Revenge is a dish best served petty

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:27 pm

I logged into WP this morning to find that mattbuck had flagged the picture of myself I use there - and here as well - as "possibly unfree", despite my having clearly labeled it as public domain. This without asking me about it on my talk page first, just bam, you're a liar. Nice. I shut that down myself before it became a waste of the community's time having a "my word against yours" argument, when I happen to be the only authoritative source, and telling the truth.

Just now I had one of my infrequent looks at my IRC window, and noticed the following. Yes, I'm quite aware of the "prohibition" on posting logs; but if you're going to have a go at me, you can be damn sure that it's going to go on the public record. I've edited out a couple of lines that were just people joining and leaving the channel.

<Drmattbuck> question
<Drmattbuck> can he DO THIS?
<Drmattbuck> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =564160160
<NotASpy> Drmattbuck: yes.
<NotASpy> I just about did the same.
<Drmattbuck> that is bs
<Drmattbuck> something like this would be speedied from Commons - not own work and no evidence for licence
<NotASpy> it would have been better all round if you had asked Scott about the image.
<NotASpy> he's a long term editor in good standing, a drive by tagging is frankly rude and unhelpful.
...
<kuzetsa> yeah
<Drmattbuck> so he's allowed to ignore the rules everyone else follows when images are not own work because I was RUDE?
<NotASpy> Drmattbuck: seems reasonable.
...
<NotASpy> Drmattbuck: if we think about the image, it was uploaded by an administrator, a user who the community trusts to know about copyright, the image is of the user in question so one would expect he spent time with the artist. The reality is the image was most likely drawn by a girlfriend/partner etc. That's why asking first would have been sensible.
<Drmattbuck> either way it's a clear conflict of interest in the DR
<NotASpy> if it really bothers you, revert him and I'll close it.

It ended there. Nick's supposition was quite weird (I specified the source in my closure!), but idle speculation does me no harm. On the other hand, I do take offense at someone casting an aspersion on my honesty. While I was in the room, no less.

Note also the slip and use of "DR", which makes Buck's actual intent crystal clear. PUF is "a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of a file". Not a deletion request (which doesn't even exist as a term on Wikipedia). Let me guess - he got upset that I've had some of his beloved penis photographs deleted, and decided to get a bit of petty revenge by having my avatar deleted. Then he had a little shitfit when he couldn't have his way.

Class act.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:29 pm

That's one of the more sad and pathetic things I've seen someone do.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:40 pm

Sorry Scott,
You've been editing here and not calling us all shitbags.
Of course, the real shitbags are going to get upset about that.

I once made an analogy comparing wikipedia to the Westboro Baptist Church, to which Ira took a decidedly negative view.

I was thinking about this in the shower this morning and realized, prior to seeing this thread, that the comparison to the Church of Scientology is more apt.
You are being disconnected, made a suppressive person.

You are now fair game.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:51 pm

Vigilant wrote:I was thinking about this in the shower this morning and realized, prior to seeing this thread, that the comparison to the Church of Scientology is more apt.

It's far more apt, and if only for that reason I'm glad you took a shower this morning. (I suspect your family is also glad, but I wouldn't care to speculate beyond that.)

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that a decent percentage of the traffic on the IRC Commons channel(s) is devoted to this sort of "which one of our critics can we express our disdain for today?" activity. I suppose if you wanted to look at it in a positive way, you could say that this sort of behavior is typically found among people who know, or at least suspect, that the days of their being able to do whatever they want, at the expense of the vast majority of others, are numbered.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:07 pm

What larks, eh, Vigilant?

Midsize Jake wrote:It wouldn't surprise me to learn that a decent percentage of the traffic on the IRC Commons channel(s) is devoted to this sort of "which one of our critics can we express our disdain for today?" activity.

I'm on a number of channels, at least partially just to get a feel for what goes on in them - I don't talk much. Strangely, I have no particular desire to be in a channel related to Commons. Can't think why.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:27 pm

Hex wrote:What larks, eh, Vigilant?

