Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Denelson83

Statement of the issue
Denelson83 (a long-time contributor who insists on maintaining a red userpage) follows a number of unusual personal policies. Any 'negative' comments left on his userpage, for instance, are deleted, replaced with a red " General violation " or similar notice, and a matching notice (with descriptive text!) is placed on the talk page of the user whose comments were removed. You can find out a bit about the user from his talk page and contributions.

I don't have anything against idiosyncracies. I happen to make a point of leaving recent comments on my talk page, but know that negative comments on one's talk page can be a drag.

However, iMeowBot and I recently placed comments about a potential copyvio on his talk page (in response to a direct email from the alleged copyright holder!), and promptly found "general violation" notices on our own talk pages. Our comments were friendly, the response was unhelpful and nasty, and the whole leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Denelson is an active contributor, but apparently not one for conversation; I'm uncertain how best to proceed, but would like this aggression towards people who contact him, to stop.

Description
Here are the messages left on Denelson's page a few days back (both added at more or less the same time)

The messages
Victoria map heads up

Hi. This (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-March/021457.html) message forwarded to wikien-l raises a question about the origin of Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png, and at a glance it seems to be in conflict with their policy (http://www.gov.bc.ca/bvprd/bc/content.do?brwId=@20IJ6|0YQtuW&navId=NAV_ID_province). If you can clear this up (both of you created the maps from the same data, they gave permission to use, whatever the situation is) before any drama ensues, that might be good. --iMb~Mw 04:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A line-map of BC that you uploaded seems like it might be a copyvio... or perhaps you and BC-Stats got it from the same source? bcstats.gov (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm) retains copyright on all its images. See Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png for more (and please reply there :)

Cheers, +sj + 05:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the response
*** Notice of general violation ***

Your recent message to user "Denelson83" under the subject line of "Victoria map heads up" has been disregarded and deleted. The reason given was "Flagrancy re long-term issue". Messages to the aforementioned recipient causing general violations are not tolerated. Related information is at No personal attacks and No legal threats.

Do not post another such message on the recipient's talk page.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(see User talk:Denelson83 and its archives, or Denelson's edits to other user talk pages, for similar interactions)

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * No personal attacks
 * Assume good faith

Also a sensitivity to the importance of watching for copyvios. Denelson himself has contributed entries to Possible copyright infringements, so I am surprised at this angry reaction, and the apparently random assignation of these friendly comments as "legal threats," a sure way to be unhelpful.

Evidence of attempts to resolve the dispute directly
(provide diffs and links)
 * I only tried to communicate with Denelson once. The number of other users who had tried the same and failed, and the disconnected fervor of his response, discouraged further interaction.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
--iMb~Mw 21:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) I'm signing this because I did get one of those loverly "general violation" notices, with the caveat that I really hope this is something that can be worked out with an arrangement agreeable to everyone. I'll add more below shortly.

And here we are below, with more! I did think it was weird to get warnings about Wikipedia's personal attacks and legal threats policies, when the note I left on Denelson83's talk page was clearly labeled as a heads-up that someone else was making a copyright claim and it might be good to clear things up before the wikien-l gang had a chance to make a dramatic episode of it. If anything, this "general violation" business made things worse, since sentiments on the list seemed to be sympathetic regarding the initial copyright question.

There are some things I think are important to note here. First, the mention of "involuntarily" caught my attention. That's a pretty serious bug, and I'm not sure that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is a good way to deal with that. Second, Denelson83 left this bit of explanation of Oven Fresh's talk page: "Because I consider them to be negative criticism, and each incident of negative criticism feels like a very hard punch in my face. I still follow any directions I am given, but I just want to forget those moments." It's too bad that these things are seen as "instructions" but such is life.

And indeed, in the case of the BC maps, Denelson83 did remove or replace them.
 * Aha, thanks for the follow-up. The "and disregarded" part of his template message was a particularly troublesome bit.  +sj  +  06:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I think this whole thing can be put to rest simply enough if Denelson83 will refrain from posting the bogus "general violation" comments on other people's talk pages; and if comments on Denelson's own talk page are to be deleted, that it be deleted and not replaced with "general violation" commentary. --iMb~Mw 22:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. +sj  +

Other users who endorse this summary

 * 1) I endorse iMB~Mw's proposed course of action. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill here. Dbiv 20:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response
Let me respond to this allegation:

1) I do not want to be seen as a criminal. If I upload any images and they end up flagged as copyright infringements, it ends up blackening my reputation on Wikipedia, not to mention causing my anxiety to drastically surge, because I interpret those "copyright infringement flags" as criminal indictments.  How would you feel if you were accused of breaking the law, when you know that you did nothing wrong?

