User talk:Publicgirluk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See block log.
(toolbox: contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)


Editors are requested to ensure before posting that the content is appropriate and for the benefit of wikipedia (see WP:User page). Tyrenius 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Attention: User:Publicgirluk is a wikipedian, and is entitled to the same respect as other wikipedians. If you have come here to compliment her, or complain to her do so respectfully, and in accordence with Wikipedia:Etiquette. HighInBC 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Note: Please do not leave your email address here, for the sake for your inboxes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Publicgirluk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 09:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Hello, Lindsay

Lindsay, you are HOT!!! If you ever make it to the States, look me up, I'd love to walk naked with you down the streets of San Francisco! --Uilleam--71.133.184.102 22:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Uilleam - I'm not Lindsay nor do I know her - just my contribution to Wikipedia. --Publicgirluk 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

Absolutely Amazing!, I love your hair, how to goes from a nice brown into a lovely blond color, when I get some free time, I'll draw a picture of you, ~Penguin

Thanks for the comments. I'm delighted that my contributions are valued. --Publicgirluk 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are, you gave me a good time. Continue! 84.202.133.179 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Note, a lot of the messages included email addresses, and out of the sake for their inboxes, the email addresses have been hidden by me. The comments are still there, but you have to click "Edit" in order to see it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A (relatively) serious request

Hi, an image that you modeled for and uploaded was used in the article Pearl necklace (sexuality). There is a consensus among the editors that while the picture itself has many fine attributes (as do you) it really isn't an accurate depiction of a Pearl Necklace. Is it possible that you would be willing (strictly for the sake of encyclopedic interest) to provide a more accurate image? While I'm actually serious about this request, I'd also like to add that if you're interested in having someone review your future adventures in modeling , you're most welcome to contact me via email. Thanks for your contributions to WP, and have a great day :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Doc. None of my pictures are modelled specifically for wikipedia they are just suitable pictures of me from my own personal collection. I thought the picture was representative but happy that others don't. If the bf takes a better one I'll upload it. --Publicgirluk 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, you seem to have your own fan-club here. It's obvious that your work is greatly admired :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
grins Indeed. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 21:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, glad to see you're contributing, email me if you want! --TheM62Manchester 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


It is nice to know that I cause a stir Publicgirluk 09:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] website

Do you have website of your own?

No I don't have my own website, don't see the point Publicgirluk 22:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I bloody well see the point, everyone wants to see you Nessuno834 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Any of my edits are for the benefit of the article and aren't for personal gain. I have no desire to have a website. Publicgirluk 07:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem like a fine, serious girl. You are a nice wikipedian. Maybe the hottest Wikipedian? :p 84.202.133.179 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully I am nice but I don't know about being the "hottest" Publicgirluk 07:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

...very much. HighInBC 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Please see discussion on your work on AN/I. [1] -- Tyrenius 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thank you!

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Can you please take some photos to illustrate Cleveland steamer and Blumpkin? Thanks... 216.9.250.6 21:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No that's disgusting Publicgirluk 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the hassle

I am sorry that you are being harrased, people making indecent suggestions is bad enough, but the nonsense at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is adding insult to injury. So I thought I would give some helpful advice.

It is perfectly acceptable to remove offensive content from you user talk page by deleting it and replacing it with a note with a link to the diff.

Example:

Offensive content removed[2].

This allows you to keep bad manners in their place while maintaining transparency. HighInBC 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the above, but I wouldn't even bother linking to it. Just delete it. If you have any problems, contact me or another admin, or draw it to admins' attention by posting on WP:AN. Please see my response to your post on AN/I. Tyrenius 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi and Re: AN/I

Hi Publicgirluk; I know you were upset by the discussion on the Admin board, and I hope it doesn't deter you from editing. I can only speak for myself when I say that my only concern v/v your pics is the possibility that the person posting them was actually a disgruntled ex-boyfriend posing as the subject of the pictures, which is possible, and would be extremely regrettable. I don't believe you're lying, in any way shape or form, I just feel a sense of protectiveness, as a human being, not necessarily as an editor of WP, towards anyone who might unwittingly be being exploited. Happy editing, and please don't let the pervs get you down. I dig facials too, if I had a bf I might have beaten you to the pic. Anchoress 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have behaved better. Have a cookie.
Wikipedia should have behaved better. Have a cookie.

