Talk:FilePile/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I dont see that this page meets criterion for SD, possibly a VfD as nn or advertisement. Usrnme h8er 08:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of stupid. This page only really serves to aggravate anyone that might want to visit a site they can't access by dangling a carrot in front of their faces. MarioDinis 14:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop lying about FilePile. It still exists, still has members, and files are still posted there. -- Johnny Dark 18:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Paybacks a BICTH! Let me back on the terror continues! --Johnny Dark 19:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What is a bicth? Is it a storm in a teacup?83.78.77.231 19:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

i think its a form of douchebaggery Flaunted 19:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Johnny Dark is using this wikipedia entry to further a personal vendetta, and it not sincerly adding any useful information to the wikipedia. would recommend deletion. thirashima

The fact that some of Filepile's 8000 members wish to maintain it as a sort of secret club does not justify removing or defacing accurate information about this important online community.

• The site has been mentioned and discussed numerous times on several Web sites and blogs, including Metafilter (11 times). Google reports that nearly 7000 pages contain the site's URL (filepile.org). Given that Filepile is well-known and often discussed, there is a wealth of verifiable information about the site.
• Wikipedia contains a great many articles on secret societies -- including the Mafia, Ku Klux Klan, and Freemasonry -- information about which one would expect to be difficult to obtain.
• Wikipedia contained an article on Metafilter when it had a closed membership, making arguments about Filepile's privacy moot.

--Dunheroin 22:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

A few points with regard to the inaccuracies perpetrated by the frequently editing user.

• The account signup was turned off because of bandwidth and anonymity concerns. Legality has never come into it. This point is especially moot in light of the number of mp3 blogs around these days.
• Although there are approximately 8000 user signups, there is a core userbase of around 600 or so people.
• Both the NSFW and SFW acronym originate from outside of filepile, and usage is considered unnecessary by most of the long time users. The might be offensive flag is used to indicate NSFW, and the file pile source code refers to this criteria as 'isporn'.
• The SFW tag is generally used to indicate that something that sounds workplace unfriendly is actually a fairly normal image, such a photograph of a soaked cat named "Wet Pussy".

---

If it's going to persist as a page I'd propose the following information should be posted instead of the not entirely accurate writeup in place.

FilePile is a private, members-only Web site created by [Andre Torrez] in early 2000. Although the site was initially public, bandwidth and anonymity concerns led to it becoming a private site. New accounts have been frozen indefinately, and it's likely that this has helped enforce the strong community spirit found within.

FilePile is a chaotic content management system, allowing members to upload various filetypes to the site. These files are available to every other member for a short period of time. During the lifecycle of the file members are encouraged to comment on the file and flag it as good, bad or offensive. A seperate page then lists top rated files for a few days allowing the silent majority of members to find pictures of naked ladies or kittens without too much clicking.

FilePile is organized around four nominal file types, or "piles": an audio pile, a pictures pile, a video pile, and a text pile. Of these, the picture pile receives the majority of contributions and interest, although it is common to see the latest, greatest internet image posted in rapid succession by various users.

Anyone interested in the concepts behind the site would be well advised to explore some of the sites listed below as they may have a slightly more open policy about membership, although discretion is strongly advised.

[Puree Soiree] [The 3 Towers] [This Might Be Offensive] [Gabba]

VfD

According to the latest vandalism, I'm the "unremarkable Piler (also known on Wikipedia as Xed, formerly Johnny Dark" .... I may be unremarkable, but I'm pretty sure I'm not Mr Dark! (and I'm sure an admin can check and confirm) What's clear is that a number of people from FilePile have created lots of users and have tried to vandalise and delete this article. And they haven't been too subtle either. - Xed 19:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

why do you care? Flaunted 14:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, I didn't care until lots of "new users" tried to vandalize and get the article deleted. - Xed 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that's because nobody who knows about the site wants this page to exist, with the exception of JohnnyDark, who can't even spell "payback's a bitch" properly. - fnerg

If you don't want it to exist, then it would be better to state some reason, rather than invent dozens of usernames and vandalise the page - Xed 19:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I called for VfD on this page. It is nn and does not belong on Wikipedia. Please stop attributing other reasons. — Linnwood ^(talk) ]] 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why nearly all of the users voting for the articles deletion have been created purely to vote for the articles deletion. Friends of yours? - Xed 19:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Almost all the users voting for deletion are users of the site itself, and all are separate people, not one person masquerading as a variety of pseudonyms. The "Vandalism" is also being done by a variety of people. All this should underscore the fact that there's one person out of all this that wants the page up, and quite a few that want it deleted. - fnerg

They want to delete it because they want to keep it secret, even though it's a valid entry. Objectively, thats not really a good enough reason. The site has inspired a parody, it has 8000 members, it has even been mentioned in the same breath by Jason Kottke with Wikipedia and Firefox - do they have articles? Point of Rocks, Wyoming has a population of 3 has has an article. - Xed 21:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Xed -- can you cite the Kottke mention? However, "being mentioned in the same breath as" does not mean equivalency to -- unless you're just as notable as Kottke. — Adam Conover † 05:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[1] - Xed 10:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

protected

I have temporarily protected this page to stop the lameness. The main issue seems to be the screenshot, in which case somebody needs to take it to WP:IFD and argue the point, rather than blank the image or remove the link to it in the article. The article is already up at VFD, so talk it out people. Can't we all just get along? - BanyanTree 13:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Xed's attacks aside, is it really necessary to post personal pictures of members of the site?