Midsize Jake wrote:It wouldn't surprise me to learn that a decent percentage of the traffic on the IRC Commons channel(s) is devoted to this sort of "which one of our critics can we express our disdain for today?" activity.
I'm on a number of channels, at least partially just to get a feel for what goes on in them - I don't talk much. Strangely, I have no particular desire to be in a channel related to Commons. Can't think why.

This may have changed, but last time I was on there regularly the channel was mostly inane chatter that was occasionally drowned out by bots "announcing" things related to uploads. That was a few years ago though, so it might be completely different now.

(I almost never use IRC, though I recently logged in to make sure my "cloak" wouldn't expire, and to see if I could still get into the admin channels.)

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:49 pm

Mattbuck (hi there) has said on my talk page that the "possibly unfree" listing of the picture was purely procedural, and not in response to the particular DR I linked to above. It's only fair to present that statement here. Were it possible, I'd embed it in the original post, but the permitted editing window for it has expired.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:54 pm

Hex wrote:Mattbuck (hi there) has said on my talk page that the "possibly unfree" listing of the picture was purely procedural, and not in response to the particular DR I linked to above. It's only fair to present that statement here. Were it possible, I'd embed it in the original post, but the permitted editing window for it has expired.

Good to see Zoloft's amazing bullshit filter is in working order

.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:24 pm

No evidence for licence, no source. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

So lets see here, it's perfectly acceptable for an anonymous person to upload an image to flickr claiming a free license based on his anonymous word, and for another anonymous Wikipedia editor to transfer it to Commons -- that's all just hunky-dory. But if a responsible and self-identified Wikipedia administrator uploads an image and notes the author personally released it PD to him, that's not OK.

Just exactly how stupid is this mattbuck character?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:39 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
No evidence for licence, no source. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
So lets see here, it's perfectly acceptable for an anonymous person to upload an image to flickr claiming a free license based on his anonymous word, and for another anonymous Wikipedia editor to transfer it to Commons -- that's all just hunky-dory. But if a responsible and self-identified Wikipedia administrator uploads an image and notes the author personally released it PD to him, that's not OK.

Great isn't it? Ottava Rima left me a note on my Commons talk page saying much the same thing: that I could have guaranteed eternal life for the picture if I'd Flickr-washed it. I guess I'm just not evil-minded enough.

Oh yeah, and. (This is an argument I'm preparing to have to put on the PUF listing, which was, inevitably, reopened.) Why would I put a picture of my face in the public domain if it wasn't already? I'm not enough of an egomaniac to think that that Culture would benefit thereby. As I have no interest in the slightest in freely licensing a photograph of my face, I uploaded the picture because its pre-existing PD status meant I could use it legally on WP.

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:51 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
No evidence for licence, no source. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
So lets see here, it's perfectly acceptable for an anonymous person to upload an image to flickr claiming a free license based on his anonymous word, and for another anonymous Wikipedia editor to transfer it to Commons -- that's all just hunky-dory. But if a responsible and self-identified Wikipedia administrator uploads an image and notes the author personally released it PD to him, that's not OK.

Just exactly how stupid is this mattbuck character?

Stupidity =/= malice.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:55 pm

Read Numbers 2 and 3, Mattbuck.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2621

The Wikimedia Foundation is saying your actions suck. Stop it.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:12 pm

Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:17 pm

Hex wrote:Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!

Hmmm, didn't piku get banned for that behavior?

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:40 pm

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. Thank you!

Is this wording usual in a Commons:Deletion requests notification?

Casliber · Unread post by **Casliber** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:46 am

Hex wrote:Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!

I've been listening to a British podcast called "Bleak Expectations" - second time I've heard "Chapter the second" in a couple of days...not hugely original but amusing nonetheless...well, to me anyway

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:16 am

eppur si muove wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
No evidence for licence, no source. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
So lets see here, it's perfectly acceptable for an anonymous person to upload an image to flickr claiming a free license based on his anonymous word, and for another anonymous Wikipedia editor to transfer it to Commons -- that's all just hunky-dory. But if a responsible and self-identified Wikipedia administrator uploads an image and notes the author personally released it PD to him, that's not OK.

