Commons:Deletion requests/User:Maxxl2/notes
Looks like a 'shit list' of some sort. This surely cannot be an appropriate use of a user subpage. FASTILY (TALK) 05:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- You may also call it documentation. ;-) BTW: Is there any guideline on such issues? --Leyo 08:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- A shit list indeed, this user clearly has it out for me. I don't have anything like this on users I've had problems with, and I've never seen anyone else do this in their disputes with users. Even Pieter Kuiper wasn't this petty. Also note that this page is being used to still assert that I'm a thief, even after that issue has been addressed a thousand times over. Why is this not nuked immediately? Fry1989 eh? 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment It seems just documentation about one of Fry's issues with other fellow members of the community. I can't see any reason to delete even if all what is showed there is available in the history of the file. My personal question is why some admins are so tolerant with Fry. I assume that his contributions to the project make him deserve our esteem, but not to the price of creating first and second class members of the community, as it seems as if Fry's contributions allow him to behave in the way he pleases (and calling another user 'petty' is, to my scarce level of knowledge of the English language, yet another personal attack by Fry, which, as usual, will be allowed without even a warning). BTW, Fry, you did upload some files without proper attribution. It took you three days to acknowledge that (and only after an IP included the attribution information). It's indeed sorted out, but not in the way Fyr keeps on claiming he did. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- The reason it should be deleted, besides the shear pettiness of it, is because Maxx12 is using this to LIE ABOUT ME. He is trying to claim that I am a thief, and that I tried to pass things off as my own. I have already made it abundantly clear to you, Maxx12, and anybody else who knows about this issue, that I did not try and say they were my own at any point. and my history here of thousands of images all attributed to their sources shows it is not in my nature to try and do it either. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and you are protecting a liar. I know you like to claim this is name calling, but when you say something about someone that isn't true, that is a lie and makes you a liar. He is using this to bully and intimidate and shame me, and is making a vendetta out of something he doesn't understand, and YOU are defending it. Fry1989 eh? 22:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Accidental omission does not make you a thief! Either prove I had the deliberate intent to steal these images and claim they were my own pure work, or STOP LYING ABOUT ME, and STOP making a vendetta out of this, and stop defending this bully!. Fry1989 eh? 22:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- +1: Yes if it would be a ‘attack page’ or lies, I don't think this is a ‘shit list’, more like a ‘fact list’. How can be links to filehistories be a ‘shit list’? What is your definition of a ‘shit list’? It's helpful because so many shit is told to argue pointless too long with lies.
Whoever lives from the lie must fear the truth!
-- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 22:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes and ofcourse along comes Perhelion, someone who already doesn't like me. You're hardly an unbiased voice. These ARE lies, because they are being twisted to suggest I deliberately tried to take something and say "this is mine, I made it all myself!". To know that requires knowing the state of my mind, and unless Maxx12 can read minds, he doesn't know if I intended to try and steal them, ore if I accidentally omitted the attribution. Tell me Perhelion, why would I deliberately try and steal these 4 images? I've uploaded thousands of images, I haven't tried to claim any of them as my own and steal them. Why these four??? What is so special about these 4 that made me want to steal them and say they're mine? Anybody with a lick of sense can see I didn't try and steal them, it was an accident. But Maxx12 already made up his mind before he even met me. The very first time he ever contacted me was an accusation of thievery. He didn't ask, he thought he knew and despite my explanations and the files being corrected, he continues to call me a thief. This is a shit list, it is lying, it is bullying. Fry1989 eh? 22:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete Checking where this table is used, currently shows it is not part of any dispute resolution, apart from Fry using it as evidence of disruption. Reading Commons:Talk page guidelines#What may talk pages be used for?, the policy for subpages is actually quoted back to Wikipedia, so best practice there seems encouraged here. As this user page is not a type of archive of user talk page comments, or a subset thereof, but an original analysis