User talk:Tuvalkin

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

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems[edit]

Ping. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Christian Ferrer could/should have linked to this discussion in the blocking message below, as previously mentioned. -- Tuválkin 16:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 2 weeks[edit]

Blocked user.svg
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 2 weeks for the following reason: Intimidation/harassment. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. See block log.

Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the block was placed due to a comment you left at COM:AN/B, resulting in you being blocked for two weeks. I'm slightly annoyed that Christian Ferrer hasn't explained the block in more detail. We all hope you moderate your behaviour in future, so it would have been useful to explain what behaviour you need to moderate in future.

The block is largely (and perhaps entirely) due to this comment ([1]).

It is always unacceptable to suggest any of your fellow contributors have some form of mental illness. I know that OCD is often used in a humorous manner or as part of a joke, but unfortunately, in online venues and particularly in an online venue where varying degrees of English are spoken, this sort of humour can translate very badly, as is the case with your comment. It is better not to make such jokes and to speak in simple, plain English, avoiding the sort of local colloquialisms and types of humour which could be confused for a personal attack.

It was clear to both Colin and myself that what you really meant was that Jcb had displayed "some slight obsession, awkwardness or inconsistency in their behaviour" and that's what you should have said, avoiding the link to OCD.

There's also a more general trend in your recent comments which suggest a certain frustration with the project, and with administrators who are looking for a reason to delete material. There are comments there which have made unhelpful allegations towards some administrators - there's nothing I would consider actionable on its own but put together, it's becoming toxic and creating the type of atmosphere we would want to avoid. It's this frustration which I think led to your inappropriate comment at COM:AN/B and your block, ultimately.

When your block expires (or if you appeal successfully against the block - I won't be reviewing it as I'm involved) you need to become more mellow and rather than making accusations against administrators, communicate in a friendly and co-operative manner with them. If they provide unhelpful responses, bring the issue to the attention of other parts of the community, to other administrators, so we may collaborate on the best course of action - and remember, some of the worst administrative decisions tend to be taken by administrators focused solely on the best interests of the project.

Sorry for the lengthy comment, but I and I'm sure the rest of the community value most of your contributions, and would like you to come back fresh and friendly. Nick (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks Nick for this clarification made in a very good way. Tuvalkin, for further explanations you can read this discussion, and specially my warning at the bottom of the page. I think, I hope, you're worth more than that story. Please, Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Christian Ferrer, thanks for pointing to «further explanations». User:Nick’s comment above is exactly what I needed to hear, though. (Redacted) Additionally, I expect no leniency from you, this time, for known reasons. -- Tuválkin 16:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not acceptable to make comments of that nature about any editor, it creates a toxic, corrosive atmosphere. I would ask that you redact your comment concerning Colin, and that you refrain from discussing Colin in future.
I would also remind you, this discussion isn't about Colin's behaviour, if you have concerns concerning Colin, you will have to wait until your block expires before raising those concerns at the COM:AN/U noticeboard. Nick (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Redacting, I see. Like this, or how exactly? -- Tuválkin 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(✓ Done, see below.) -- Tuválkin 23:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You see, I do enjoy Commons — the occasional upload, the old filepage clean up, the categorization work. I’d be saddened to have to let it go, and if the price to pay is to muffle the expression of my opinion about things I disagree with in the governance of the project, when they come too close to a selected group or people, then be it.
-- Tuválkin 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Nick, thanks for your words above. I’m unhappy with the situation myself: There’s one thing everybody is right about, in those two dicussions: Mental illness, or any such trait, should never be used with humourous intent or as a proxy to bad behaviour — accusing a wide swath of Commons users, incl. a disproportionate number of admins, of having a distructive agenda is bad in itself; people actually suffering from OCD, including some of us, need not to be singled out in any way. I’m frustrated for having linked to en:OCD, and for not having removed that link immediately after.
In my defense I can say that I think I would have retracted that unethical mistreatment of OCD sufferers later, either on my own volition or after being called off, (Redacted)
-- Tuválkin 16:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Nick, you said above: «remember, some of the worst administrative decisions tend to be taken by administrators focused solely on the best interests of the project.» I read it back and forth a couple times and I have no idea what you mean. Can you please point to a discussion, guideline, or policy where this matter is expanded? -- Tuválkin 16:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes - what I mean is that some of the worst administrative decisions I've seen have been taken by administrators I know are acting in the best interests of the project, they may delete material because they're overly cautious or they mis-interpret legislation, not because they're being malicious or intending to damage the project.
What I was trying to convey is that administrative decisions should be discussed calmly and effort taken to understand the reasoning behind the decisions, rather than immediately condemning an administrator as being incompetent or having ulterior motives for deletion. Nick (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I see your point. And it still makes no sense to me. It’s like saying that filing a DR to delete all files in Commons is well-meaning because that would solve all scope issues and all copyvios! Two sayings come to mind: the old adage about Hell’s pavement, and the current day retort that «intent is not magical». -- Tuválkin 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow up[edit]

