Commons is broken

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:52 pm

As most of you know, I'm not an Ottava Rima fan. I find this exchange with mattbuck and herbytime to be over the top.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=65232387

Keep running through the newer diffs and tell me why these guys should be administrators.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:57 pm

Putting Ottava's talk page on watch.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:15 pm

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3AOttava_Rima

Herbythyme also removed Ottava's talk page access before changing his mind and undoing his change.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:46 pm

In a similar vein, there is a new "Commons is damaging Wikipedia" thread on Jimbo's talk page, started by Robofish (T-C-L).

Commons, meanwhile, has decided to put web forums like this one and Wikipedia Review, where the Beta M allegations were first posted, on its spam blacklist. That's one way of dealing with criticism.

The ironic thing here is that Mattbuck, who wants to ban anyone who posts here or at Wikipedia Review, was the first to link to Wikipedia Review in the Beta M thread on Commons.

His enthusiasm for putting this site on the Commons spam filter may be related to the fact that he is mentioned on the main page blog this week.

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:10 pm

Commons becomes more and more as english wikipedia. Here's a wikilove message http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... arnstar.21 mattbuck left at Herby's talk. Now Herby removed it, but before he did I told mattbuck what I think about his wikilove message http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69780385 If somebody else awarded another editor with such barnstar he/she would have been blocked.

Fuzzgun '91 · Unread post by **Fuzzgun '91** » Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:16 pm

HRIP7 wrote:In a similar vein, there is a new "Commons is damaging Wikipedia" thread on Jimbo's talk page, started by Robofish (T-C-L).

In that thread, Wnt is being either particularly delusional or deliberately misleading; he contends that Beta M would have been blocked by consensus on Commons if only the WMF hadn't done so before they had the chance. It's important to destroy the credibility of this counterfactual so that Wnt and other Commons apologists cannot use it to control the narrative here. JN, DC, and Lilburne have already jumped in to discredit Wnt's take on the whole thing, but it would be helpful if some respected Wikipedia users who aren't associated with this forum or WR would take the time to do the same.

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:54 pm

TheKosher is blocked by russavia for a month http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... of_1_month

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:17 pm

What the WMF could do is disavow the Current Commons and copy all the non-controversial pictures into a new Commons under the jurisdiction of Arbcom and set up some reasonable accountablity that everyone would have to follow. Anyone who wants to be an admin would have to RfA through meta and earn their way with the entire community. The old Commons would no longer be under the umbrella of the WMF and they can do what they want.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:19 pm

How on earth is that block within policy?

Fae, Russavia, Wnt, Bigdee, Saibo, Naibot, etc need to be shown the door.

How is it that there are no rational adults taking exception to the bizarre behavior on commons?

The *spam* blacklist being modified in an hour, with only German speaking account participating, for a novel BADSITES purpose...

Jimbo better sit up and take notice. The nutters are running commons.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:21 pm

rhindle wrote:What the WMF could do is disavow the Current Commons and copy all the non-controversial pictures into a new Commons under the jurisdiction of Arbcom and set up some reasonable accountablity that everyone would have to follow. Anyone who wants to be an admin would have to RfA through meta and earn their way with the entire community. The old Commons would no longer be under the umbrella of the WMF and they can do what they want.

Followed swiftly by removal of the underlying hosting.
What a fucked up place commons has become.

edit:stupid typos

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:31 pm

mbz1 wrote:TheKosher is blocked by russavia for a month http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... of_1_month

I have protested this vigorously. It is absolutely against everything that the opensource movement originally stood for (much of which I still believe in, incidentally).

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:35 pm

Being a FOSS contributor myself, it's hard to imagine that if the people from commons were, in any way, involved with the early attempts to draft the GPL/LGPL that we'd have anything other than a mile high stack of penis pics...

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:51 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
mbz1 wrote:TheKosher is blocked by russavia for a month http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... of_1_month
I have protested this vigorously. It is absolutely against everything that the opensource movement originally stood for (much of which I still believe in, incidentally).

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69867239

Being able to speak the truth is far more important than uploading another picture of a penis.

Are you sure? For commons it is other way around.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:00 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
mbz1 wrote:TheKosher is blocked by russavia for a month http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... of_1_month
I have protested this vigorously. It is absolutely against everything that the opensource movement originally stood for (much of which I still believe in, incidentally).

...and Russavia's now put you "on notice" as well, I see.