which has unclear purpose, this would be better being compiled off-wiki due to it being likely to be seen as disruptive (i.e. it "create[s] a hostile environment for another user") unless it is presented as a table of evidence during a dispute resolution process; however in such a case the table can be added/created on the dispute resolution noticeboard so there is little purpose for a simple table like this to be maintained separately. There is a danger that an on-going un-moderated on-wiki analysis of this sort, will introduce a bias to discussion or create a tit-for-tat escalation, I see little profit in it and such a 'floating' page does not fit within the aims of this project, which does not extend to providing random webpage space for personal note-books unrelated to improving the content of the project or being an active part of resolving disputes. Now, can everyone think about how to get back to staying mellow? --Fæ (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's not really a talk page. It's rather a user subpage. BTW: It a bad habit of some users to write “Wikipedia”, but to refer to its English language version. --Leyo 00:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I was noting the link in the section "User talk pages" which is about user pages and specifically mentions subpages, as does my comment. Yes, I normally say en.wp, but this itself can seem a bit cryptic. Blame {{W}}. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's not really a talk page. It's rather a user subpage. BTW: It a bad habit of some users to write “Wikipedia”, but to refer to its English language version. --Leyo 00:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- As regards Fae's comment "this would be better being compiled off-wiki", why should it be compiled at all? The issue was revolved two months ago, why does this need to be compiled? The reason is because Maxx12 has made a vendetta out of this, he won't let get of what he perceives as attempted thievery, and he wants everyone to think I did it just like he does. It's a grudge. Fry1989 eh? 01:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly, unless you are foolish enough to sue for libel, and the party writing about you is in a country where this would even be meaningful, there is almost nothing you can do about people compiling information about your edits off-wiki, regardless of their motivation or what negative bias or interpretation they might give to it, even if blatantly untrue. Luckily this is not the case on-wiki... I recommend you stick to the facts and avoid anything which might appear to others to be speculation about motivation, it only muddies any case and becomes a reason to dismiss the other points you are making. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say he can't, I'm questioning why he should. I've been known to hold a grudge or two, but I don't hold them over an issue that is essentially resolved, and I certainly don't publish them in an attempt to convince everyone of what I believe. And "speculation on motivation"? What exactly has all this been from Maxx12, if not speculation on my motivations regarding those 4 images??? Fry1989 eh? 01:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly, unless you are foolish enough to sue for libel, and the party writing about you is in a country where this would even be meaningful, there is almost nothing you can do about people compiling information about your edits off-wiki, regardless of their motivation or what negative bias or interpretation they might give to it, even if blatantly untrue. Luckily this is not the case on-wiki... I recommend you stick to the facts and avoid anything which might appear to others to be speculation about motivation, it only muddies any case and becomes a reason to dismiss the other points you are making. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- As regards Fae's comment "this would be better being compiled off-wiki", why should it be compiled at all? The issue was revolved two months ago, why does this need to be compiled? The reason is because Maxx12 has made a vendetta out of this, he won't let get of what he perceives as attempted thievery, and he wants everyone to think I did it just like he does. It's a grudge. Fry1989 eh? 01:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
New problems should be at AN/U, or in the form of a discussion with other editors in an effort to resolve differences. Old problems in this case have had sufficient attention from the community and if anyone feels otherwise, please start a new section at AN/U.
Archiving past alleged or real misdeeds here does not serve any good purpose for any individual or the community as a whole. The archive at AN/U is a sufficient for such information. Setting up pages like this on the project rather than on your own hard drive is solely for the purpose of harassment. These pages are social community property, and legal WMF property. What you do on your own hard drive, blogs elsewhere on the Internet, or any of the numerous websites including wiki critique sites, is your own business.