Hi Publicgirluk, I apologize for rudeness on my or anyone's part in the discussion on AN/I. I believe you are making good edits and feel no ill will towards you, but that the issue is important enough that it demands some attention from Wikipedia administrators, maybe even Wikimedia Foundation officials or lawyers. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 07:46Z

I think, to make it quite clear, it would be right to say that "the issue" means the issue in general, and is not an issue about Publicgirluk in particular. Tyrenius 08:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There are two issues:
  1. What should Wikipedia policy be on image downloading in general? This is constantly debated with no clear consensus.
  2. Is there anything that can be done about Wikipedia's young male American geek demographics? (Europeans are more ho-hum about nudity) WAS 4.250 09:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Note, user accounts can't be deleted! --TheM62Manchester 10:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Not quite sure why that's been raised, but they can be deleted. Everyone has a "right to vanish", which means the user page and user talk page are deleted. The contributions history however is not deleted. Tyrenius 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Umm, why would anything need to "be done" about WP's young male American geek demographic? So far, it would appear that the positive editors are doing a good job of protecting Publicgirluk's page from vandalism and harassment. Why would anything more need to be done? Kasreyn 09:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Request?

Hello! It is nice to see someone is willing to make the kind of contributions you make. I can tell from your talk and contribution history that you took some flak for it, and that's too bad. Your pictures are well done and show the ideas well, without being raunchy porn.

I know you don't take new photos specifically for Wikipedia, but do you have anything in your collection that would be appropriate for the Mammary intercourse article? Right now, all that's on there is a drawing that's not all that great. If you have something, it would be great to get that on there! --Mike Straw 11:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Holding in abeyance until you do, in fact, bounce back. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for the trouble

Hi Publicgirl. I just wanted to say that I'm sorry to see the trouble that the WP:AN/I discussion has caused you. It got out of hand and WP:AGF was forgotten, which should never happen, and I think I speak for everyone when I say that I was sorry to see that happen. I hope that you can bounce back from this incident, and continue to contribute to the high standard that you so far have :)

Yours, Thε Halo Θ 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to Reflect

I would like to thank everyone for their kind words and support, especially Anchoress - thank you for your honesty. I think I shall take some time to reflect before deciding whether I wish to continue to contribute Publicgirluk 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Take all of the time that you need. Even if you do not want to do images anymore, you can still contribute with comments, texts and a variety of other things. I also wish to express my apologies over this situation. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope you will. I've only now stumbled onto the flap at AN/I and I think it would be a terrible shame for the project to lose you as a contributor. And I am referring to your text contributions as well, not merely your images. Best of luck in whatever you decide. Kasreyn 09:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various images and their provenance

As I see you're aware, there is some concern that you are not the copyright holder of various images, including Image:Woman Pearl Necklace.jpg, and others. I'd like to request that you upload a self-picture of yourself (clothed) holding a sign saying "I took this picture for WIkipedia." That should be sufficient to clear up the copyright issues, and avoid their deletion.

I understand how frustrating it can be to have good-faith contributions questioned. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is under a nearly constant flood of images with inaccurate copyright information, all of which put the Foundation at considerable legal risk. For this reason, images that are marked as self-published or public domain but which appear to be of high technical quality, such as yours, tend to come under particularly strong scrutiny. Please don't take that personally. Thanks in advance. Nandesuka