They're not big on vigorous protest, I guess.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:31 pm

Mason wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
mbz1 wrote:TheKosher is blocked by russavia for a month http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... of_1_month
I have protested this vigorously. It is absolutely against everything that the opensource movement originally stood for (much of which I still believe in, incidentally).
...and Russavia's now put you "on notice" as well, I see.

They're not big on vigorous protest, I guess.

I see Russavia has linked http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69905441 to this http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/Edward ... 13637.html which is a publicly visible version of the 'notice' served up by WMUK of my supposed 'real life harassment', which was never evidenced or explained by WMUK and is now being used to intimidate and harass me. Too much 'harassment'.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:14 pm

Now, apparently, Matt Buck believes that it is not permissible to say that User:Fae is Ashley Van Haeften, even though Fae self-identifies as a trustee of the WMUK, Ashley Van Haeften.

20:01, 16 April 2012 Mattbuck (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 21 revisions on page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: content hidden (Inappropriate personal information)

This just gets ever more weird and silly.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:41 pm

thekohser wrote:Now, apparently, Matt Buck believes that it is not permissible to say that User:Fae is Ashley Van Haeften, even though Fae self-identifies as a trustee of the WMUK, Ashley Van Haeften.

20:01, 16 April 2012 Mattbuck (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 21 revisions on page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: content hidden (Inappropriate personal information)
This just gets ever more weird and silly.

Perhaps they'll add the site that outed him to the blacklist?

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:42 pm

thekohser wrote:Now, apparently, Matt Buck believes that it is not permissible to say that User:Fae is Ashley Van Haeften, even though Fae self-identifies as a trustee of the WMUK, Ashley Van Haeften.

20:01, 16 April 2012 Mattbuck (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 21 revisions on page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: content hidden (Inappropriate personal information)
This just gets ever more weird and silly.

Mattbuck is a loon.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:51 pm

Mason wrote:
thekohser wrote:Now, apparently, Matt Buck believes that it is not permissible to say that User:Fae is Ashley Van Haeften, even though Fae self-identifies as a trustee of the WMUK, Ashley Van Haeften.

20:01, 16 April 2012 Mattbuck (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 21 revisions on page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: content hidden (Inappropriate personal information)
This just gets ever more weird and silly.
Perhaps they'll add the site that outed him to the blacklist?

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:25 am

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69918320

You can try to silence criticism all you like, but it's too late - we all know that (like most of Commons' subjects) the Emperor has no clothes.

I wonder if he meant to say

You can try to silence criticism all you like, but it's too late - we all know that (like most of Commons' subjects) Fæ has no clothes.

Silent Editor · Unread post by **Silent Editor** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:21 am

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... oticeboard
Fae said:

By definition anyone posting on Greg Kohs' forum is a supporter of that forum.

By definition?

If that is the case, wouldn't it follow that anyone posting on Commons is a supporter of Commons?

And that anyone posting on Fae's talk page would similarly be a supporter of Fae?

- Silent Editor

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:45 am

link
A very long discussion on Jimbo's talk page seems to be drawing to the consensus that Commons is broken and that the only people who like it how it is are a small cabal plus Wnt coming up with his oddball stuff.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:38 pm

lilburne wrote:
thekohser wrote:Now, apparently, Matt Buck believes that it is not permissible to say that User:Fae is Ashley Van Haeften, even though Fae self-identifies as a trustee of the WMUK, Ashley Van Haeften.

20:01, 16 April 2012 Mattbuck (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 21 revisions on page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: content hidden (Inappropriate personal information)
This just gets ever more weird and silly.
Mattbuck is a loon.

Would you be willing to release the above image you created into public domain so that derivative works can be made and posted on editors' user pages? I wonder if there are some nice images of fancy frames on commons? Hmmm http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categ ... ure_frames

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Done:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilburnej/6942052280

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:29 pm

lilburne wrote:Done:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilburnej/6942052280

Like I said, that kind of thing deserves to be framed:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Volunteer_Marek

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:49 pm

Neat.

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:07 am

mbz1 wrote:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69918320
You can try to silence criticism all you like, but it's too late - we all know that (like most of Commons' subjects) the Emperor has no clothes.
I wonder if he meant to say
You can try to silence criticism all you like, but it's too late - we all know that (like most of Commons' subjects) Fæ has no clothes.

Now russavia blocked http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... _of_1_week Delicious carbuncle over this comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69948685

Any pictures showing the Emperor with no clothes have been deleted. If only other people were treated the same way when they wanted their images deleted...