I find Fae's position against this page rather ironic. Penyulap ☏ 03:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep per User:Fæ. Yes, ironically enough, the point he raises better supports an argument to keep the page than to delete it. He claims that the relevant policy on Commons refers or defers to that of (English) Wikipedia, and so best practice there should be applied here. But there has historically been no consensus on English Wikipedia that pages such as this violate policy. There are undoubtedly hundreds of such pages in user space there which have remained unmolested by deletion nominations, or which have survived deletion nominations. (It's usually only in very clear-cut cases that the page is specifically an attack page, as opposed to a mere collection of evidence compiled with the intention of eventual policy enforcement, that it gets deleted.) You can see en:User:Psychonaut/User watchlists for a brief (and probably somewhat outdated) subset. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- As a past admin on that project, I have to point out that this is a poor application of policy, rather than policy. Specifically Wikipedia:USER#Excessive_unrelated_content states "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Consequently, as I stated above, this sort of table might be allowed if it were being used actively in a dispute resolution process, but not otherwise. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- The page was created only a couple days ago and looks to be under active development. Furthermore, one of the points at the bottom of it makes it clear that some sort of administrator intervention is or is going to be requested. I think it's quite reasonable to assume that the intended purpose of this page is imminent dispute resolution or referral to administrators for policy application. If the evidence on it isn't presented to an admin/DR venue within a reasonable period of time, let it be renominated then. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- As a past admin on that project, I have to point out that this is a poor application of policy, rather than policy. Specifically Wikipedia:USER#Excessive_unrelated_content states "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Consequently, as I stated above, this sort of table might be allowed if it were being used actively in a dispute resolution process, but not otherwise. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are two sections currently open on ANU, it is not imminent by definition, it is current by definition. If there is anything that hasn't already been brought up there, now is the time. Withholding anything, or planning a re-hash of the same information ad-nausea is counter-productive to a solution. Actions that further continuation and/or escalation is transparent harassment. Penyulap ☏ 09:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any section there by Maxxl2, nor is there any section which Maxxl2 is currently participating in. Just because Editor A opens a DR or AN discussion about Editor B doesn't mean that a possibly separate DR or AN notice which Editor B is in the middle of writing about Editor A suddenly needs to be either posted there or deleted. Let him finish collecting his evidence and then post it in the most appropriate venue. That could be the existing discussion on ANU, but it might be somewhere else. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- If Maxxl2 does not want to participate in the dispute resolution process when the community actively seeks his involvement there, it's a clear indication that this IS nothing but a 'shitlist' Delete per nom. Penyulap ☏ 10:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- What makes you think he doesn't want to participate in DR? As I said, his page makes it pretty clear that he does want the administrators or community to take action. And the ANU thread you refer to was posted only a few hours ago and Maxxl2 hasn't made any edits since then. Rather than trying to evade it, he could be, you know, asleep or at work. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see a thread about Maxxl2 and Fry started on April 1st at the ANU, this page was compiled on April 2nd, it is now April 4th and I see Maxxl2 has been editing daily. Maxxl2 was aware of the discussion, commented on April 2nd, and it has now been closed. Another is open. If Maxxl2 wants to forumshop as much as Fae, then another and another section will be closed without action the same as the previous discussion. Breaking the dispute resolution process by failing to fully participate so that you can pick and choose time and venue is inappropriate. Maxxl2 needs to be discouraged from drawing out and sabotaging that process with pages like this. If people want a new process, then go and propose one that is acceptable to the community rather than tailoring unapproved processes hoping for a tailored result. Penyulap ☏ 10:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Penyulap, if you are going to waste other people's time by tangentially trolling me, or defaming me, in random places, please notify me so that I can decide when there is more than sufficient to take you to AN/U for appropriate action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
will do. However, don't hold your breath, I give you almost no thought at all. Penyulap ☏ 11:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Penyulap, if you are going to waste other people's time by tangentially trolling me, or defaming me, in random places, please notify me so that I can decide when there is more than sufficient to take you to AN/U for appropriate action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see a thread about Maxxl2 and Fry started on April 1st at the ANU, this page was compiled on April 2nd, it is now April 4th and I see Maxxl2 has been editing daily. Maxxl2 was aware of the discussion, commented on April 2nd, and it has now been closed. Another is open. If Maxxl2 wants to forumshop as much as Fae, then another and another section will be closed without action the same as the previous discussion. Breaking the dispute resolution process by failing to fully participate so that you can pick and choose time and venue is inappropriate. Maxxl2 needs to be discouraged from drawing out and sabotaging that process with pages like this. If people want a new process, then go and propose one that is acceptable to the community rather than tailoring unapproved processes hoping for a tailored result. Penyulap ☏ 10:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- What makes you think he doesn't want to participate in DR? As I said, his page makes it pretty clear that he does want the administrators or community to take action. And the ANU thread you refer to was posted only a few hours ago and Maxxl2 hasn't made any edits since then. Rather than trying to evade it, he could be, you know, asleep or at work. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- If Maxxl2 does not want to participate in the dispute resolution process when the community actively seeks his involvement there, it's a clear indication that this IS nothing but a 'shitlist'
- I don't see any section there by Maxxl2, nor is there any section which Maxxl2 is currently participating in. Just because Editor A opens a DR or AN discussion about Editor B doesn't mean that a possibly separate DR or AN notice which Editor B is in the middle of writing about Editor A suddenly needs to be either posted there or deleted. Let him finish collecting his evidence and then post it in the most appropriate venue. That could be the existing discussion on ANU, but it might be somewhere else. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are two sections currently open on ANU, it is not imminent by definition, it is current by definition. If there is anything that hasn't already been brought up there, now is the time. Withholding anything, or planning a re-hash of the same information ad-nausea is counter-productive to a solution. Actions that further continuation and/or escalation is transparent harassment. Penyulap ☏ 09:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As i am a senior person you will allow me a longer reaction time. I am not accustomed to spontaneous action when it comes to interpersonal problems. Also my limited konowledge of the English language hinders me to react within hours to avoid misunderstanding when translating from German.