Many thanks for the redaction. There is a new problem on the horizon, from your perspective. The issue of an indefinite block has been raised, it may be helpful if you could begin to put together a case on how you would explain that an indefinite block is not necessary at this time, taking into account many of the problematic comments you've made recently. See also [2] which you may not yet be aware of. Nick (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • (Edit conflict) Yes, I’m aware of that, thank you. Well, “building a case” doesn’t seem like fun. Like said, I’m here to contribute to the curation of a repository of free media in my spare time, in which interactions with other users are often pleasant and instructive. What you suggest is too far removed to anything useful to the sharing of free knowledge — I’d might as well create a Citizendium account and have “fun” there. That said, I might be pushed into protest against the most outlandish accusations, but on the other hand those accusations are so transparently made in bad faith that no defense is the best defense (and leaving it be spares me anxiety and time wasting). -- Tuválkin 22:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S: If you're unaware, there is the {{redacted}} template which can be used where text has been removed, rather than having to use the coloured approach, above. The use of the redacted template is the normal way of undertaking a redaction, apologies for assuming you were aware of this and for not explaining it when I left the above message. Nick (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I didn’t know about {{redacted}}; I’ll use it now. -- Tuválkin 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Several people here are expressing disbelief on how after 9 years and 200k contributions in Commons I never encountered the {{redacted}} template. Well, that’s easy to check, and also easy to explain: Most of my edits are actual curation work, not hostile confrontations with other users that need to be repatedly redacted or retracted. -- Tuválkin 23:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What’s expected of me at this point?
To clearly reject my use of OCD as a token of caricature of a specific editorial and administrative behaviour in Commons?
Easy — that’s the kind of thing I stopped doing long time ago, for personal reasons, ca 2001, when my big sister started exhibiting symptoms of bipolar disorder. That helped me realize that mental health issues are disjunct of morality and of intellect, and lead me to diversify my vocabolary when needing to express disparagement (before: «Mas estes gajos são doidos!»; now: «Vai-se a ver e deitaram a água das couves no bojão do narguilé!»).
My linking to en:OCD is therefore unexplainable and I regret I did it. I say this freely and regardless of any other consideration in the matter. I’m not disowning my intent, but I should have avoided splash damage by illustrating my caricature of Commons deletionists with a link to, say, Category:Hamster wheels instead.
To stop expressing my disagreement in matters such as this DR and the subsequent UD?
My strong words («Still clueless about scope, User:Taivo, I see.») were mentioned elsewhere among the pilling evidence showcasing my evilness. But, at least I was right — in the light of the facts that the file in question was eventually undeleted with its on-scopeness accepted (grudgingly, granted), and that User:Taivo, an admin, has indeed the habit of nominating for deletion photographs of anonymous people on that same spurious understanding of Commons scope (as if notability implying scope meant that non-notability implies no-scope), whereas most often than not Taivo eventually does withdraw his nomination or the DR is otherwise closed to keep the file. (I do not consider that there is any kind of feud between me and Taivo and indeed I often find myself agreeing with him in other matters.)
I seek guidance here, concerning my “defense” on this specific case of my expression of disagreement and others listed along with it. Not expressing my disagreement at all is also a possible option: Several times in the past, when faced with other users’ disagreement reaching stubborn impass, I simply let go and move to other areas of Commons (see this, this, and indeed this, e.g.). It’s bad for Commons, I think, but it’s good for me — and with “encouragement”, I’d do it even more often.
-- Tuválkin 23:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding building a defense against an indef block. I came with the proposal, not as a threat (I am not an admin, and I do not have the rights for carrying out such an action), but because it makes more sense for me to block a user until the reason for blocking is clearly acknowledged and understood, indicating a will not to repeat the blocking offense. Since you have now redacted the personal atttacks on Colin, and here also very clearly expressed that you agree associating people with mental disorders by linking is not acceptable, and expressed a regret for doing that, I think my original proposal is moot, which I have expressed on COM:AN/U. I have proposed to lift your block now, as i do not see a particular point in the full two weeks at this point, as it is (hopefully) unlikely that the disruptions will continue if the block is lifted. Best wishes, -- Slaunger (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Language gap issues[edit]