Before the block was imposed they had this strange conversation:

Can you please retract this as it can be construed as a direct personal attack on another editor. russavia (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales? I really don't think he would be upset by the comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:14 am

mbz1 wrote:Now russavia blocked http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... _of_1_week Delicious carbuncle over this comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69948685
Any pictures showing the Emperor with no clothes have been deleted. If only other people were treated the same way when they wanted their images deleted...
Before the block was imposed they had this strange conversation:
Can you please retract this as it can be construed as a direct personal attack on another editor. russavia (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales? I really don't think he would be upset by the comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Far more interesting is this statement on theKohser's page:

Note: Any uninvolved admin who is considering looking at the unblock request is requested to contact me via email for private information prior to considering unblocking. Thanks. russavia (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what that "private information" might be?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:35 am

Moonage Daydream wrote:I wonder what that "private information" might be?

"Dangerous stalker", hands-waving, mouth-foaming sorts of stuff, I'm sure.

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:49 am

Moonage Daydream wrote:
mbz1 wrote:Now russavia blocked http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... _of_1_week Delicious carbuncle over this comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69948685
Any pictures showing the Emperor with no clothes have been deleted. If only other people were treated the same way when they wanted their images deleted...
Before the block was imposed they had this strange conversation:
Can you please retract this as it can be construed as a direct personal attack on another editor. russavia (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales? I really don't think he would be upset by the comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Far more interesting is this statement on theKohser's page:
Note: Any uninvolved admin who is considering looking at the unblock request is requested to contact me via email for private information prior to considering unblocking. Thanks. russavia (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I wonder what that "private information" might be?

Not only at the talk page. He added the same request at AN, where I started an unblock discussion, and he might have done it after reading this post http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... a_block.3F
russavia is an extremely dishonest and manipulative user. I've noticed such behavior more than once.

Kevin · Unread post by **Kevin** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:19 am

thekohser wrote:
Moonage Daydream wrote:I wonder what that "private information" might be?
"Dangerous stalker", hands-waving, mouth-foaming sorts of stuff, I'm sure.

The list of information that doesn't want to be free is growing longer by the day.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:41 pm

mbz1 wrote:
mbz1 wrote:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69918320
You can try to silence criticism all you like, but it's too late - we all know that (like most of Commons' subjects) the Emperor has no clothes.
I wonder if he meant to say
You can try to silence criticism all you like, but it's too late - we all know that (like most of Commons' subjects) Fæ has no clothes.

Now russavia blocked http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... _of_1_week Delicious carbuncle over this comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=69948685
Any pictures showing the Emperor with no clothes have been deleted. If only other people were treated the same way when they wanted their images deleted...
Before the block was imposed they had this strange conversation:
Can you please retract this as it can be construed as a direct personal attack on another editor. russavia (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales? I really don't think he would be upset by the comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of an interesting polarisation, I guess.

On Wikipedia, Russavia gets blocked for six months. Niabot gets blocked by Fæ's nemesis, Salvio, for a week, subsequently reduced to 2 days.

On Commons, Russavia blocks Greg and DC for a week each, and adds this place to the spam list.

Greg though is then unblocked (well done, Mbz1!), and Fæ doesn't like it. In the process he pisses off Malcolm Schosha, who demands Fæ be blocked.

Jeez ...

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:54 pm

HRIP7 wrote: It's kind of an interesting polarisation, I guess.

On Wikipedia, Russavia gets blocked for six months. Niabot gets blocked by Fæ's nemesis, Salvio, for a week, subsequently reduced to 2 days.

On Commons, Russavia blocks Greg and DC for a week each, and adds this place to the spam list.

Greg though is then unblocked (well done, Mbz1!), and Fæ doesn't like it. In the process he pisses off Malcolm Schosha, who demands Fæ be blocked.

Jeez ...

And this coming from the head of the WMUK?
NPA, ABF, forum shopping, etc, etc

I think this is about to go 'boom' in Ashley van Haefton's smug little face.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:57 pm

I say again: those fools will repeat all the arrogant mistakes that en-WP made in 2006-2007.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:58 pm

Fae didn't even bother to talk to Zscout370 about his unblock of Greg. The only highly-active Bureaucrat on Commons appears to be... Russavia.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:01 pm

"Could we please have an independent bureaucrat summarize what has happened here and confirm or reject the rationale for Zscout370's unblock decision as stated."

