Commons is broken

[dogbiscuit]

Headshot!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=72994986
He's going to need some ointment for that.

So, basically, the arguments don't matter, it's whose making them ? I can be hypocritical if I want to, I don't hide my interesting patterns of editing at Wikipedia. -- User:Claritas|Claritas

Ah, a Wikipedian who doesn't understand that hypocrisy is not just a complicated way of spelling liar.

[Vigilant]

There's the crux of it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=73054438

Pieter Kuiper has on numerous occasions identified copyright violations uploaded by Commons administrators, and nominated them for deletion. In the majority of cases, these files were deleted after review.

A number of the administrators and editors calling for Pieter Kuiper to be banned have been among those who uploaded copyright violations identified by Pieter Kuiper

If the admins on commons would just quit uploading copyright violations, then we could all get along.

[piku]

If the admins on commons would just quit uploading copyright violations, then we could all get along.

To get along, admins should just follow the rules of the game: when a possible copyright problem is pointed out, they should respond at the DR, without making revenge nominations at "User problems" boards. As it says in the notifications:

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination.

But it is an old tradition. For example Lar blocked me two years ago for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... CN9523.JPG. To these nawabs, a DR is an insufferable insult. Their long toes experience "harrassment" and "intimidation".

[plix tixiplik]

The edit war and subsequent blocking over your "wall of shame" after the Lar DR was one of the more bizarre moments I've seen on Commons.

It's a shame the worst users/admins are the ones that stick it out the longest. At one time you would be unblocked by now because of common sense arguments from decent users like Slaunger, MGA73, Herbythyme, Jayen466. Even Rd232 tried until the latest episode. Now you're left with the worst of the worst like Fae, Russavia, Cirt, Mattbuck and White Cat.

If it came down to a vote on the VP, or other high profile page, whether to amend the harassment section of COM:BP to include (words similar to):

"Nominating a user's files for deletion while in a dispute with the user is considered harassment and may be subject to a block"

I wouldn't like to predict the outcome, though it would be heavily argued for by the same kangaroo court on the AN/U sub-page, most people probably wouldn't care. DR's aren't meant to be taken personally, even in a dispute a copyvio is a copyvio is a copyvio and should be deleted. You've just made too many admin and admin-wannabe enemies by being correct

[Vigilant]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=73597125

===Statement by Claritas===
This page is evidence that PK produces an unnecessary amount of drama. Any user so controversial is unlikely to be of net worth to the project, due to the effort wasted in persistently discussing his/her behaviour. --[[User:Claritas|Claritas]] ([[User talk:Claritas|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Translated into human speak and we have "We keep being bothered by Pieter pointing out our copyright violations. Since we've done this a lot and we keep talking about him, we should ban him so the rest of us can get on with the flickr washing..."

[piku]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69419426

I had made this deletion request of two files. Jameslwoodward forgot to delete the second one. Now someone removes the DR tag with the argument that I am blocked. Strange people.

[Tippi Hadron]

Meanwhile, Matty No-Mates continues to live up to his compassionate reputation.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Autofellatio-image.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Jazzz47 as Speedy (User'sRequest) -mattbuck (Talk) 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep - image is in use, and has been on Commons for 18 months. It's a bit late for uploader's remorse. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Paging Moxie.

[Vocal]

[...]It's a bit late for uploader's remorse. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Matty, when it is not too late for uploader's remorse?

[dogbiscuit]

[...]It's a bit late for uploader's remorse. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Matty, when it is not too late for uploader's remorse?

Can I now ask all the Fae supporters to consider what their position is now? A pretty identifiable and embarrassing picture. If it is not deleted, then you have the proof of what hateful shits that group of Wikipedians are.

[Mason]

Ymblanter has been contributing to Commons for less than a year. Once he has been there as long as Carrite perhaps he will have learned some manners.

His old account was Yaroslav Blanter.

He used to be an arb on ruwiki, and has a bio on enwiki. A year ago he asked for that account to be globally blocked and all his user pages to be deleted.

Huh. Well, whaddaya know, he's "notable."

(I've read that enwiki bio three times, but I still can't figure out what he's notable for.)

