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/User:VolodyA!_V_Anarhist

Good find. Here is what he says about himself:

Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well, i am all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people enjoy seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away from capitalist fuckers.

Welcome to Commons.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

You know what other encyclopedia didn't have blatant sexual imagery? Meyers Lexikon, which just so happened to be the encyclopedia used under HITLER!!!1

Wow, that pretty much proves the point. I always suspected that the World Book was fascist for that very reason.

[carbuncle]

Here's his user page on his very own porn wiki. It doesn't look very busy.
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/User:VolodyA!_V_Anarhist

Why isn't that on List of anarchist pornographic projects and models?

[HRIP7]

Here's his user page on his very own porn wiki. It doesn't look very busy.
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/User:VolodyA!_V_Anarhist

Why isn't that on List of anarchist pornographic projects and models?

It is, it is ... put there by the man himself.

This post has been edited by HRIP7: Tue 6th March 2012, 4:20am

[EricBarbour]

Why isn't that on List of anarchist pornographic projects and models?

That has to be one of the stupidest "lists" in Wikipedia history. Is that Beta M guy "important" in any possible way? He's been on WP since 2004, and he's 100% looney.....

[tarantino]

Why isn't that on List of anarchist pornographic projects and models?

That has to be one of the stupidest "lists" in Wikipedia history. Is that Beta M guy "important" in any possible way? He's been on WP since 2004, and he's 100% looney.....

Stay tuned.

[Zoloft]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...rning_re._moves

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67647934:

What is misleading with "underwater"? She is underwater. If you continue to use the move tool that way (to undermine [[COM:NOTCENSORED]] and to push POLA to Commons) you will loose it. Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

[The Joy]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...rning_re._moves

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67647934:

What is misleading with "underwater"? She is underwater. If you continue to use the move tool that way (to undermine [[COM:NOTCENSORED]] and to push POLA to Commons) you will loose it. Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

I'm tired of all the porn on Wikipedia. They keep falling off!

[EricBarbour]

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

At last, this thread redeems itself!

[carbuncle]

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

At last, this thread redeems itself!

And did you catch who created that particular barnstar? Beta M! It's a small world after all...

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Tue 6th March 2012, 1:31pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67730900

Beta_M supports Commons becoming a repository of cartoon child porn. Beta_M is perhaps a fan of graphic child porn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=352912824

Also, here's Beta_M defending child porn:

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/protection...hild_sadvocates

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/There_is_a..._cannot_express

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/shortcomin...alian_Sex_Party

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Australia_...aphy_upon_entry

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/court_forc...tay_with_father

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Tue 6th March 2012, 2:01pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67730900

Beta_M supports Commons becoming a repository of cartoon child porn. Beta_M is perhaps a fan of graphic child porn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=352912824

Also, here's Beta_M defending child porn:

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/protection...hild_sadvocates

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/There_is_a..._cannot_express

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/shortcomin...alian_Sex_Party

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Australia_...aphy_upon_entry

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/court_forc...tay_with_father

tarantino has uncovered more information on the possible Beta_M-child porn connection:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37062

[TungstenCarbide]

Finally, it is interesting that the Wikipedia community can get so upset about POV-pushing when it comes to politics, religion or Star Trek, but when it comes to sex related topics, it strongly supports a radical position that is clearly a minority position in the wider world and someone as extreme as Beta_M believes he has a free pass to campaign on Wikipedia.

It is interesting that Beta_M has found such a visible place to engage in activism. Commons is full of these characters.

'Anti-censorship' is the foundation of their rationale - it gives them faith in their moral superiority while uploading pictures of their wieners.

[timbo]

The image filter, part of the WMF board's 2011 Controversial Content Resolution, and designed to bring Wikimedia's handling of adult and other controversial content in line with other top websites, seems to be indefinitely on hold.... The question is whether this apparent back-pedalling means that the Foundation should now give up any pretense that it is capable of guiding and directing content development in Wikimedia projects.

I'm a reasonable man. Tell ya what, WMF, as Chief Negotiator for en-WP I'll trade you your beloved censorship filter for belated acceptance of the premise that only autoconfirmed users should be permitted to start articles...


t

This post has been edited by timbo: Wed 7th March 2012, 5:18am