I am sorry you have been asked to do this. Since not one person has provided a valid reason to doubt your honesty I don't see how this request is justified. I am so, so, sorry. HighInBC 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above is one option, which would settle certain things. There are always other options and the matter is still being discussed on WP:AN/I, as it brings up issues that are wider in scope than these particular photos, and has perhaps revealed aspects of wiki that need to be addressed. If you care to participate in this, your contribution would be very helpful. Tyrenius 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It is an offensive and entirely unjustfied request. Such a request belongs on a policy proposal page for all picture uploaders, if it belongs anywhere at all. See what comes of America's weird concern that there is something unnatural about nudity? (or that sex is unnatural, shameful, sinful, and a mistake on God's part) WAS 4.250 22:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I have yet to see any good reason to doubt this user's claim of holding the copyright. If the person uploaded a picture of a tree for instance, no one would doubt their credibility if they claimed to have taken it. So why do we doubt her's? Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Because a lot more issues, both ethical and legal, come into play with pictures of naked people versus trees. There's no age law on tree nudity, for instance. Nor can the tree get upset if naked pictures of it get posted online without its consent. --Cyde Weys 23:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no such law covering these pictures. WAS 4.250 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I (and many other editors) doubt copyrights of photos that are non-nude all the time. There's nothing at all unusual, offensive, or unjustified about asking for proof of ownership of an uploaded photo, and if you think there is, that's just an indication that you haven't been paying enough attention.
I also agree with Tyrenius that my proposed solution isn't the only solution. I'm certainly not committed to that particular solution. I am, however, committed to finding a solution, and "ignore it and pretend there are no issues" is not acceptable. Nandesuka 23:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's assume for a moment the worst-case scenario: that some guy has pretended to be this woman and posted nude pics of her. If even the user is not the woman in the photos, that still doesn't mean that the guy may not be the owner of them. Traditionally, when one attests on the image-upload tag that they are the owner of the image, we accept it until someone proves differently. Again, in the worst-case scenario, if the photographer who took the images pops up outraged that their intellectual property is being used without permission, we do what we have always done: remove them. Wikipedia's policy has always been that the project itself is not responsible for what irresponsible people upload. I think this whole thing has had an extremely chilling effect on an already stunted-in-the-sex-department Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe you are absolutely misstating the Foundation's position on copyright issues, as the extremely aggressive campaigns to find and eliminate improperly licensed images attests. Nandesuka 23:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That is so not the worst-case scenario. --Cyde Weys 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion of policy should be on the the appropriate policy talk page. This wikipedians talk page is a mess over people argueing about things that should be discussed on pages regarding policy. This is just my opinion and I may be wrong, but I hope not. HighInBC 00:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Facial.png

I was going to leave a message in your support, but just found that the image Image:Facial.png has been deleted. What happened? It seems to have been deleted due to "mass bad faith or copyright violating image uploads by a single user". Doesn't the above discussion come out in your favour? Is there any evidence of copyright violation? I thought the outcome of the discussin was to take you at your word = that's what i'd do any way. A debate may be going on elsewhere that i'm missing? If so, send me a message on my talk page and i will contribute. Spute 16:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All of her images were speedied, and one was restored by an administrator. The deletion of these images is undergoing a Deletion Review, feel free to discuss what you feel about these deletions there: [3] Dionyseus 16:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The guy who deleted the images said that the reason given in the edit summary is inaccurate as it was just what was put there automaticly by the tool he used to delete. Ongoing absurd discussions about the unnaturalness of someone feeling ok with their body and other fun reflections of various POVs assumed to be universal can be found at Wikipedia:Policy on private photos of identifiable models Wikipedia talk:Policy on private photos of identifiable models Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate. WAS 4.250 23:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Much has been said in the discussion that I imply my own guilt by not contributing to what is now a lengthy discussion. For a number of admins, the reason for not contributing is going to come as a shock. Not everyone in the world, in fact the majority of people in the world don't have a holiday in the 4th July. Here in the UK, where I am (the clue is in the user name) we have something called a Summer Bank Holiday which was this weekend. As I now come to understand, Wikipedia is a little light on the subject. However, it is a tradional weekend when a significant proportion (typically around 10 to 15%) of the population of the UK disappear on long weekend break normally their last before Winter (cititation here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5283820.stm?ls). As you want me to comment I shall. On some of the specifics of the attacks on me 1) I am amazed on what the experts can deduce from a low resolution, highly compressed JPG file. Or rather I am not. They were taken in my room at universtiy by my BF. There is no studio lighting, props or other professional tools. They were cropped in paintshop pro by me prior to uploaded. I thought that was good manners as I assumed you didn't want to see a shot of my sofa and wall. 2) I am not a sock puppet but I am 22 (It is nice to know I look 5 years younger) 3) My BF and I make a lot of use of Wikipedia in our studies and wanted to contribute to the project. We have two great pastimes - our sexuality and english heritage. Sorry if that is a bit wacky and not like the people you know but that is the way it is. We have made a number of small edits on topics which we felt we could add value. By the way I can recommend the Concorde trip at Filton and no I wasn't the only girl on the tour. 4) I personally find it odd that certain admins feel there is difference between a picture of me with seman and a girl tied up, wearing a ball gag and suspended simply because they are dressed. I also fail to see how using one of pictures to illustrate a "cameltoe" is not sexual either but it takes all sorts 5) Just because comments are made in the third party and sprinked with weasel words. It doesn't prevent the comment from being personal or insulting. 6) Again, it is going to come as a shock, but no I didn't think the contributions would cause this debate. Wikipedia as far as we could tell, has lots of sexually explicit photos, has a bodly presented WP:AGF policy and doesn't detail any form of approval / moderator process. Most of our edits have past without comment. One photo was deleted as it didn't match the topic - something i disagree with but happy with the conseses. One other had a lively debate which quickly reached conseses and everybody moved on. After a significant period of time I am alerted to pages of debate somewhere else in Wikepedia where I appear to have been hauled before the great and the good of Wikipedia admins. My own POV is that every article should have an image - an image describes a thousands words. Wikipedia can do this, and it sets it apart from printed rivals because it can. If an article is not worthy of an image then the article is not worthy of inclusion. In hindsight there is a difference which is that the other pictures are uploaded by males and are not self-pics. I can't help wondering if the BF uploaded them under a male ID whether anyone would raise an eyebrow for being outside the norm. On some of the wider issues raised 7) Wikipedia does need a policy on whether living persons have to prove ownwership of pictures if it is to move forward with a consistent and fairly applied approach to articles or images they may offend in certain cultures. Alternatively it can stay as it is and bite when a picture offends the POV or offends the sensibilities of some of the admins for "not being normal behaviour" 8) I can understand the legal arguments but they apply to many pictures. More importantly, wikipedia is hosted on servers in several countries whose own laws, different to that in the US, apply. This implies that wikipedia would have to operate at the lowest common dominator yet no discussions has taken place on what this is, again a reoccuring theme of US law and US attidue dominate. 9) The number of edits is not a measure of worth. From what I can see most edits on wikipedia consis of formating and correcting typographical errors. I do not have the time to do this and have limited myself to edits which I believe add to the information content of the article.