Just exactly how stupid is this mattbuck character?
Stupidity =/= malice.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:21 am

@Hex...

My Commons User page is cooler than yours...

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

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:27 am

Hex wrote:Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!

Mattbuck pulled the same exact abusive shit with me.

I now use {{keep local}} on each and every one of my uploads and upload to En-WP. If the bot tags my stuff for transfer to Commons, I remove the transfer notice.

Mattbuck should be ridden out of town on a rail. He is a philosophical pipsqueak, a porn hobbyist, and a vindictive twit.

RfB

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:31 am

So you upload a picture of a type of hot sauce, and it's deleted because of the logo.

Don't most of the airliner photos Russavia(T-C-F-L) uploads have visible logos on the tails and such?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:32 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Hex wrote:Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!
Mattbuck pulled the same exact abusive shit with me.

I now use {{keep local}} on each and every one of my uploads and upload to En-WP. If the bot tags my stuff for transfer to Commons, I remove the transfer notice.

Mattbuck should be ridden out of town on a rail. He is a philosophical pipsqueak, a porn hobbyist, and a vindictive twit.

RfB

Well said.
The fact that he is an admin on Commons is entirely indicative of the rot that infects that project.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:35 am

Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Hex wrote:Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!
Mattbuck pulled the same exact abusive shit with me.

I now use {{keep local}} on each and every one of my uploads and upload to En-WP. If the bot tags my stuff for transfer to Commons, I remove the transfer notice.

Mattbuck should be ridden out of town on a rail. He is a philosophical pipsqueak, a porn hobbyist, and a vindictive twit.

RfB
Well said.
The fact that he is an admin on Commons is entirely indicative of the rot that infects that project.

I upload to Commons only for the benefit of other Wikimedia projects, and to give the image a free license where appropriate. I am deeply concerned about all Wikimedia sites, though.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:21 pm

Hex wrote:Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!

Well, if you will do nasty evil things like uploading pictures of bottles of sauce, you deserve to be tarred and feathered. :irony:

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:42 pm

Hex wrote:Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!

http://williampatry.blogspot.co.uk/2008 ... s-and.html

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:57 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote: Mattbuck should be ridden out of town on a rail. He is a philosophical pipsqueak, a porn hobbyist, and a vindictive twit.
Well said.
The fact that he is an admin on Commons is entirely indicative of the rot that infects that project.

Never forget.

Kept: We don't care about the legality of what our media depict, as long as the media itself is legal. In use, not censored. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Donkey punch" (animated).gif (for this image).

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:32 am

Hex wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote: Mattbuck should be ridden out of town on a rail. He is a philosophical pipsqueak, a porn hobbyist, and a vindictive twit.
Well said.
The fact that he is an admin on Commons is entirely indicative of the rot that infects that project.
Never forget.
Kept: We don't care about the legality of what our media depict, as long as the media itself is legal. In use, not censored. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Donkey punch" (animated).gif (for this image).

What a hypocrite and a liar. He deserves tarring and feathering in Risker Square, the main meeting place of Wikipedians and bisected by Jimmy Wales Boulevard.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:09 pm

Outsider wrote: Well, if you will do nasty evil things like uploading pictures of bottles of sauce, you deserve to be tarred and feathered.

Ha. It was a crap photo anyway; and I should have uploaded it to Wikipedia with a fair use tag, not Commons.

In case there's any doubt, by the way: that photo was only on the Sriracha article for a few months in 2011. Unless Russavia happened to be reading about Sriracha in French, where the picture is still being used, the only way he could have encountered the image would have been by scraping through my uploads list.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:36 pm

Multi-reply....

Mancunium wrote:
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. Thank you!
Is this wording usual in a Commons:Deletion requests notification?

I had never noticed that before. It's apparently been there since 2010. Have a read of the reasoning there and, well, draw your own conclusions.

Casliber wrote: I've been listening to a British podcast called "Bleak Expectations" - second time I've heard "Chapter the second" in a couple of days...not hugely original but amusing nonetheless...well, to me anyway

I enjoy sounding unnecessarily vintage. I think I may have been subconsciously influenced by seeing this a few days ago. (Also, it amazes me that somebody at Yale responsible for transcribing historic documents doesn't know what a long s is, but I digress.)