To clarify, the word "ejaculation" as used (and later redacted) above, was not meant in its physiological meaning, but as a synonym of "utterance" — inspired by the byline of this most excellent weblog I’ve been following for even longer than I’ve been in Commons. Only today I found out that the intended acception has indeed an unsuited meaning (§3), as the utterances I wanted to refer to are anything but short. I should have went for "ecolubrations", which is even more abstruse and has no unwanted locker room conotations. (As for the Portuguese cognate, please be enlightened by refering instead to a quality online resource: cp. "ejaculação" PRT and "jaculatória"PRT.) -- Tuválkin 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As an additional clarification, it was only very recently (long after my last use of it) that I found out that the word "wanker", used as an insult, has a much stronger meaning than what its etymology might imply: For what’s worth, whenever I used it I meant merely to accuse someone of having seemingly nothing better to do than being needlessly annoying: Still a notch or two below what it was (rightfully) taken to mean, and for that lexicographic faux pas I apologize. -- Tuválkin 00:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Next up: To finally find out what is that chip on one’s shoulder everybody’s talking about. -- Tuválkin 00:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that: Nah, I just want to everybody to get along. -- Tuválkin 00:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello, my rationale for the block was about your use of OCD. I have respect for you, your editions and your point of views about scope issues even when we disagree, and I agf when you said "My linking to en:OCD is therefore unexplainable and I regret I did it". I'm a small man in size but I'm stronger than 3 man together, and I also have a sister who is disabled. I would want to do everything to give some of my physical strength to my sister, even to cut me in pieces...however I learned this is not possible. But now I hate people who use the difference to derogatory end.
I think people who defend their views point in DRs, or somewhere else, are useful for Commons. I don't think you have to leave when a disagreement, I think you have to learn not to be frustrated when a disagreement, you have to learn not to be frustrated when an administrator don't make the action you'd expect. Because this is frustration that lead to "is therefore unexplainable and I regret I did it". I unblock you, I wish you good contributions, but if you make a difference discriminating once again, then the block will be ruthless and it will be hard to convince me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


I have been trying to figure out why you keep popping up in discussions to be horrible to me, often when I am already under attack by someone else. The now redacted talk page comments above, the "insufferable wanker" insult, and this discussion where your sole remark is to mock my contributions and laugh and which Revent reminded me of yesterday, and probably others too. I believed they were out-of-the-blue attacks and your animosity unexplainable.

My taking you to AN/U over the mental health insult was absolutely not motivated by settling some score/feud or ongoing conflict. I've done it before with Stemoc and will do so again. Other than these bee stings you fired at me from time to time, I have have no reason to be in conflict with you on any ongoing basis. The use of mental health as a joke or to mock or insult is something I feel very strongly against. Those who say my actions were motivated purely by personal conflict are simply wrong. And I put it to them that if it were me who insulted you, Tuvalkin, while linking to the Wikipedia article on a mental disorder, then they would be first in the line to take me to AN/U, assembling with torches and pitchforks, and it would be me sitting with a two week block and not you. I am encouraged that you agree with me about mental health issues/stigma and regret your words.

But I must also admit that if I saw one of my wiki friends making the same misjudgement, then I would be having a quiet word with them first rather than seeking a block. And I am sure I am not alone in this inconsistency. Nick insisted I should have gone through the dispute-resolution steps that are typical on Wikipedia but frequently ignored on Commons. I pointed out to Nick that your remark that I am "toxic" and statement that "dealing with this person is not only pleasant or useful but dangerous for me" suggests my attempts to "engage" with you would be rudely rebuffed. I was also under the impression that you had banned me from your talk page, but I may be confusing you with Tm. This is not a healthy state for Commons to be in, with tribes fighting each other and having double-standards for those in or out of the tribe. How are they defined? The "photographers" versus the "administrative", the "deletionists" vs "inclusionists", or one's stance wrt Russavia's block, and so on. I don't know the solution, but hate is never a good emotion, and dividing people into "us" and "them" is the source of much human conflict.