When I joined wikipedia I did so with a view of what it was, two important elements was it was international in nature and that everyone was equal and had a valid POV. The debates have shown me that this is not the case, that wikipedia is in fact dominated by US editors and contributors who despite their well meaning and obvious loyalty to the project continue to display stereotypically behaviour showing a lack of understanding of anything outside their own borders and judge the world by their own values and beliefs.

Which leaves me on having to decide the way forward. I appear to have two choices; withdraw - delete my images, contributions and ID while undoubtedly hearing a chorus of "no smoke without fire" behind me; or post a photo of me is some kind of verifable pose to satisfy those who can not believe that a girl is comfortable telling people that she likes a man to ejaculate on her face.

Wikipedia is not what I thought it was, while there appear to be genuine understanding people here, there are others who I do not want to be associated with. I posted under WP:AGF and if that isn't sufficient then I am not going to perform like a circus lion for the benefit of a small few. I said in a previous post that I am comfortable with my sexuality, I am not ashmed but proud and I have no problem listening to the "I told you so"'s. I would be grateful if an admin could delete my contributions/images as I no longer give permission for their use. Publicgirluk 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While there has been ugliness on wikipedia lately, I would like to say that throughout your history of contributions you have been reasonable and rational. You have kept civility in the face of both crudeness and insults. I don't blame you if you wish to stop contributing to wikipedia, though I regret it as you seem to be the type of editor we need.
You have been accused of more things than I would care to list here with no evidence brought before you, you have been asked be held to a higher standards than our policies justify. I sincerely apologize for the reception you received here. HighInBC 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with HighInBC and I for one fully understand your desire to leave, I would probably have reached the same decision myself. I haven't seen anyone treated as badly as you have been on wikipedia, I'm sorry for that and wish you the best of luck in the future. MLA 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well written, however I can't applaud you for the conclusion you've reached. I strongly agree with you about a picture being worth a thousand words, but then, shouldn't someone provide the picture? The Wikipedia is only the sum of its contributors. With writing like that, you can be one of the best ones; when I read your first paragraphs, I was hoping you were back to do that. I can understand why you might not want to face the argument; but if you have the ability to make such an impassioned argument, why, then, leave? Note that you have more supporters here than critics, and even some of those who attack your images claim they do so with your interests at heart. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As a point of information, all discussions have been open to all users, including discussions on Administrators' Noticeboard. The site servers are located in Florida, which is the particular reason for concern about US law. Tyrenius 00:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted image

