User talk:Wesley Wolf/Archive 3

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

File:Pan Celtic Festival winners map.svg

File in question: File:Pan Celtic Festival winners map.svg. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you know about redesign. You know that my version is codyfied and unified with other maps. Maybe you revert it again? ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos ^talk_rus? 15:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alex Great: that is a lie for starters. You did not "codyfied" or "unified" the other version. All you did was upload a new version onto an existing file. Also I noticed at User:Alex Great/Work that you claimed "authorship" of the file, when it is clearly shown on the file that I was the original uploader and therefore author of the file. You cannot claim to be the author of something when evidence shows differently. OK the intellectual property belongs to Wikimedia, but authorship still belongs to the user who uploaded the original file. It would be courteous to have provided attribution to the original author rather than steeling authorship. And whilst we are on the subject of redesigning, you have been a member of Wikimedia long enough now to know that any major changes are suppose to be put forward to the community as a proposal of change, and then seek opinion on whether others agree or disagree on the proposal. Just making a change on a whim without seeking a consensus is discouraged. Like has been said to you many times in the past, and even you acknowledged the fact a couple of weeks ago... «Do not fix it, if not broken.» The current design works fine and helped gained the Pan Celtic Festival article reach Good Article status on English Wikipedia. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? When you finally stop accusing me of lying and stealing? Where is it written that I usurped authorship? The file on the Pan-Celtic festival I really corrected the errors that are present in your version. Sami look carefully, if you do not notice them. And stop thinking already that the files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons must obey the rules of the English Wikipedia - it is not, they are subject to the rules of the Commons. All winner maps were changed and discussed with the participants HERE on Commons. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos ^talk_rus? 07:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You state that you codyfied the new version. That is a lie as its impossible to "codyfied" any image onto an already existing file. And you have stolen work. Like I said at User:Alex Great/Work you list the file as being "your work", and making it look like you created the original file. However, if you read the summary and licensing sections of the file page you will clearly see that "Wesley Mouse" is the author of the file which was uploaded 12 April 2015, and that as the copyright holder of the work, people are hereby requested to show attribution of who created the file if they are going to be redistributing the file elsewhere. In this case, you placed the file on one of your pages, then claiming ownership of the file, without correctly attributing the original author of the work. Bad move Alex and one that I am most uncertainly unhappy with. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What? Do you know about clean up of SVG code? I think you don't. Please see bugs in your version! You still do not understand, always. I have to complain to administrators. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos ^talk_rus? 06:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Now you judge my abilities to work on SVG codes? And state that I don't know anything? Are you for real? You must not assume that anyone is incapable of doing things. Remember the key rule Alex, assume good faith. You comment above is very much bad faith judgement against my capabilities to work on SVG codes. And if you must know, I sought help on my version before uploading, and there were no bugs whatsoever. This isn't the Alex show, this is a community project. Start acting like a team player and not a selfish person who thinks they own ALL map images. We work on consensus even here at commons. So if you have a proposal to change the style of this file, then put forward your proposal so that others can comment and discuss. Making changes without seeing if others agree with them is bad sportsmanship and most certainly not working as part of a team. There is no I in TEAM. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not act like selfish. And anyway, I do not want to talk to you. I'm telling you one thing and you perceive it quite differently. You did not hear me and continue to charge. Good luck to edit at Commons. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos ^talk_rus? 13:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

ABU TV Song Festival 2016 Map Mistake

You made a mistake. Malaysia hadn't confirmed participation yet. Indonesia is the host of this edition. So fix it now.

• Please don't be making demands and telling people to "fix it now". It is rude and unhelpful. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RVFan1930 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Junior Eurovision 2016 Updates on the Map Again

Yellow: Switzerland. Purple: Ukraine. Green: Bulgaria.

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Эlcobbola _talk 03:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Per this, my warning, and previous conduct at Commons:Forum‎. Эlcobbola _talk 03:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You have just violated your admin rights by using a personal matter in order to block a user. As you are an involved user, and blocking somone as an act of revenge if an abuse of your admin rights. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 03:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "The blocking admin has shown a strong abuse of their admin tools by extremely and harshly placing a block for alleged "harassment", and without even giving a warning for such harassment nor provide any evidence to back up such claim. Th block has clearly been issued in order to "silence" a user who is of free will to express their concerns, just as I had done with my complaint at the admin noticeboard, in which again they got too involved, and did not act in an appropriate admin capacity. I would hereby like to issue a formal complain against Elcobbola to the admin board and their admin rights be reviewed as they are abusing their admin tools in a vile and unhelpful manner. And 1 week is b=very harsh for a block. I might not be an admin myself, but even I know that if something is of a first offence then a 24-hour block is the correct length, not 1-week. So again, the admin has demonstrated abuse of their admin tools. Wes Mouse  T@lk 03:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)" Decline reason: "This isn't the kind of unblock request that a reviewing admin like me would be looking for. Your confrontational tone and behavior are only going to create more problems for you and others. Your hostile behavior has been documented at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#False accusations of vandalism, where you were warned by Elcobbola. You were warned a second time here, and you responded with an insult. Elcobbola is an experienced admin and a fair one. He isn't abusing his rights. I'm declining your unblock request at this time because, from what I've seen, only hostile and negative behavior could be expected if I unblocked you. Please take some time to calm down and think about working with others in a more respectful and positive manner. Be aware that reactions like this could lead to you losing your ability to edit your talkpage, and could even lead to a longer block. Civility is important here. Anger and accusations only cause further problems. Please reflect on this during your 1 week block. INeverCry 05:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

• Not sure why it won't show my reason for unblocking, so I am copying it here.

