Publicgirluk

Publicgirluk was a drama-generating troll on the Bureaucratic Fucks RPG and social networking site, Wikipedia. Public girl gained quite a fan base by posting numerous photographs, probably all of herself (although the court of the Bureaucratic Fucks was out on that one until they blocked her altogether). Said photographs were intended to illustrate the mysteries of the 'pearl necklace', as in the one that doesn't come from oysters (depending on the variety of English, it may come from bush or prairie oysters). The rabid interest this generated is illustrated on the old talk page reproduced below.

The exchanges below are authentic excerpts from the wikipedia RPG. Only the e-mail addresses have been changed to protect the retarded.

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 09:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Appreciation

You're gorgeous! I loved the pictures. I don't wanna sound like a perv or anything, but could you e-mail me some more? ([email protected])

Yeah you are very beautiful! Could you email me some too? [email protected]

Really appreciate the pictures. Do you have any more? If you do then could you please email them to [email protected], as I'd like to see a lot more of you!

Could I have some as well? [email protected]

You are gorgeous, i love your tits, could you post more pics here?

I worship you, please send me some pics as well, [email protected]

Hey I liked your pic, would you be interested in sending me a few more please, thanks. [email protected] Nessuno834 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your pictures are absolutely amazing. If you were kind enough to send me any other pictures to [email protected] I'd really appreciate it. Thanks --Corner Soul 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your pictures are pretty neat. Could I trouble you to send some to [email protected]? Thanks. --Roboticrobotics 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey PublicgirlUK, really great photos, any chance you could send some more photos to [email protected]?

Really great photos you've put up here, any chance for an admirer to see some more? [email protected]

can i have a few pics too, please? can i see some more of you ;) - [email protected] 80.0.27.199 22:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's excellent that you provide such great photos for the good of the Wiki. I think we're all looking forward to more of your contributions! [email protected] --Parjay 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you send me some pictures? Thanks [email protected] ~Penguin

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)

This or a similar one was supposed to illustrate the pearl necklace but the camera's too damned high! Publicgirluk says [I'm] a girl [who] is comfortable telling people that she likes a man to ejaculate on her face.

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)

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)

Mr. Bomis' Reaction and (some not so) Bureaucratic Fucks Reaction Thereto

Mr. Jimbo Bomis should know his porn if anyone does. More direct quotes from Bureaucratic Fucks ...

This was to illustrate LaTeX fetishwarez but the top sure looks like PVC. Still, the pants may well be LaTeX.

Jimbo's Take

Here and here.

"It is unfortunate that there was any debate at all here. This was pretty clearly a case of trolling. I would recommend a checkuser on various parties involved to see who else we ought to block in this nonsense. People are really missing the point if they think we should allow this kind of nonsense to go on. This is an encyclopedia, not a free speech zone for trolls.--Jimbo Wales 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)"