The dispute here started with a spontaneous intervention from my side when i saw that the correct edit of an IP changed the source and authorship in accordance with the lincence rules of the edited file of Katepanemogas. I better wouldnt have kept quiet and watched the glooming editwar. That was my only mistake i admit immediately.-
I got annoid when i then realized, that Fry1989 reverted this edit and threatened the IP and called him "vandal". Then i inestigated Fry1989 contributions and saw that he was a highly frequent, skilled and valuable member of commons. In the hope and intention not to disturb his activities on commons, i posted an angry and dissapointed message on his en:wiki talk page. Having seen his positive contributions done before, i asked about his way of contribution in the future.
Even my second posting on en:wiki was just the request to state the proper licence and authorship. From then on the process wasnt in my hands and went wrong totally because a war break out. Nowhere i ever called Fry1989 a thief or accused him of stealing.
After the first discussion on ANU i refrained from editing files Fry1989 had touched and ignored every mentioning the conflict i didnt wanted to grow. When i applied for filemover right it was opposed by reference to this conflict what i didnt understood and was almost ready to withdraw this request. And i kept quiet for four weekas hoping the fire would burn down.
Incidently beeing busy on another FIFA image file i saw the defective FIFA logo thumbnail on the de:wiki and reverted the cropping not mentioning who was the editor before. From then on a second war broke out which i didnt intended but had to realize that i was still called a liar and vandal. To stand the debate i compiled the notes subpage for the only purpose to ask several trustful members for there assessment whether this timeline was correct, factual and non inflamatory to make it he base of consideration how to apprtoach the glowing conflict. This list just only shows the facts of a conflict i didnt start and hoped to avoid. It also contains my basic questions concerning my participation. As i never had a conflict of such a kind before i am not familiar of how and when reactions from my side are expected on commons, i prefer to sit back and consider before i start to write.
I wish i would have never followed my first anger and surprise when i saw that an experienced and esteemed user like Fry1989 reverted the IPs first edit and expressed his threat. Since then it was an absolute waste of time and effort of so many people of good faith and high skills that could be better invested in the tasks of commons.
Sorry - folks, i'll keep quiet and will never touch that subject again. (Sorry for my inadaquate English, to). --maxxl2 - talk 11:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, we all have gaffs occasionally, or daily in my case, no make that hourly. Just blank the page if you want to Maxxl2, I'll fix the rest and we'll never mention it again (glare at everyone else) Good to see this changing course for the better ! Penyulap ☏ 11:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- If I can use better English, I suggest that if we can forget the whole matter, that is the best idea. Fry wants to stay away from you. He doesn't want to fight. If you think of Fry differently now, and don't want to fight, everything is finished. We forget everything and move forward.