Randy from Boise wrote: My Commons User page is cooler than yours...

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:08 pm

Hex wrote: ...
(Also, it amazes me that somebody at Yale responsible for transcribing historic documents doesn't know what a long s is, but I digress.) ...

Not a fan of the Vicar of Dibley, apparently.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:41 pm

Chapter the third, in which Prioryman hoists the mighty torch of defending Wikipedia against common sense.

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:04 pm

Hex wrote:Chapter the third, in which Prioryman hoists the mighty torch of defending Wikipedia against common sense.

Totally different situation:

The technical detail is that slightly more than 21 years ago, I was at Pride London with a group of friends and I asked one of them to take a shot of me at the event on my camera, probably on one of my cheap 35mm cameras, verbally passing copyright. This photo has not been published and I own the print (which nobody else owns a copy of), the negative and any scans I create, in fact if I can track down the original print in my spare room, I may rescan at a much better resolution than this current version. I could create an OTRS ticket by sending in an email and getting my friend (who happens to still be alive) to email in against an independent professional address, however this seems excessive considering my statement is already here, the intention of the banned user sockpuppeting to create this DR (who is proudly crowing about his achievement here on Wikipediocracy) and I prefer to keep the name of my friend confidential, which OTRS does not and can not guarantee to do. It strikes me that if I said I asked an anonymous stranger take the photo 21 years ago, verbally passing copyright, this would be easier.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:08 pm

Take Chris Owen to ANI for bad faith nominations.
Another mark against his name.
Beat his ass.

Just noticed this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... n_and_when

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:23 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:
Hex wrote:Chapter the third, in which Prioryman hoists the mighty torch of defending Wikipedia against common sense.
Totally different situation:
The technical detail is that slightly more than 21 years ago, I was at Pride London with a group of friends and I asked one of them to take a shot of me at the event on my camera, probably on one of my cheap 35mm cameras, verbally passing copyright. This photo has not been published and I own the print (which nobody else owns a copy of), the negative and any scans I create, in fact if I can track down the original print in my spare room, I may rescan at a much better resolution than this current version. I could create an OTRS ticket by sending in an email and getting my friend (who happens to still be alive) to email in against an independent professional address, however this seems excessive considering my statement is already here, the intention of the banned user sockpuppeting to create this DR (who is proudly crowing about his achievement here on Wikipediocracy) and I prefer to keep the name of my friend confidential, which OTRS does not and can not guarantee to do. It strikes me that if I said I asked an anonymous stranger take the photo 21 years ago, verbally passing copyright, this would be easier.

From the same discussion:

This is letting technicalities of fine wording and fine interpretation of copyright become an enabling platform for malicious abuse by a blocked user. Even the majority of people on Wikipediocracy think this is daft....

Is this not an argumentum ad auctoritatem?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:51 pm

Wer900 wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Hex wrote:Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!
Mattbuck pulled the same exact abusive shit with me.

I now use {{keep local}} on each and every one of my uploads and upload to En-WP. If the bot tags my stuff for transfer to Commons, I remove the transfer notice.

Mattbuck should be ridden out of town on a rail. He is a philosophical pipsqueak, a porn hobbyist, and a vindictive twit.

RfB
Well said.
The fact that he is an admin on Commons is entirely indicative of the rot that infects that project.
I upload to Commons only for the benefit of other Wikimedia projects, and to give the image a free license where appropriate. I am deeply concerned about all Wikimedia sites, though.

Stop participating in Commons. Tell people WHY you are not participating in Commons. Change doesn't happen in a vacuum. Other language WPs can make use of your graphics without having to use the Commons intermediary — they just need to download and re-upload.

RfB

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:52 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:Totally different situation:

You beauty.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:59 pm

Hex wrote:
Moonage Daydream wrote:Totally different situation:
You beauty.