In a just a few hours, Mr. Blanter will be an administrator.

[DanMurphy]

Ymblanter has been contributing to Commons for less than a year. Once he has been there as long as Carrite perhaps he will have learned some manners.

His old account was Yaroslav Blanter.

He used to be an arb on ruwiki, and has a bio on enwiki. A year ago he asked for that account to be globally blocked and all his user pages to be deleted.

Huh. Well, whaddaya know, he's "notable."

(I've read that enwiki bio three times, but I still can't figure out what he's notable for.)

Another BANNINATOR!

From 2007 to 2011 he was an active contributor to the Russian Wikipedia. He made contributions to over 10,000 articles (generally not related to his professional activity), was an administrator and a member of the Arbitration Committee. He made over one thousand blocks and deleted thousands of pages.[1].

[thekohser]

I would like to apologize to Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for my recent word-play quip, "Fae got upset". I had hoped that the poke would be received in the playful tone that it was intended, but I erred in that supposition. I don't mean any malice or harm to Ashley. I'm simply interested in the truth about his past and present actions on Wikipedia and determining whether or not he enjoys (or expects) a double standard to apply for him.

Except in the eventual case where he might egregiously offend sensibilities, I'm going to obey a moratorium on discussing Ashley in public.

+1

Now, everyone can move on and Fae can stop bringing it up over and over and over and over again. He may even reflect on his actions, realize the error of his ways, and apologize for his egregious actions.

One can hope! Right, Fae?

Wrong! Two years and three weeks later, Fae is still "bringing it up", continuing the libel campaign.

[dogbiscuit]

Wrong! Two years and three weeks later, Fae is still "bringing it up", continuing the libel campaign.

Greg, you might as well order the headstone engraving now.

[Randy from Boise]

Wrong! Two years and three weeks later, Fae is still "bringing it up", continuing the libel campaign.

Greg, you might as well order the headstone engraving now.

Bringing back my baseball analogy, the only reason Fae's 79 mph fastball gets anybody out at all is because of Greg's miserable, failed joke of yesteryear.

Of course, Jimmy Wales has gotten even more mileage out of an ill considered gun photo, so there you go.

Religious cults need a demon figure and the ruling clique does have unmistakable aspects of a religious cult. Wikipedians as a whole are agnostic, mind you, but the priesthood has a definite religion.

RfB

[HRIP7]

Wrong! Two years and three weeks later, Fae is still "bringing it up", continuing the libel campaign.

And, surprisingly, gets told off for doing so.

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Fæ <faewik at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.
>
> Fae

Fae,

You just did. Arguably, you did even worse by throwing the allegation
out there without substantiation. Nobody's asking you to be friends
with Greg Kohs—it's no secret that I'm not—but you're dredging up
off-list history for no productive reason I can discern.

Since I'm responsible for seeing to it that he's not able to defend
himself here, I feel compelled to ask that you at least keep the
mudslinging off this list.

Austin

[thekohser]

Wrong! Two years and three weeks later, Fae is still "bringing it up", continuing the libel campaign.

And, surprisingly, gets told off for doing so.

That's after I e-mailed Mr. Hair, requesting that Fae's post be removed altogether, since it is untrue.

[Vigilant]

Wrong! Two years and three weeks later, Fae is still "bringing it up", continuing the libel campaign.

And, surprisingly, gets told off for doing so.

That's after I e-mailed Mr. Hair, requesting that Fae's post be removed altogether, since it is untrue.

Gregory!

Did you call that little man a bundle of sticks?!
Did you?!

I have to say that Oliver Keyes, whom I loathe, handled the BadMachine stuff with real dignity.
Take a lesson there Ashley.

[Hex]

That's after I e-mailed Mr. Hair, requesting that Fae's post be removed altogether, since it is untrue.

Another example of why being wedded to antique technology is a bad thing. Good luck getting anything removed from the public archives of their mailing lists, which apparently requires a sysadmin to weed out the post in question and regenerate the archive, which is a pain in the backside to do, so they don't like doing it. Unlike, say, a forum, where a mod can do almost anything at the click of a button. Ho hum.