- If you do not need the page anymore, just say so. You can keep a copy on your computer if you need to. Just blank the page if you do not want it. Penyulap ☏ 12:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I dont think of Fry1989 differently now. All his actions taken speak for themselves. I understand this page just as a collection of facts concerning a specific issue and doesnt contain any insult or suspicion. Which rule or right is breached by this content? If the page is deleted it will cause several red links as it was part of postings and the only complete statement from my side regarding this matter. --maxxl2 - talk 12:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Suit yourself maxxl2, your 'I can't speak english' and 'I can't see anything wrong with it' bullshit doesn't fool me. If you want to continue down this path, don't expect any help from me. Penyulap ☏ 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Again: i am not familiar with English as you are and i dont want to fool anybody. When it comes to idioms and phrases and especially sdlang and jargon i have my limits. As long as it is simple, plain English i can follow and use Google translator. Any help is welcome and appreciated. -Maxxl2
- No command of English is required, this is something every child understands when their parent smacks them for fighting with their brothers and sisters. You have no genuine intentions to cease and desist harassing Fry and pretending that you don't understand what it is that you are doing is insulting everyone's intelligence. Penyulap ☏ 13:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- How can you read my mind? You can ask for my intentions, but please do not suspect without personal knowledge. Sometimes it appears to me that wherever is the slightest chance to misunderstand my words it happens. Just remember that I have kept quiet for weeks already until this brawl was brought to surface and reinstated by somebody else. It wasnt me. Be assured that I'll keep quiet and forget about it. I am not interested in any more waste of time. I am experienced enough to comply. Again i am fallen in the speed trap and answered to fastly. Dont expect me to answer as quickly as befor because it is to dangerous for me. ;) --maxxl2 - talk 13:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
your actions speak louder than words and your actions are clearly understood. Penyulap ☏ 13:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Maxx12, you are not required to respond here in English. If you believe that is a key part of any issue, please do write in German and let other contributors help others that request English translations. This is an international project, contributors are welcome and supported regardless of their first language or lack of proficiency in English. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Fæ - Thanks for your advice. But my experience here was bad. I tried already answering in German but was ignored when i did so in the event asking for mover rights.
- @Pennyulap - Here we dont "smack" kids (if it means beat - i understood "mack" firstly). If it is done by parents its a criminal act and will be prosecuted. --maxxl2 - talk 13:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Tidak peduli bahasa apapun yang Anda pakai, tingkah laku Anda telah menjelaskan semuanya. Ada banyak negara yang mendidik generasi mudanya dengan disiplin sehingga saat mereka dewasa mereka tidak berperang dengan negara lain, tetapi hidup dalam damai dan membangun bangsanya. Ini hanya opini saya, saya menghargai setiap pendapat dari orang-orang dengan budaya yang berbeda. Penyulap ☏ 14:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Eine Botschaft von einem Großvater mit 14 Enkeln: Mit Gewalt erzieht man keine Kinder zu friedfertigen Mitglieder der Gesellschaft nur mit gutem Beispiel kann man das erreichen (siehe Mahatma Ghandi). Die Menschenrechte verbieten das Schlagen von Kindern. Der Friede sei mit Dir. (Google translator)
- A message from a grandfather with 14 grandchildren: With violence no one educates children to peaceful members of society only by good example, you can achieve that. (see Buddha) The Human Rights prohibit spanking of children. The peace be with you. --maxxl2 - talk 14:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- But please understand, the first line of my extensive statement was: * Keep. I didnt change my attitude over the last weeks which was always aiming at calming down and helping where ever possible. I never wanted to fight. (Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity). Still i dont understand the aggresiveness and blowing up of minor problem that could be solved by a single proper edit stating the real author and source. That was all it would have taken in the first instance to avoid all the nasty aftermath. But facts are facts and wont change by deleting that page. The facts will remain existing in the wiki world, whether there is my notes subpage or not. So what would a delete change? What would be the benefit? --maxxl2 - talk 12:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- But please understand, the first line of my extensive statement was: *
At first i want to thank those honorable members that have supported my point of view. Some very experienced member have taken advantage to point me to valuable issues which made me reconsider the entire dilemma. I hope its not discouraging or disappointing for my supporters that i have come to the conclusion to delete the page by today. I hope this step will ease the situation and calm the waves. Sometimes it is better to forego its right and to establish peace. Good will has prevailed. --maxxl2 - talk 17:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Maxx12, very sensible and appreciated. --Fæ (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: User requested deletion of page in own userspace Rd232 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)