I have deleted Image:Womaninspandex.jpg at your request. If this was not your intention, please let me know and I will undelete the image. By the way, the better tag to use would be {{db-author|brief reason here}}. I am sorry for all the hassle you have had to go through over these images, etc.  :( --Yamla 21:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of people leave then come back

Lots of people leave then come back. I want to assure you that you are very welcome to return to Wikipedia using this or any other name. Thank you for helping wikipedia with everything you have done. Wikipedia and some wikipedians need to grow up, need to learn as well as teach (especially about other cultures attitudes about nudity and sexuality), and especially learn to assume good faith and wikilove are not just about when it comes natural and easy but also when one's shame based upbringing causes moral panic. WAS 4.250 21:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving Wikipedia

I am sorry that things turned out like that. The image deletion summary should have been much more accurately worded (rather than the script assisted one), and I regret for that. But the issues and doubt here were too serious, and this case was far more suspicous than the average sex-related image.

As for "US bias", the problem is that our servers are in Florida and subject to serious US copyright/pornagraphy filing laws. Since image deletions our easily reversed, the images were not critical to any articles, and there are serious possible issues with them, they are temporarily hidden. If all the serious suspicioun clears out, and there turn out to be no serious legal issues, then they can be brought back, though a few of them likely would get end up at WP:IfD shortly thereafter.

As for deleting your account, that is not technically possible. Your contributions cannot be legally revoked either. However, if you want to keep the images deleted, regardless of how this issue resolves, then that is how they will stay.

Although some of your uploads/image additions turned out to be problematic, you are still welcomed to make any other contributions. If you still want to contribute anonymomously, then consider creating another account or using an IP. If you just want to leave period, then that will be respected as well.Voice-of-All 22:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Returning to Wikipedia

I'm glad you're back, as yours was the most important voice and its absence has caused a maelstrom. I'm sure you never intended to, but you've posed a major challenge to wikipedia — and that's no small achievement. You are one in a million. To be more exact, you are currently one in 2,107,062 registered user accounts, as it must be apparent by now that there has been no exact precedent for your contribution. You have created a bit of wikihistory, and you are a trailblazer, even if unwittingly, so that would be a positive way to see things. You are right that there are cultural differences that impinge, and cultural majorities, but your absence will not help to redress that. Wikipedia is part of world social, cultural and intellectual history; and you have a role to play in that.

I think you would like to feel at home with the wiki community, which as you've observed is a very diverse and often contentious one, although I hope you've seen it that it can be a caring and concerned one too. I would like to invite you to take a chance and extend some trust to see what can be done to give you the support which you are entitled to. I think everyone will want to give you that support, and the best way forward is for you to say how that can be given. You obviously don't want to come back to a battleground, but want to be accepted honestly for who you are, so let's try and accommodate that.

I suggest a moratorium on this whole business for a period of time, say a month or a period you might suggest. During that time, we put a stop on anything to do with the photos and their implications. All the discussion is put on hold for that time, and you can find your way into the community without it as an ongoing concern. The discussion may well have to resume (with or without your participation, as you choose), as it has raised issues, not the least of which is the issue of making sure there isn't a repetition of all this. But it doesn't have to resume straightaway. In fact it would probably be best for all concerned if there were a bit of distance and a bit more perspective created.

In the meantime, you can find your way back by editing the articles that interest you and getting to know people, so that you will feel you belong here too. There is a lot of appreciation for your participation, and I guarantee that you will find a lot of support and welcoming. If you are willing to return, then please let us know how this would be best for you, as I think it's only right that we do what we can to redress matters. And for my fellow editors, I suggest that we have not been starved of talking about this, and now it is time for listening.