This was the case I immediately thought of.
One rule for the insiders, another for the outsiders.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:48 pm

Let's get this clear. If an anonymous person uploads a picture to WP or Commons, or indeed Flickr, and says that he/she drew it and declares it PD, nobody is going to challenge it. If an identified editor, who is also an admin, uploads a picture and says that the artist has declared it PD, it can be challenged.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:00 pm

Outsider wrote:Let's get this clear. If an anonymous person uploads a picture to WP or Commons, or indeed Flickr, and says that he/she drew it and declares it PD, nobody is going to challenge it. If an identified editor, who is also an admin, uploads a picture and says that the artist has declared it PD, it can be challenged.

Not quite.
If an identified editor, with whom someone has a need for petty revenge, uploads ....

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:15 am

Vigilant wrote:
Outsider wrote:Let's get this clear. If an anonymous person uploads a picture to WP or Commons, or indeed Flickr, and says that he/she drew it and declares it PD, nobody is going to challenge it. If an identified editor, who is also an admin, uploads a picture and says that the artist has declared it PD, it can be challenged.
Not quite.
If an identified editor, with whom someone has a need for petty revenge, uploads ....

Not all revenge is "petty", sometimes there's a need for it. As in Fram's case.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:52 am

I have now been PERMABANNED from TEH IRC for posting the log snippet with which I opened this thread!

Anger not the petty emperors, for thou shalt suffer the teeeeerrrrible consequences.

Edit: How about that: it seems to have been following Mattbuck turning up to have another massive bitchfest. And as my client scrollback doesn't show anyone mentioning the post in any channel, can we perhaps do an itty-bitty bit of inference as to why I got the following greasy message a few minutes later?

James Forrester wrote: Hello. I have kicked you from #wikipedia-en-admins for posting logs in violation of the strict rule. Your breach of the community's trust is unbecoming, and left me with no choice. There is a valid argument about removing this rule, but this is not the way to start one.

The irony of using a Wikimedia Foundation employee using the phrase "the community's trust" while banning me from a venue that "is not owned or controlled by Wikipedia/Wikimedia" is something I shall savor.

Hmm now, though, what shall I do without IRC access? Oh wait.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:13 pm

James Forrester wrote: Hello. I have kicked you from #wikipedia-en-admins for posting logs in violation of the strict rule. Your breach of the community's trust is unbecoming, and left me with no choice. There is a valid argument about removing this rule, but this is not the way to start one.

He shouldn't talk about unbecoming.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:59 pm

thekohser wrote: He shouldn't talk about unbecoming.

What is that picture even meant to be saying?

Having a look through the others from that set, well... I know that commenting on people's appearance is not particularly useful, but... er. If anybody wants to find me at Wikimania next year, it'll be easy - just look for the guy with this expression.

Incidentally, if Orangemike and Bluerasberry meet up, would they have a fight?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:47 pm

Meanwhile, back on topic, Mattbuck just can't let go.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:02 pm

There would have been no problem had you simply followed correct Commons procedure by requesting a portrait painted with the artist's penis, scrotum and buttocks, and a video of the art work being created.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:01 pm

Hex wrote:I have now been PERMABANNED from TEH IRC for posting the log snippet with which I opened this thread!

Anger not the petty emperors, for thou shalt suffer the teeeeerrrrible consequences.

Edit: How about that: it seems to have been following Mattbuck turning up to have another massive bitchfest. And as my client scrollback doesn't show anyone mentioning the post in any channel, can we perhaps do an itty-bitty bit of inference as to why I got the following greasy message a few minutes later?

James Forrester wrote: Hello. I have kicked you from #wikipedia-en-admins for posting logs in violation of the strict rule. Your breach of the community's trust is unbecoming, and left me with no choice. There is a valid argument about removing this rule, but this is not the way to start one.
The irony of using a Wikimedia Foundation employee using the phrase "the community's trust" while banning me from a venue that "is not owned or controlled by Wikipedia/Wikimedia" is something I shall savor.

This can't stand.
We have an open ARBCOM case where they have declined to look at the IRC behavior of a WMF employee, who reports to James Forrester, due to IRC being unconnected to wikipedia...
Such an unprofessional conflict of interest.
This HAS to go to that case.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:13 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Hex wrote:I have now been PERMABANNED from TEH IRC for posting the log snippet with which I opened this thread!

