Ashley Van Haefton's double standard?, a stressful position Options

[carbuncle]

A user named Tuxdiary uploaded some pictures of their penis to Commons, as one will do. For reasons which aren't apparent -- but should probably be irrelevant -- they then decided they didn't want pictures of themselves ejaculating available on Commons anymore. So they asked for the images to be deleted. This sparked an argument between two trolls, Ottava Rima and Fred the Oyster (AKA WebHamster (T-C-L-K-R-D) and a bunch of other sockpuppets).

Then Ottava accidentally said something interesting:

User:Fae had an image speedy deleted by user request. Hundreds of others have also. We delete both text and images. Just because someone puts forth a release does not mean that we are permanent host or that the material has to be hosted anywhere. I don't think you understand how Commons operates. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to make random DRs a forum for you to lobby against me. Your comment is highly inappropriate. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Lobby against you? At no time did I say the speedy deletion was incorrect. You are making false claims about my comments yet again. Are you really looking to be blocked? Because you don't seem to get that you can't just make up things like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Quoting my name here on a sex related deletion request that has nothing to do with me, I have not even commented on and with regard to an unrelated deletion that I have made no comment about on Commons is not appropriate. This appears to be deliberate and personal harassment. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sex related discussion? According to your other posts, these are just educational images. Odd how you create some sort of double standard. You were a recent case of a speedy deletion by user request. If you don't like that, why request it? It was your action and it is a public action. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, despite the thread title, Van Haefton has not said that this image should not be deleted, only that mentioning the analogous deletion of his image is "deliberate and personal harrassment".

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Thu 22nd December 2011, 5:47pm

[Somey]

Indeed, the reason I made Mr. Kohs' avatar and uploaded it to our images folder was precisely to avoid having us all get into this very conversation.

Remember that at the time (late 2006), various people on Wikipedia were convinced that Mr. Kohs (along with numerous other WR members) wanted to "harvest" everyone's IP address for some undisclosed nefarious purpose, and Wikipedia Review actually didn't have a logo then, either.