User talk:Tomascastelazo

Reverted edits by Tomascastelazo (talk) to last revision by A.Savin
← Older revision
Revision as of 12:46, 16 March 2013
Line 816:
Line 816:
 
:''A person who deletes editorial matter because he may think it violates a copyright, or dislikes the author or the subject matter, is still a censor'' -> well, [[:en:Censorship#Internet|let me disagree]].
 
:''A person who deletes editorial matter because he may think it violates a copyright, or dislikes the author or the subject matter, is still a censor'' -> well, [[:en:Censorship#Internet|let me disagree]].
 
:''A classic a-la-Stalin execution of the block'' -> no further comments, & no longer watching this page. --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 17:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:''A classic a-la-Stalin execution of the block'' -> no further comments, & no longer watching this page. --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 17:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
−

 
−
My dear friend Stavin, it is hard for me to understand, given that you sent the link to censorship, how you can still not accept on linguistic terms the meaning of censorship... but well... so it is the way it is... --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo#top|talk]]) 18:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 
−

 
−
== Advise from Comrade Stavin ==
 
−

 
−
Mi friend Comrade Stavin advices me to not to write anonimously here: #[[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Tomascastelazo]], and to write whatever in my take page (here). Well, it is interesting advice that given that he is the one who executed the block on me, he gives such ridiculous advice. He threw me in a wiki-gulag in a remote corner of wiki-beria with the complacency of his peers where hardly anyone will venture. No, the debate should be public, at the view of all, and let the comunity decide, not the judge-executioners. --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo#top|talk]]) 20:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 
−

 
−
== Ecemaml ==
 
−

 
−
So if you are here because you followed Ecemaml´s link and comment, please take the time to read what the whole issue is about.
 
−

 
−
And Ecemaml, the Spanish Inqisition is alive and well within you!!! You are absolutely right, nothing has changed.
 
−

 
−
--[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo#top|talk]]) 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
−

 
−
== the source of the problem ==
 
−

 
−
For those curious, this is one of the causes of my block... [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Redacted_hot_air_balloon_festival.jpg]]. --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo#top|talk]]) 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
−

 
−
== Closed DRs ==
 
−

 
−
This is what is so wrong with some administrators in Commons, such as Ecemaml.
 
−

 
−
Deletion policy of Commons clearly states that DR can be closed by an administrator after seven days, yet Ecemaml seems to believe he is above the stated policy and has closed two DR that I made without due process, violating with impunity the policy and without interference by other admins. See here [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Het_Hele_Westland.JPG]]and here [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HBS-Craeyenhout_05.JPG]]. He closed the DRs less than 24 hours after they were entered. See deletion policy here [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_policy#Closure]].
 
−

 
−
Furthermore, he accuses me, the nominator, without proof other than his opinion, of disruptive behavior, in the reason to keep the image in question and without addressing the validity of the reasons for the nomination, which are, in my opinion, aligned with deletion policy.
 
−

 
−
I challenge you, Ecemaml, to prove to the public opinion that I am what you say I am. Of course you cowardly move while I am blocked, as it is common with your type, for you cannot face an open debate with real arguments and with honesty and integrity. You move in the safety of my silence, while in the wiki-gulag I am in, place here by my good friend, block executioner Comrade Stavin. Be a man and debate, don´t hide behind the skirts of cowards. Come out in public. That´s where the debate belongs, in the eyes of all. But of course, you and your type decide to block me because you cannot dispute the truthfulness of what I bring to this forum in the open. And yes, like you did with one of my comments, go and tell on me on the administrator´s board, like the squealer that you are. Yes, that is my opinion of people like you. How can coward, corrupt and abusive people be respected? For them, there is nothing but "petulant" contempt.
 
−

 
−
And I challenge administrators to act within the spirit of their charge and apply the rules with integrity and honesty regardless of who the nominator is and uphold due process as stated in policy. The time policy is set so the public, not just the administratores, can study the case and give an opinion. The DRs were closed on the whim of an administrator and thus depriving the community of its say. There is absolutely no reason to bypass policy, because if we allow anyone to do it, the whole thing comes apart, eventually. That is the reason for policy, to hold together the system. And this system is a collaborative system, not the realm of policy violators. And if anyone excuses Ecemaml with an statement close to "tomascastelazo is disruptive so Ecemaml is justified in closing the DRs" then we are really in upshit creek without a paddle. Due process, dear administrators, due process.
 
−

 
−
I don´t know what is more disruptive, being an outspoken and contributing collaborator or a policy violating admistrator.
 
−

 
−
This is a clear case of abusive, irresponsible and unchecked administrative power and privileges, and any administrator willing to let this slide is just as corrupt. There is no "legal" system here, but it does have what serves as a legal system, the policies that govern the system. If you violate, or let violate policy, this would be nothing but an insult to valuable contributors. I may be an asshole, but the only thing that I can be accused of is of confronting abuse. My uploads, which make up my contributions here have integrity and honesty. Judge me by that, not by the uncomfortableness that my observations cause.
 
−

 
−
Administrators should be the first ones to obey policy and their actions must be impeccable, in words and deeds.
 
−

 
−
I have been blocked for pointing out such abuse of power, as it is so evident here. Even in the event that my nomination may be wrong, for whatever reason, for the sake of legality, integrity, honesty or whatever value inspires or rules the spirit of Commons, this action cannot be overlooked, for then what we would have, contrary to the interests of Commons, as an encyclopedic movement, is a movement ruled by ruffians who make up the rules as they go along and violating with impunity the policy established with the purpose of establishing an environment of collaboration, a sort of social contract.
 
−

 
−
And what will probably happen, is that like-minded corrupt administrators like you Ecemaml will have a little conclave to decide that I am disruptive and should be blocked forever, ignoring the valuable contributions that I have brought to this place. But be sure of one thing, I am not the only one to think this way. Just read your talk page...
 
−

 
−
So, Ecemaml, your actions speak of the quality of administration that can be expected of you. I sure hope that you are never a public servant. And if so, like we say in Mexico: Que Dios nos agarre confesados. (May God take us after confession).
 
−

 
−
And this letter goes not only to Ecemaml, but to all corrupt administrators out there.
 
−

 
−
--[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo#top|talk]]) 02:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tomascastelazo&diff=92678148&oldid=92660288