I'm not sure if russavia can be characterized as independent...

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:02 pm

Vigilant wrote:"Could we please have an independent bureaucrat summarize what has happened here and confirm or reject the rationale for Zscout370's unblock decision as stated."

I'm not sure if russavia can be characterized as independent...

Russavia is "independent" enough for Fae, I'm sure!

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:21 pm

Delicious carbuncle has just been unblocked too ...

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:29 pm

Fae didn't like that either

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_ ... ve_members

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:44 pm

Vigilant wrote:Fae didn't like that either

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_ ... ve_members

For someone who suggests it is a bad thing to feed the trolls, he likes feeding the trolls A LOT

Eventually, it might dawn on him that 90% of his postings seem to be related to his campaign to have Wikipediocracy banished from the face of the Universe and this might be having a contrary effect?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:51 pm

I doubt that Ashley has any firmly held convictions at all beyond, "I want what I want when I want it."

He reminds me of other clumsy manipulators who imagine that they are so smooth and sophisticated when everyone else in the room is rolling their eyes as they pass.

Reminds me of an incompetent version of Squealer from Animal Farm.

Silent Editor · Unread post by **Silent Editor** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:57 pm

Vigilant wrote: I think this is about to go 'boom' in Ashley van Haefton's smug little face.

Perhaps time for another clean start?

--Silent Editor

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:05 am

That clean start is unlikely given that his real name is now linked to a tiny shred of power at the WMUK.

He can't change nyms without that either going away or outing the new nym.

Done and done.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:53 am

Vigilant wrote:Fae didn't like that either

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_ ... ve_members

Several years ago I considered putting myself up for admin in Commons. I should have done it so that now I could be helping with this pornographic image mess and helping check the excesses of Russavia and the others. I think in the long term it will prove very fortunate that Fae's attempt to become a Commons admin was blocked because it helped prevent a complete takeover of that site by irresponsible, immature, charlatans.

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:46 am

Cla68 wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Fae didn't like that either

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_ ... ve_members
Several years ago I considered putting myself up for admin in Commons. I should have done it so that now I could be helping with this pornographic image mess and helping check the excesses of Russavia and the others. I think in the long term it will prove very fortunate that Fae's attempt to become a Commons admin was blocked because it helped prevent a complete takeover of that site by irresponsible, immature, charlatans.

I wonder if that would have been such a bad thing. Commons seems like it isn't quite bad enough for the WMF to step and set things right, but just bad enough that that people see that there is a problem. That situation could go on indefinitely. Maybe a few more irresponsible immature charlatans are what is needed.

mbz1 · Unread post by **mbz1** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:25 pm

I wonder what Fae meant under http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=70025440

to recognize self-declared or convicted paedophiles

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:13 am

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geitost&diff=70026138&oldid=69995932

Why do these people interpret every comment as being "harassment"? Apparently, they believe that the sysop who's threatening to block an user is the one being harassed rather than the user who's being threatened.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:35 am

I've removed a couple of posts here, along with replies to them, that were in violation of the posting rules that greet new registrants at this forum, to wit:

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated [...] material

There is a difference between legitimate criticism on the one hand, and taunting and personal vilification on the other. The business of this board is to be a venue for the former, not the latter.

No repeats, please.

Apologies to the Wikimedian who was the target of these comments.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:55 am

It was a taunt, and I apologize. I'm sure no similar apology will come from Mr. Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for his taunt.

It would also appear that Van Haeften will continue his refusal to heed the advice he deleted, by critiquing me (by name) after I specifically advised him not to.

I suppose I might engage on Commons in an effort to strike my name from his comments, and I will scream "outing" and "harassment" to anyone who might complain.

Fae is also already lying about being called "faggot" here, which he was not. That offensive word was never used.

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:44 am

thekohser wrote:It was a taunt, and I apologize. I'm sure no similar apology will come from Mr. Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for his taunt.

It would also appear that Van Haeften will continue his refusal to heed the advice he deleted, by critiquing me (by name) after I specifically advised him not to.

I suppose I might engage on Commons in an effort to strike my name from his comments, and I will scream "outing" and "harassment" to anyone who might complain.

Fae is also already lying about being called "faggot" here, which he was not. That offensive word was never used.

Having seen at least a couple of the messages that were deleted, I was willing to accept that the "fae got" incident was the result of accidentally bolding an extra word, but you seem to be saying now that it was deliberate. If that is the case, I don't see much difference between what you did and actually using the word faggot.