Cordially, Tyrenius 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (UK)

Well you've certainly exposed some rather nasty parts of Wiki groupthink, a far more sordid sight than ANY jpg. Good luck in your future life. Greglocock 09:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An external link

I've found this issue late. I haven't seen any of her uploads. But I did Google her username. I found this page: [4]

Someone using the same--quite unique--moniker identifies herself as a 25 year old woman. Could this be the same person giving inconsistent information? Is publicgirluk a role player?

lots of issues | leave me a message 07:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing at that page to enable a conclusive decision that it is or is not her. (The unrevealing photo is of a thin white blonde girl that might be the same person but it is not any of the wikipedia photos. The words used are bland and dissimilar to her wikipedia words, but not so much that it indicates someone else.) More important, there is nothing at that page that makes a difference or sheds light on what happened at wikipedia. Maybe she is moving on. Maybe someone else picked up the name after seeing the fuss at wikipedia. Nice detective work, but really ... let's all move on. Let her move on and let's us move on. WAS 4.250 09:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Some new talk.[5] Tyrenius 02:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desysopping Dragons Flight

After reading everthing there is to be found in policy about this issue I see absolutely nothing that would warrant this person being blocked, and to the contrary much that would speak in favour of Dragons Flight being desysopped for banning her summarily and outright. Could her pictures not be simply removed or replaced by anyone with the will to do so? Does she seem like the type to insist on the pictures in question if she were asked to refrain from uploading them? Why the tar and feathering in a place that is supposed to be the predominant domain of average editors? This issue seems to have been forgotten for some weeks but I think it goes straight to the juglar of, not what kind of pictures should be allowed on wp, since anyone can remove them, but what an admin is for and when and whom they can block. For his summary dismissal of the user, especially one seeming so reasonable as she, and particularly in light of the contraversy, and even more so in light of his "will of Jimbo" alibi-ism I think Dragons Flight should at the very least put himself up for reevaluation. grendel's mother 13:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's over. Let it go. Move on. WAS 4.250 13:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ehhhm... why? grendel's mother 13:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Grendel's mother, please see my response on your talk page here. --CBD 12:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The "will of Jimbo" was carried out. It's true our founder didn't do it himself, but he has been asked about it several times, and has made his opinion clear that it was the right thing to do. Here are two consecutive statements: [6] [7]. File me in the "disagree" camp, but given that Publicgirluk isn't putting up much of a defense any more, I don't believe it's worth fighting her fight for her. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That was my impression.. any we can forget about this specific user altogether, the issue is the way the ban is used. Either it has to be used the way it is described in the guideline (which I know is currently being nibbled at) or it should be re-written by Jimbo himself, as a wiki-commandment say. As I replyed to CBD, I understood Dragons Flight had bent or broke the (existing) blocking rules before I understood there are other avenues of opposition than desysopping, so I apologize for jumping the gun. But apparently users on WP are also blocked without the other avenues of due process, warnings, or assumption of good faith, are branded trolls and treatened with expulsion on first subjective sight (viz personal experience here) when there is no clear harm intended. This is very dangerous, as policy or even precedent. Also I am in favour of a notification system when any particular admin has made an inordinate number of indefinite bans. By all this I do not intend to "champion" any particular user, past or present, but I think there are some nasty things at play that should be vigorously addressed. Best, grendelsmother 14:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should focus on getting this user unblocked first and foremost, a much more pressing task and also much easier to accomplish. I have no idea how, but almost anything would be easier than getting the blocking admin desysopped. Everyking 07:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Before being blocked, she left of her own accord - see this very talk page, above. Do you have any information that she wants to contribute further? AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I don't think it matters. She didn't do anything wrong, therefore she should have the opportunity to contribute if she wishes. Everyking 13:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
So you recommend we spend time and energy arguing to get this user's ability to contribute reinstated, after which, if we succeed, she will keep not contributing? AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don’t really think this is the main point anymore. It would be nice if she were unblocked - every time mistakes are righted it is a victory for WP – but whether the user is unblocked or not, the issue remains the concept of the indefinite block as a tool for bettering wikipedia, and whether it is used somehow justifiably, or to eliminate people who don’t correspond to certain admins’ ideas of a proper contributor. By nature it should be pretty hard to be blocked from “the encyclopaedia anyone can edit”, but it looks like it can happen when some sysop wants to further his own ends, in this case, it seems, to win points with the founder. There should be absolutely no tolerance for blocks that show any indication of that kind of intent. grendelsmother 15:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please forget about desysopping Dragons Flight. He was acting in what he saw as the best interests of wikipedia, based on what Jimbo had said, which had to be taken with due weight. At the time there was a maelstrom going on about this, and it was causing considerable disruption, which ended when she was blocked. It may have appeared at the time that she was the cause of the disruption, but I have since reviewed all her edits and interactions with other editors, and, up until the discussion on AN/I, there had been no problem.