I am right now of the opinion that copyright infringement of rich media, such as pictures and music, is unpreventable. Look at file sharing, for example. Rampant copyright infringement takes place on all the major file-sharing networks, and the paths of recourse the MPAA and RIAA have for trying to shut such activity down are very limited, if not non-existent. Unfortunately, nobody can control what happens on the Internet, and copyright infringement is generally unpunishable on the Internet, unless there happened to be some sort of international DMCA-like copyright treaty, which I do not believe exists at this time. So I am sorry, but copyrighted images will keep appearing on Wikipedia, with many people uploading them not bothering to pay attention to copyright policy, and every single one of those images is present as a result of the "fair use" tenet. People do not cite the sources of those images, because they think of that directive as superfluous, and there is nothing anyone here can possibly do about it, not even me.

2) The "general violation" messages were attempts, albeit aggressive attempts, to discourage people from suspecting me of repeatedly committing wikicrimes such as infringing on copyrights or attempting to incite edit wars, allegations of which having made up a significant part of the messages I have historically received on my talk page. As of now (02:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)), the "general violation" messages will stop, as their purpose has been replaced by the "wikimood" template at the top of my talk page (the purpose of which I explained on the Village Pump, and which any other Wikipedian may also use).

Also, because of the volatility that I see within myself, I see no choice but to refrain from starting conversations with other Wikipedians, for fear that I may immediately lose my hard-to-keep sense of civility.

And as for my contributions to Possible copyright infringements, among other things, now you see me as being a hypocrite, but those contributions were completely random, just like my contributions to Votes for deletion and other project pages. I was only trying to help the project any way that I practically could, and now see where it has gotten me.

Maybe I should go on a wikivacation, and see if this issue can settle down by the time I get back...

-A scared Denelson83

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Follow-up
Since this unfortunate incident, I have since offered an apology to User:Sj, and intend to offer a similar apology to User:IMeowbot upon learning that he or she is still active on Wikipedia. Denelson83 06:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outside view
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to the discussion page.

User:Rholton on the matter:
 * Denelson83's expressed attitude on his/her talk page seems to be in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia policy on Civility. His/her talk page says, in part:


 * "any time I am sent a message with regard to bad edits, copyright violations, or any other alleged negative contributions, it is involuntarily interpreted as either an assault on my intelligence, an action I take extremely personally, or a pure threat..."

User:Morven replies:
 * I would strongly agree, having gone to look at it. This user does not answer ANY questions or comments about their behavior or actions, instead replacing the question with "" and the like, in red. They state: "If you are going to post a message on this page, it must be a positive comment. Any comments that I interpret as destructive will be disregarded and removed from this page. Thank you."

User:MPerel opinion:
 * Denelson83's behavior is not good Wikiquette, nor is it conducive to collaboration. However, he/she is basically free to delete what he wants on his own talk page.  As far as what he posts on other people's talk pages, he should consider demonstrating the same civility that he wants others to show to him.  I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate a "Comment deleted - General violation" left on his talk page in response to his "Comment deleted" posts he's left on another's talk page.  --MPerel( talk 12:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

User:Matt Crypto comments:
 * Deleting negative criticism from your talk page is certainly a user's right if he so wishes (even though many would suggest it was bad form to "sanitise" criticism in this way). However, this user goes about this in a particularly inflammatory way, with the "general violation" messages and the hostile "posting rules" on his/her User Talk: page. This user says, "If you are going to post a message on this page, it must be a positive comment." &mdash; this is not an acceptable demand. Community norms are that you can delete negative comments on your talk page, but you cannot forbid them. The best way to deal with negative criticism is 1) see if there's any substance to the criticism, and if so, modify your behaviour accordingly; else 2) if there's no substance to the criticism, simply ignore it, or explain why you disagree. Posting inflammatory "General violation" messages will only make people angry, and is not in line with the Wikipedia policies of Assume good faith and Civility. However, I do not see any evidence of (what I would judge to be) personal attacks by this user. &mdash; Matt Crypto 21:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Burgundavia comments:
 * I contacted this user, as seen in this diff, regarding the issue. I received a civil reply, as seen here. I am a little shocked at the behaviour all around. It seems to me a be a giant misunderstanding.

User:Karmosin comments:
 * Making claims that other users accuse Denelson of committing a crime becuase they point out possible copyright infringement in a very civil manner is not really a reaction that seems appropriate. I can recommend reading Copyright to get a better view on how these things work. As for not accpeting any criticism, even when valid and presented in a civil manner, I can not sympathize with it. Remarks about copyright violations are perfectly good examples of construcitve and fully acceptable criticism. The "General violation"-posts are not.
 * I don't feel that Denelson needs to be afraid of anything, though. We all make mistakes and as long as it is understood that Wikipedia is all about compromising in terms of behavior as well as contributions to articles, I don't see any need for further reprimands. Peter Isotalo 14:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)