To get to the point... I have been searching through logs to find some rationale for your periodic attacks on me. I assumed you simply placed me in the wrong tribe. But I have tonight discovered this discussion from March 2015. It is not my finest hour. I am ashamed to read what I posted there. It was unnecessarily hostile. I had forgotten all about it -- some will perhaps not believe that, but I hope my posting this discovery demonstrates some honesty of character so you and others can AGF that I really had forgotten about it. Perhaps that discussion is one source of your ill feeling towards me. I apologise for what I said in that discussion, and hope we can put these events behind us.

-- Colin (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

While I didn’t completely forget that discussion from March 2015, it was interesting to re-read it. Accidentally, while looking for something else, I found this other discussion, held one month later. (This reply doesn’t constitute a full reaction to your post above; at the moment I’m unsure on how to react, at all, to the way this matter of my blocking was resolved.) -- Tuválkin 14:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


   FDMS  4    18:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi. Would you send me an email so I can reply back about something I wanted to mention offline? I don't see an email link on your page, but even if there were one, the email system doesn't work for me. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. (But I wont be reading or replying e-mail before some 20 h.) -- Tuválkin 01:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Synagogues ⊂ Churches ?[edit]

Saluton, Tuvalkin,

vi metis miajn fotojn Hermannstadt, Synagoge, 14.jpeg kaj Hermannstadt, Synagoge, 15.jpeg en la kategorion Square photos of churches. Nu, sinagogoj estas (judaj) preĝejoj, sed laŭ mia opinio church = kristana preĝejo (kirko). Kion vi opinias?

Mi malfaris vian ŝanĝon de Colmar, cercle catholique saint Martin, 4.jpeg‎, tiu konstruaĵo ne estas preĝejo. (Mi malfaris la saman ŝanĝon (de Acabashi) jam en aprilo.

-- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Renardo la vulpo, kiam mi tion faris, mi pensis ke estus jen ne simpla afero. Ja en esperanto "preĝejo" sinonimas kun "templo" ĉar ĝi estas ja "preĝ+ej+o". La iom kutima antaŭsupozo ke "preĝejo" = "kirko", kaj la fakto mem ke tiu lasta estas “neologismo” dum "moskeo" kaj "sinagogo" estas ne (por ne mencii la absurdan ideon ke "templo" estu nepre nekristana), nur montras kiom pezas kristanisma entrudo en la okcidenta socio, eĉ en lingvo kreita de judo.
Mi malpli certas pri la angla lingvo, tamen. Ja "church" kognatas kun "kirko", helenaĵo kiu eniris en la ĝermanajn lingvojn jam kun kristana signifo, kiun ĝi apenaŭ perdis. Laŭ la Vikivortaro "church" estas preskaŭ ĉiam kristana — ĉu do ĉiuj kategorioj pri "churches" devus/devos nestiĝi sub alie samnomaj kategorioj pri "temples"? Mi tion ne kontraŭus, kaj se tiel miaj hodiaŭaj ŝanĝoj estu plu ŝanĝitaj okaze de kreo de meznivela Category:Square photos of temples.
-- Tuválkin 23:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Dankon pro la respondo. Nu, ekzistas malmulte da kategorioj pri „temples“; pli ofte mi vidas ke „Churches“, „Mosques“ kaj „Synagogues“ estas sub „Religious buildings“, ekzemple en mia urbo. Ne mi faris tion. Al mi la afero ne tro gravas, sed eble judoj ne ŝatas, ke sinagogoj estu sub „Churches“. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Komprenite kaj konsentite: "Religious buildings" ŝajnas tute bona alternativo de "temples" (aŭ eĉ pli vasta tavolo: ja ĝi ankaŭ inkluzivas iajn tombejojn, lernejojn k.s.), kaj eble ni devus ĝeneraligi ĝian uzon kaj klare marki kategoriojn pri "churches" iel sub "Chistianity". -- Tuválkin 13:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)