She had worked well with other editors (including admins), accepted consensus, when it went against her, and her two most controversial images were not even in articles (one was linked). She had no warning that anything she was doing was wrong; in fact she had received a great deal of encouragement and support. It had not at any time been indicated to her that her images were unacceptable or that she would have to provide proof of origin. There is no evidence that she was deliberately doing anything to cause disruption. She was criticised in the AN/I discussion for material on her talk page, but she didn't put it there, and was never advised to remove it (an admin intervened to hide some email addresses, but did not say anything else to her). I am not aware that any editors have been censured for leaving inappropriate messages.

She didn't know about the AN/I discussion at first, and, when she found out, contributed only twice, wanting to withdraw her work and stop the controversy. If that had been acted on, it would have settled the matter. Unfortunately it wasn't. It seemed to be generally assumed at the time that Jimbo's comments were an inviolable ruling, but I understand from JoshuaZ from his email correspondence with Jimbo that this was not the case.

Even bearing all that in mind, it will not be helpful at this stage to start another massive ongoing discussion like the last one. However, I know there is still dissatisfaction concerning this case, and this is itself unusual for someone indef blocked as a "troll", where the facts normally speak indisputably for themselves. If the block is removed, it will at least bestow the benefit of the doubt, and should the editor return, it will be easy to reblock if the account is indeed used for untoward purposes. Rather than a discussion, a more straightforward approacy sucyh as a simple straw poll would be preferable to at least test the water as to where the community now stands on this.

Tyrenius 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll sounds good. Everyking 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the poll, and thanks for the most reasonable run-down of the situation I've heard so far, but I would be even more in favour of a straw poll limiting admin banning powers, perhaps in this way and/or, as promoted elsewhere, some automatic notification when an admin is making particularly frequent use of the indefinite block. grendelsmother 19:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
She should be unblocked by the admin that blocked her with as little muss and fuss as possible. This entire affair is a stain on wikipedia's reputation. I just reread that last sentence and can't decide if I should reword it or not. WAS 4.250 20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source of the photos

The photos uploaded by Publicgirluk are from a porn site. More details are on Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Publicgirluk. Tyrenius 02:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (back to wikibreak)

That discussion has since moved, first to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive131#User:Publicgirluk and then to Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate. Also, I might ask "what porn site"?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion has been archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive138#Publicgirluk. --84.248.206.99 02:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nandesuka's "sex-hating fascists"