Anger not the petty emperors, for thou shalt suffer the teeeeerrrrible consequences.

Edit: How about that: it seems to have been following Mattbuck turning up to have another massive bitchfest. And as my client scrollback doesn't show anyone mentioning the post in any channel, can we perhaps do an itty-bitty bit of inference as to why I got the following greasy message a few minutes later?

James Forrester wrote: Hello. I have kicked you from #wikipedia-en-admins for posting logs in violation of the strict rule. Your breach of the community's trust is unbecoming, and left me with no choice. There is a valid argument about removing this rule, but this is not the way to start one.
The irony of using a Wikimedia Foundation employee using the phrase "the community's trust" while banning me from a venue that "is not owned or controlled by Wikipedia/Wikimedia" is something I shall savor.
This can't stand.
We have an open ARBCOM case where they have declined to look at the IRC behavior of a WMF employee, who reports to James Forrester, due to IRC being unconnected to wikipedia...
Such an unprofessional conflict of interest.
This HAS to go to that case.

Absolutely. If ArbCom can permaban people from IRC, they can do the same to Ironholds.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:16 pm

Mancunium wrote:There would have been no problem had you simply followed correct Commons procedure by requesting a portrait painted with the artist's penis, scrotum and buttocks, and a video of the art work being created.

+1!

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:02 pm

Outsider wrote:
Hex wrote:Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!
Well, if you will do nasty evil things like uploading pictures of bottles of sauce, you deserve to be tarred and feathered.

If you want that image to "stick" at Commons, try jamming the same bottle of hot sauce three inches up your poop chute and snapping a blurry image with a cell phone. Then you're protected by the Holy Doctrine of COMMONZIZNOTCENZORED, which is universally accepted (as opposed to, say, the legal doctrine of Fair Use, which is not).

Just a hint.

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:06 pm

Wer900 wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Hex wrote:I have now been PERMABANNED from TEH IRC for posting the log snippet with which I opened this thread!

Anger not the petty emperors, for thou shalt suffer the teeeeerrrrible consequences.

Edit: How about that: it seems to have been following Mattbuck turning up to have another massive bitchfest. And as my client scrollback doesn't show anyone mentioning the post in any channel, can we perhaps do an itty-bitty bit of inference as to why I got the following greasy message a few minutes later?

James Forrester wrote: Hello. I have kicked you from #wikipedia-en-admins for posting logs in violation of the strict rule. Your breach of the community's trust is unbecoming, and left me with no choice. There is a valid argument about removing this rule, but this is not the way to start one.
The irony of using a Wikimedia Foundation employee using the phrase "the community's trust" while banning me from a venue that "is not owned or controlled by Wikipedia/Wikimedia" is something I shall savor.
This can't stand.
We have an open ARBCOM case where they have declined to look at the IRC behavior of a WMF employee, who reports to James Forrester, due to IRC being unconnected to wikipedia...
Such an unprofessional conflict of interest.
This HAS to go to that case.
Absolutely. If ArbCom can permaban people from IRC, they can do the same to Ironholds.

I repeat for at least the 3rd time — ArbCom MUST be forced to commit whether IRC is or is not part of Wikipedia.

RfB

P.S. Name yourself a party in the case, Hex.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:07 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Outsider wrote:
Hex wrote:Petty revenge chapter the second!!

The Commons Gang are clearly crawling all over my uploads with a magnifying glass to find even the slightest problem. How fun!
Well, if you will do nasty evil things like uploading pictures of bottles of sauce, you deserve to be tarred and feathered.
If you want that image to "stick" at Commons, try jamming the same bottle of hot sauce three inches up your poop chute and snapping a blurry image with a cell phone. Then you're protected by the Holy Doctrine of COMMONZIZNOTCENZORED, which is universally accepted (as opposed to, say, the legal doctrine of Fair Use, which is not).

Just a hint.

Better if its jammed up there with the top open and rather than your poop chute that of Russavia, mattbuck, or any of the others over there. Now that's something we'd all like to see.