Hope that helps. Nandesuka 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems a stunning violation of AGF to assume publicgirluk was trolling without any evidence of it. My respect for Jimbo just dropped a couple of notches, though I expect others will feel the opposite. =) Powers ^T 21:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited to add: isn't his second comment (indef block publicgirl and speedy the images immediately) pretty much an admission that we can never have free-use images illustrating certain things? I mean, if not these then what? Powers ^T 21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think so. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then what kind of images would be acceptable? If the image publicgirluk uploaded isn't suitable to illustrate Facial (sexuality), what image would be? Or are we restricted to illustrations rather than photographs on certain topics? Powers ^T 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we are necessarily restricted at all. But these are sensitive matters and should be discussed on the individual article talk pages and a consensus reached. And it should be done on a case by case basis. Illustrations are certainly appropriate for certain topics for sure. Blanket statements mean nothing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You issue a call for adherence to process, Theresa, but practically every process was short-circuited or ignored in this case. The images were speedied without even a hint of consensus beforehand, little explanation afterwards; the user was blocked because Jimbo, in what I think may have been an offhand remark, commented that she "looked" like a troll (oh yes - and that those of us attempting to assume good faith were "suckers" for doing so). These are not examples of WP procedures being faithfully followed. The community lost its head on this one and is still losing it. So yes, I agree with you, consensus would be nice. But currently, it would appear no consensus is required when a pretty woman uploads sexually explicit self-pics. It's far more meaningful to examine what a system or group does than what it says it will do. Already we have lost at least two editors over this, and those are just the ones we know of. So we can't just say "work the process and it'll go away"; we need to get that new policy page in shape and then use it. Kasreyn 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Note that these issues, by and large, were not decided by the editors on the talk pages of the associated articles (such as Facial and Pearl Necklace. They were decided by editors largely having nothing to do with those pages. So clearly something is not right, eh? Kasreyn 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I simply don't share your views on Publicgirluk's motives here. I don't see her as a poor innocent who was treated badly by the nastly wikipedians. My own views are pretty close to those of Jimbo's although I personally wouldn't have blocked her, Two editors lost? So what? People are always foot stamping and storming off. I've seen it dozens of times before and i simply don't care. Anyway back to the point in hand - I'm not saying "work the process and it'll go away" I'm saying we cannot use this incident to state that " we can never have free-use images illustrating certain things". Is it necessary for us to illustrate perl necklace? I don't think so, I don't even think we need the article - surely it's a dictionary definition? But that's just my personal opinion. The community may think different, but it's pretty clear that someone uploading a picture of a girl covered in spunk should expect to at the very least be willing to assure people that the girl is willing to have the photo appear hear. The fact that Publicgirluk feigned indignation speaks volumes to me. Please do come to the policy debate page. Actually doing something constructive, rather than the endless talk (which is happening on this page) feels good.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spot-on. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd. I thought Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate was the "policy debate page". I'm not sure why you think Publicgirluk "feigned indignation" but it seems like begging the question. And if I recall correctly, the person uploading the picture did "assure people that the girl is willing" -- it's just that a lot of folks didn't believe that person. And if Jimbo's suggestion had been followed (namely that she's an obvious troll, indef block, and speedy all the photos ASAP), she never would have had a chance to do that. Powers ^T 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't debate policy on one incident only. This page is just a waffle/rant page. Actual policy debate is going on here. Wikipedia:Policy on private photos of identifyable models. Please feel free to come and edit, or discuss things on the talk page there. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, LtPowers. Jimbo's word carries astonishing force at WP. I'm sure he has his reasons for thinking Publicgirl_uk was a troll, but he needs to explain what those are. If they're good reasons, I'll be satisfied. I'm not satisfied by an encyclopedia where his mere opinion of an editor gets them blocked. I've left a comment on Jimbo's talk page to this effect. Kasreyn 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo needs to justify his comments. --Golbez 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is about as wrong on this issue as the sun is hot. My respect for him (as well as a number of other persons involved) did indeed drop, and not just by a "couple of notches". —Nightstallion (?) 11:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things still bother me about this. First, that Jimbo failed to provide any reasoning for why publicgirluk was so obviously trolling, and at which point future contributors who try to submit similar material should be considered similarly trolling -- immediately after upload, or only after refusing to take a special "Yes it's me" picture? The second thing is that Jimbo was not obviously speaking ex cathedra -- if his intent was that publicgirluk be blocked immediately he could certainly have done so himself. It seems to me he was expressing an opinion, and a few admins who happened to agree took it as justification for an immediate block without community consensus. Powers ^T 19:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the admin who restored the block after it was reverted claimed that Jimbo had informed him more fully in an email conversation. I don't know what precisely Jimbo said in that email; no one, to my knowledge, has yet requested that information. It occurs to me that when Jimbo's remarks are made in his capacity as (essentially) chief administrator of Wikipedia, such remarks should definitely be on-the-record rather than private. (Of course, his private conversations, when not engaging in his official role, are his own business.) Kasreyn 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

She sure likes her thongs.

This Other MySpace Might Shine Some Light on Public Girl's Intentions

[1]

External links

• Publicgirluk's profile on a forum site where she regularly discusses her fetish for wearing thongs with like-minded others.

Publicgirluk is part of a series on Wikipedia Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.