User:TenOfAllTrades/rebuttal

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

I've removed the childish namecalling section header, formatted the images slightly, added headers for each of Shustov's cases, and added section breaks so that the indenting of nested comments works properly. Otherwise, this passage is a verbatim copy of Shustov's multiposted 'vandalism' report. My comments are in italic.

Case 1[edit]

Exercise programs such as Tai Chi are promoted by gerontologists to improve health in old age.

At 08:01, 24 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image from Categories: Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Gerontology.

At 14:59, 5 November 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image with the inscription “rv banned editor”.

In less than an hour, at 15:46, 5 November 2009, User:Zach425 substituted the removed image with the one to the right from Category: Tai Chi Chuan.

As the matter of fact, the Wikipedia List of banned users [1] does not contain User:Shustov in it.

Due to foregoing, it looks like TenOfAllTrades created its private blacklist which, apparently, has been implemented in Wikipedia rather successfully (see the cases to follow).

The image that I removed on 5 November ([2]) was added six hours earlier, by Shustov, while logged out (and evading his English Wikipedia ban): [3]. He previously attempted to add the image on 29 October and 28 October.
Zach425 asked me on 5 November why I had removed the image from w:en:Gerontology. After explaining the circumstances of Shustov's ban, Zach found an appropriate image for the article, agreeing that it was best to discourage Shustov's editing on enwiki: [4]. It was of further concern to Zach that Shustov has given all of his images semi-promotional names referring to his own self-created 'Upstream Fitness' exercise program.
Most users who are indefinitely blocked or banned are not included on the 'list of banned users' page — that doesn't make him (or the others) any less banned. Several administrators have concurred with the ban over the last several months, and Shustov has filed no appeal of which I am aware. If Shustov would like to have his name appear on the list, it can be added — but we're not usually big on pointless bureaucratic activity around here. Worth noting is that in May, I even lifted his first indefinite block (placed by another admin in January, see block log) to give him a final chance. Unfortunately, the problematic editing resumed immediately, and I restored his block and ban two weeks later.
Any notion of a 'private blacklist' is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. I have been entirely open and transparent about all of my actions (administrative and otherwise) with respect to Shustov.

Case 2[edit]

Physical fitness is an attribute required for service in virtually all military forces.

At 20:06, 18 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image from Categories: Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Physical fitness.

At 13:59, 4 January 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed it with the summary “remove excess decorative image” but retained another image from Categories: 2000s swimwear | People of the United States Marine Corps | Sportspeople from the United States | Triathlon | Young men | Men of the United States | Male toplessness | Running shown to the right.

As the only image option for the article on physical fitness, it rather glorifies the United States Marine Corps special military training in general and Lance Corporal Anthony M. Madonia toplessness in particular than illustrates anything else.

One wonders if Shustov's 'glorification' of his own personal exercise program is more or less suitable than glorification of the USMC. In any event, the article definitely did not need two images adjacent to the lede paragraph: Shustov's version. As a matter of personal preference, I felt that 'physical fitness' was better illustrated by an image of an individual jogging, and not an old man standing on his head. The image that I left behind was also technically superior in a number of respects: higher resolution, sharper focus, better color balance. Finally, Shustov has had ample time to learn that editorial content decisions on Wikipedia are reserved to editors who haven't been banned.

Case 3[edit]

At 17:53, 19 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image above from Categories: Exercise | Challenges to physical balance | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Vestibular system. At 03:32, 19 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image as “superfluous decorative image (?!)

And I still think it was a superfluous, decorative image.

Case 4[edit]

At 00:49, 24 December 2008, User:Shustov added the image on the left of an old man practicing weight training from Categories: Weight training | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Weight training.

At 03:34, 19 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed it as “superfluous, promotional image”.

The “promotional” of what, by the way? Does it promote any services or goods? Does it contains any names of people or businesses?

As with all of your exercise-related images, the filename starts with the name of your personal exercise program, 'Upstream Fitness'. Moreover, the image was not necessary to, or even an improvement to (in my subjective opinion) the article and its removal was justified on those grounds alone.

Case 5[edit]

At 20:37, 28 May 2009, User:69.108.101.89 added the right image from Categories: Exercise | Challenges to physical balance | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Longevity.

At 22:00, 28 May 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image without explanation.

Shustov continues to identify edits he made while evading his enwiki block. Edits by banned editors can be reverted on sight.

Case 6[edit]

At 01:56, 24 December 2008, User:Shustov added the image [at right] from Categories: Exercise | Acrobatics | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Jumping.

At 00:51, 4 September 2009, User:Mokele performed “Replacing image with much better one, illustrating frog joint addition and bone elongation”. Apropos, the “much better” in the sense of what? The taste?

I really don't know anything about this one. As far as I know, I've never even heard Mokele's username before, and I had nothing to do with this edit. It appears that Mokele started editing this article before Shustov did, and disagreed about the value of the image to the article — no conspiracy required.

Case 7[edit]

At 22:46, 27 December 2008, User:Shustov added the right image from Categories: Exercise | Acrobatics | Gerontology | Fitness | Asana | Fitness training for seniors to the article Equipoise .

At 03:28, 19 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image as “decorative, promotional image” (?!).

At 18:38, 24 October 2009, User:79.67.66.242 undid the previous edit.

At 18:55, 24 October 2009, User:DMacks removed the image again.

At 16:45, 29 October 2009, User:69.108.112.170 restored that image.

At 16:57, 29 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades reverted edits by User:69.108.112.170.

At 01:48, 3 November 2009, User:ExplosiveArsenal reverted edits by TenOfAllTrades.

At 01:49, 3 November 2009, User:Glane23 (apparently, a sock-puppet of TenOfAllTrades) reverted edits by User:ExplosiveArsenal.

Will anybody help me to cleanup those wiki-termites infested articles, please? Thanks, Shustov (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, all this really shows is that Shustov is regularly willing to ignore his ban on enwiki. 79.67.66.242 and 69.108.112.170 are Shustov evading his block, while ExplosiveArsenal happens to be a sock of an unrelated vandal. Shustov had added an unnecessary decorative image to the disambiguation page. I removed it. DMacks removed it. Glane23 removed it. I've at least heard of DMacks, but as far as I can recall I've never discussed Shustov with him (and I'm pretty sure I've never had any significant exchange with him on any topic). I have no idea who Glane23 is, and Shustov's accusation of sockpuppetry is offensive. The childish namecalling is also far below standards we expect of Wikipedia editors.