Nandesuka, I don’t recall anyone “yelling loud and long about how people who felt these pictures were likely not suitable for use were probably just sex-hating fascists”, the issue (at least the one I have been on about) is that no one should be blocked indefinitely when there is no evidence of foul play, or before they are asked to stop doing what they’re doing. This self-righteous tone is not deserved, because in any case the user was not warned to desist or face a ban. That is what the issue is. WP does not ban the non-incorrigible. Even if this had been discovered immediately, s(he) should have been told to stop, and then put on probation for a term if she didn’t; your triumphalism shows just how much you're missing my point, the problem is not sex-hating fascists but block-loving fascists, please do make an effort to see past it. grendelsmother 07:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, and it is a point I have made above, but please state it in a collegiate way to defuse rather than inflame tensions. Thank you. Tyrenius 12:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Two things here.
First off, Grendel's mother, if you don't recall anyone making the argument that those who viewed this obvious troll as such were prudes, then I can only assume that you weren't actually following the debate. Because I assure you, that argument was a constant drumbeat.
Second, I agree with you that Wikipedia does not ban the non-incorrigible. A user who engages in such outrageous trolling as publicgirluk — uploading hardcore pornography with an identifiable face, pretending to be the subject, and lying about the copyright and provenance of the issues — is clearly incorrigible. To claim otherwise is simply unsupportable. We are not here to provide a playground for those who want to abuse the encyclopedia in ways that put the Foundation in clear and present legal peril. Such users can be blocked immediately. Such users should be blocked immediately. And such users will be blocked immediately. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 12:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
As I've pointed out above, there was nothing in the user history to show that was the case. If you don't think that is so, then check through all her edits yourself. It is only now that we have some definitive information on the photos and can say what happened with some certainty. There is actually still no proof that it was not the subject who uploaded them. It is advisable to see the current issues on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons as a guidance to making comments on living people.
Can we please not draw up battle lines, but seek a way of working together to find a more harmonious way of dealing with such things in the future. Extreme language is not conducive to a good working environment.
Tyrenius 13:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Nandesuka, the record of your line of argument here shows it was based entirely on copyright considerations and whether the photos should be pulled for that reason (which I have no problem with). You have only been talking about „outrageous trolling“ since Jimbo said it; there was no evidence of trolling then - read the user’s other entries as suggested - so there was no assumption of good faith before you banned the user, you yourself did not see them as incorrigible until prompted by Jimbo. Furthermore you called me a troll and threatened to ban me as well, illicitly closed this page, and censored my comments to Dragons Flight, all within minutes of my posting this section. Since I have found that you are an avid user of the indef ban. This is the crux of my complaint, it has little to do with publicgirluk specifically. I would like to edit more and police your blocks less, but I think it needs to be done in light of the above. Please reconsider the way you confront users who may not be entirely in line with policy and the way you use the indef block, that’s all I ask. grendelsmother 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me be perfectly frank: yes, I think that repeatedly calling for the desysopping of Dragons' Flight over this issue — especially since it has been painfully demonstrated that he was right, and especially given the intemperate language you are using — constitutes trolling. I absolutely support the protection of this page, since it is being used for nothing more than fomenting drama, but I am unwilling to wheel war over it. Nandesuka 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

■ i call it glamor photography! bring her back! :D Mroblivious1bmf 04:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is hilarious!

Publicgirluk has garnered more attention for herself — presumably — than most wikipedia editors could dream of. Some porn-addicted editors above poured out sentimental consolation to her, recognising her stand against censorship by showing herself with jizz on her face, as if the enormous attention would not gratify her ego. Other editors wanted her to come over for sex, asking her to email them, or to post more pictures for them to wank over. But somewhere, in this great debate, the idea was lost to many editors she could register with a new account — even post some jizz faced pictures with bona fide verification — or edit anonymously. It is difficult to see how banning her was a great evil. It seems those who are most upset about it want intellectual porn; that is, pornography on an intellectually motivated website. Rather than go out and get laid, nerds want to defend publicgirluk because she is one of the few attractive female editors who want to exhibit themselves. However great the tragedy is for wikipedia, publicgirl has become famous; her contributions to wikipedia caused a storm which many people would be proud of, to be important enough to be the centre of attention. Political debates like this one make wikipedia so entertaining. Thank you for the entertainment! Rintrah 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I should correct myself: the pictures come from a swedish pornstar who uses the psuedonym "Linda Lust" — I discovered this information using a google search. Pictures of said pornstar show a person who looks identical. My entertainment is over — off to bed. Rintrah 19:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree with you on any of your above points, it's highly unnecessary (unencyclopedic, if you will) to attack people simply because they posted above and/or (probably and) like sexually explicit pictures of women. It's everyone's right to enjoy what they want and who they want; if people wanted to look at this girl (whether the pictures were genuinely of her or not; I've never seen them, so I can't comment), you shouldn't demean them by calling them "porn-addicted" or "nerds" or whatnot. Not to garble an excellent song's meaning, but Que sera sera, whatever will be will be. -- Kicking222 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is hilarious, and fake too

I just heard about this and followed Rintrah's advice. The pictures are in fact those of a swedish porn star! Here are some (non-explicit) pictures in case anyone else needs any proof: [8]

I can't believe the problems some editors cause Tom Michael - Mostly Zen Image:Baby_tao.jpg (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)