• My major problem is not so much the screenshot, it is edits like this. Why the accusations? Also, unless Xed (or Banyan) took those pictures on flicker...Do you have the right to post them? Flaunted 19:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Your problem does seem to be the screenshot as you have vandalised it, as have other "new users". Also, the flickr images weren't posted, they were just linked too - Xed 22:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Why compare Filepile to Napster, and try to insinuate that it's a commercial venture? Xed has passed from trying to maintain order, to trying to start trouble. It's a small, personal project, that's attracted a very small, closed community. Comparing it to something like Napster's completely inaccurate. - fnerg
  • 8000 isn't small. I didn't compare it to Napster - Andre Torrez did on a post on Metafilter. - Xed 22:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, no he didn't, at least not in the linked thread. He said if he made a FilePile 2 it would be napster-like. And while there may have been 8000 sign-ups, there are nowhere near that many active users. - Ceart99
      • Another new user. Welcome to Wikipedia - Xed 23:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Not that it matters, but I had created the account before I became aware of this discussion. Thanks for the welcome though. Also note that I have refrained from voting, making any edits or personal attacks. If new users aren't meant to make any contributions, how will we ever NOT be considered new? However, I note that you don't argue either of the points I made, so does that mean we can accept them as valid? - Ceart99
    • 8000 created accounts, of which maybe 600 of which, or less are actually used, which if you'd read the discussion above, you'd know that, and the comment(not the post) was idle speculation by Andre on where things could go. By intentionally mis-stating the size argument, and mis-interpreting the metafilter comment, you're just trying to start trouble. - fnerg
      • Yet another. Any of the "new users" could have edited the article sensibly, correcting mistakes. Instead, there has been constant vandalism, inserting nonsense, changing images, trying to steal my password etc. - Xed 23:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Enough Trolling. Why would people try to steal your password when edits to the wiki can be made without having an account? like this one. Also, most of the changes that were made by "new" accounts were legitament. However, you "reverted the vandalism." Here are a couple quotes that you inserted:

Quoting from your first edit on the username Xed, "incestuous feeling of the site."
"Numerous copyright infringements occur every day, particularly MP3s in the audio pile."
"Members are often active and prominent members of other piracy websites." 

• • • • Those do not sound like informative additions, more like childish, troublemaking nonsense. Infact the page wasn't touched for almost 2 weeks until you came along Xed. As for the number of users, where do you get your number 8000 from? another website that the content can be edited on? Please state some references to your accusations and stats. As you said above, 8000 is not small and Bandwidth is not cheap...So think before you type. ===> Snoopy
        • If they are not informative additions, you could have corrected them. Instead, there has been constant vandalism, inserting nonsense, changing images, trying to steal my password etc. I don't know why people would want to steal my password. Ask your fellow filepile members - perhaps they know. User fnerg has admitted it's around 8000 users, as have others. - Xed 08:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • (sigh), fine. I've created an account, and signed all the comments I've made, which really, you won't give a rat's ass about, since you're here to cause trouble, and nothing more. - fnerg
          • The only trouble has been from members of filepile with their constant vandalism, inserting nonsense, changing images, trying to steal my password etc. If the page hadn't been locked they would have continued. - Xed 08:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Please Don't Feed the Troll --tranquileye 11:35:43, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Some of tranquileye's vandalism - [2], [3], [4], [5]. It's becoming apparent that all Filepile users are simply trolls and vandals. - Xed 12:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That characterization is neither apparent, simple, nor true. You are cautioned to avoid continuing with personal attacks. Dystopos 16:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC). The instances you cite as vandalism appear to be as verifiable and encyclopedic as the content to which you keep reverting. That is an edit war. Though still unhealthy, it is not the same thing as vandalism. From another perspective your continuing reversions would be vandalism. Perhaps if Tranquileye's version were nominated for VfD the vote would be less lopsided. Dystopos 16:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain why, after I pointed out you were a member of FilePile, and you claimed you had "no knowledge" of it you changed a link on your website from filepile.org [6] to filepile.com [7]. Any reason..? - Xed 16:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Reflecting the age and emotional development of the users, the range of files includes pornography, in-jokes, pirated music and purile images"

• I'm not going to vote, as I did partake in vandalism of the page, but from the edits that Xed has done (the several quoted sections above), it's clear that he has some sort of personal agenda against FilePile (of which I am a member). 24.90.14.231 16:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess "consensus" on deletion has to mean something other than many many delete votes and a couple to keep. Wow. Consensus must be difficult to achieve often on the Wikipedia. Nevertheless, my comments about the quality of this article stand. Nothing in the body of the article is independently verifyable. Update it to reflect how incredibly speculative it is or else delete it. To leave it in its present state is to damage the quality of the Wikipedia. CaptainMarvel 11:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

All this is sort of moot now: the site is down. --tranquileye 13:34:53, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

I'd compare this to a sheriff protecting a guy from the lynch mob even though he knows the man is guilty. There was no substantive argument brought in favor of keeping the article. But there was a big ill-mannered rabble roused to delete it. At this point it is up to the good-faith editors to reduce the article to those facts which are verifiable, NPOV, and encyclopedic. Rabble need not apply. Dystopos 14:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with this analogy. Xed added and searched out more information for the article that was based on old google searches and guesses. Xed was acting as judge when he should have acted as a sherrif and found someone with a bit more wisdom than tenacity. Xed doesn't know anything about FP over what Google or JohnnyDark told him. Now that I'm more familiar with Wikipedia, I realize that's its greatest strength and flaw, one completely misguided person must fabricate or drum up reasons for keeping an article even if those 'facts' are dubious. Xed doesn't have an account on FP (nor does Linnwood for that matter, hear that Xed?) and had never heard of FP and so his input should not have been given so much weight. In this instance, Xed acted like a prosecutor trying to keep a suspect in jail.AndreTorrez 19:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)