The blocking admin has shown a strong abuse of their admin tools by extremely and harshly placing a block for alleged "harassment", and without even giving a warning for such harassment nor provide any evidence to back up such claim. Th block has clearly been issued in order to "silence" a user who is of free will to express their concerns, just as I had done with my complaint at the admin noticeboard, in which again they got too involved, and did not act in an appropriate admin capacity. I would hereby like to issue a formal complain against Elcobbola to the admin board and their admin rights be reviewed as they are abusing their admin tools in a vile and unhelpful manner. And 1 week is b=very harsh for a block. I might not be an admin myself, but even I know that if something is of a first offence then a 24-hour block is the correct length, not 1-week. So again, the admin has demonstrated abuse of their admin tools. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 03:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: I appreciate your comments n the declination report. However, to coin a phrase you have used "Civility is important here. Anger and accusations only cause further problems". Which was the main issue and reason that I made my post at the admin board. I was within my human right to raise a concern that I felt I was being victimised and accused of vandalism. I did acknowledge in my report that there was a language barrier, hence why I made the report, for a second opinion so to speak. Elcobbola should not have been unprofessional is their admin capacity and hastily have left an unhelpful comment, that only fueled things worse, rather than defuse a situation. Isn't the role of all admins, regardless of if they being on Commons, or on EN-Wiki, be to defuse a situation and keep things calm? Not inflame matters worse by making counter-accusations.

If you have read my report on the admin noticeboard, I did state that although one user had accused me of vandalism, that they later explained it was a miscommunication, and the fact Google Translator also made matters worse too. The same user also apologised, which I noted in my ANI report. That comment can be seen in the third line of the second paragraph of my report which reads "Anyhow, the latter post was later clarified further, and the user actually meant to call the file mover a vandal, and not accuse myself of such act".

I note that Elcobbola issued a warning of civility. However, civility and "intimidation/harassment" are different issues. So to be warned for civility, but to be blocked for intimidation is taking matters into their own hands, in a vindictive and personalising conduct is inappropriate. Not a sign of professional conduct whatsoever. The nature in which they issued the warning did not defuse the situation, but only inflamed it to far worse proportion. The conduct and way my report was handled alone was unprofessional. All the admin needed to say in order to defuse such a situation would have been to provide a second opinion in how they interpreted the situation. And to provide a solution to the situation which would have been sufficient. To slam a warning on someone who was clearly only seeking advice/opinion on a heated debate, was not a helpful way to attempt to defuse anything. And that is why I removed the comment from my talk page, which again I am allowed to remove content from my talk page per COM:TALK, I probably was harsh in the tone I used in my edit summary. But what do you expect after enduring an unhelpful situation like that?

Lessons need to be learnt here by all parties involved, and not just at myself. And a one-week block is a heavy punishment for something that should have been easily avoided if the blocking admin conducted their behaviour in a better tone too, and not stoop down to the same "uncivil" manner that I have been alleged for using. Admins are suppose to act in a preventative manner, not uncooperative. As you can see from my contributions anyway, that I very very rarely participate in talk discussion at Commons. All my work is mainly done at EN:WIKI, with th majority of work requiring me to update maps for Eurovision related conduct, including removing vandalism edits from maps, as I'm the main active member for WikiProject Eurovision who handles the map files. The block now causes major issues as articles are now going to be delayed for one week, because I cannot update the files in order to keep an article 100% accurate. None of this would have even happened if I had not been forcibly dragged into a discussion on a German-speaking forum to which A) I had no prior involvement in, and B) the person who dragged me into the debate knew that I was DE-0 (did not speak German). To me that is unfair and I have been mistreated unfairly. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 07:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you telling someone "don't give me that bullshit", calling someone a "fuckwit" in an edit summary, and then reverting a warning calling it "mindless shit". This kind of combative behavior can certainly be seen as intimidating. Then you give me four paragraphs in which your chief interest is in placing blame and again dragging the blocking admin through the mud. You don't take responsibility for your actions or indicate how you plan to avoid or change that behavior. Your 1 week block is going to stand, and I really hope that when that week is up you don't continue with the same hostile approach to others, or you'll be blocked for longer periods or indefinitely. No one can force you to call them a fuckwit, which is a blatant personal attack. You've had two tries at an unblock request, and you've used them to throw blame around. You're abusing your talkpage privileges with all of this badmouthing of Elcobbola. Again, please take this week as an opportunity to calm down and realize that you have to take responsibility for your actions here, not make accusations against the blocking admin, who was perfectly justified in warning you and blocking you. Take care. INeverCry 07:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As a clarification, at least for third parties as the above indicates Wesley Mouse is not objectively engaging with his behaviour, "intimidation/harassment" is a "canned phrase" hardcoded as a block rationale. As admins are aware, it is generally used for issues of civility and personal attacks despite the sub-optimal phrasing and perhaps tangential relationship when read literally. In this case, Wesley Mouse is clearly aware of the reason why he was blocked, so arguing semantics is plainly disingenuous. Further, frankly, Wesley Mouse has been intimidating and harassing; several examples:

"Retract the harmful personalised remarks aimed at myself or things will get nasty"[1];

"I will be taking this matter to the Wikimedia Foundation for more superior intervention"[2];

"You should be banned from Wikimedia for your xenophobic comment" [3];

"I have already emailed WMF about his xenophobic conduct, as I am most deeply distressed at his comments" [4].

All of this, again, for something about with Wesley Mouse is unambiguously wrong. Эlcobbola _talk 10:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)