Tecsatan
April 2017
edit
Hello, I'm Nordic Nightfury. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to West Midlands mayoral election, 2017 have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. This applies to your edit summary here. Nördic Nightfury 12:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear Nordic Nightfury,
I feel it only fare to warn you that I am now reporting you to the UK police for electoral fraud. As has been stated to you time and time again the image used is owned by us, with permission given and there is no copy right or terms of service conflict. Every comment you have posted in reply has been disproved or proved to be false. I will also be escalating this within Wiki Common.
You are without reason, obstructing a UK political election, the only conclusion that the Liberal Democrat party can draw from your obverse outrages behaviour is that you are in the employ or a support of one of the other political candidates.
As stated before, under UK law your actions are illegal. Please view this as formal notice to cease and desist. Any additional comments, deletions or edits on the images of Beverley Nielsen will also be classed as harassment.
Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Nördic Nightfury 14:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nördic Nightfury 15:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. NeilN talk to me 15:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
NeilN
To dispel some of the comments on your admin discussion.
I am unsure what my hereditary titles or status have to do with this debate? Seems more than a little unprofessional.
My spelling and grammar where called into question. Again, this shows you have not read the full history of comments and not reviewed the case. If you had you would have seen that I already stated that I am in fact dyslexic. That is a registered disability. I have taken a screen shot of your comments around this as it is interesting how as a representative of Wikipedia your comments seem to suggest that spell somehow reflects intelligence? And that because someone can not spell they are therefore untrustworthy? Or to put it another way, in your opinion, from your comments, it can only be concluded that you discriminate against a disability’s openly and publicly.
As was also posted above, which you did not bother to read. My LinkedIn profile. You will note that as well as being on the Executive Board for the West Midlands Lib Dem Mayoral campaign, in charge of outgoing communications, which is a volunteer role, that I am a Senior Solutions Architect by trade. If your unfamiliar with such role’s, let me explain to you. It means I deal with large multi-million pound technical solutions, design and implementation, including having a deep and detailed understanding of many legal issues surrounding them, not limited to copyright issues. It is clear that my knowledge supersedes your admins who seem incapable of noting the difference between civil and criminal cases. It has been noted on many occasions now that this has been reported to the police as harassment and electoral fraud are criminal not civil matters. Please again see my LinkedIn profile for evidence. https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-nicholas-schemanoff-77553042/
Let me refer you to http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk for guidance on why this HAS TO BE REPORTED IN THE MANNER THAT IT HAS. And also by I had to be clear in my warnings before reporting please refer back to the Harassment Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents .
If you bothered to check the available sources, you would see that I am the Senior Solutions Architect for cloudThing and work on a number of their projects including the design and development of the MET Polices social monitoring solution. Which now includes Wikipedia. Additional information on this can be found here: http://socialdatalab.net/world-leading-predictive-tools-will-be-used-by-met-police-to-monitor-real-time-crime-events . So again, I can assure you that as an industry expert my knowledge in this area far exceeds yours.
Now as I have explained to you a number of times now, this is now an ongoing case with the police. I am happy to provide crime numbers as reference evidence, which you can use to ring the police to verify that they relate to an ongoing investigation. There has been therefore no legal threat here but simply a process of following UK law and guidelines in such situations.
On a final note, I am sure your aware that as a Senior Solutions Architect, the highest point of technical authority in most companies, I am well are of how to use VPN’s, Proxy’s, and reset the IP on my dynamic IP address. You will also note that I am not really a big publisher on Wikipedia so would have no issue with deleting this account and just making another one if I chose to do so. And while I am not saying I am going to do this, as I am aware of your ban evasion policy, I feel it’s worth pointing out that such bans are pretty much irrelevant and ineffective against me if I chose to simply work around them. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for me persisting to challenge Wikipedia’s conduct to date must be that you are in fact in the wrong.
You have been informed of the full situation again now. As stated this situation has been escalated now far above volunteer administrators and I will simply deal with the issue at a more professional level.
Thanks, you for your time.
Update 15:28 11/04/2017. In response to your email, as seen below. Please note this is a Wikipedia admin, sending emails from their private and personal email account in association to the above issue which can only be construed as suspicious. Unless you can provide documentation from Wikipedia that this is normal behaviour? I am happy however that it should now without a doubt verify that I am who I say I am, have the authority and permission I claim I have and verify that everything I have told you to date has been 100% true and accurate. Mz7 as the only admin to date to provide useful advice and information and to have behaved in a professional manner could you please confirm that as a Wikipedia admin you are allowed to and encouraged to behave in the manner that NeilN has done below? While I do not know for sure, and will raise this with Wikipedia directly, but I believe this is an abuse of power and privilege at best and a breach of the data protection act at worst?
Original email and reply below:-
Hi Neil,
Thank you for your email.
You seem to have been very selective in your interpretation of events. As I clearly stated, a number of times, which is all documented-on Wikipedia with permissions to the photo’s used, we have given permission for these photos to be used and they confirm to your licensing. Sadly it would appear you have been unwilling to take our word on this because the image used was also used on Twitter, an account managed by the same team.
As a result of this the same individuals, regardless of the situation being explained on a number of occasions.
From your admin page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tecsatan:_Using_legal_threats_on_talkpage (I have attached a screen shot) you can see the unprofessional approach by yourself and your admins. There Is marked discrimination against disability here, as you have been informed beforehand, within the linked posts you have provided, that I am dyslexic. At best this shows you have not investigated the case as requested. It should be noted that is also a criminal offence under the Disability Discrimination Act.
The behaviour of removing Beverley’s photos has been ongoing since November of last year. Only yesterday, did the admin user provide an alternative route for licensing. Regardless of us already confirming to your licensing.
The fact that the other candidate’s images on the same page has been used elsewhere without this disruption and that the same users, “Nordic Nightfury” have been removing content, as supported by yourselves, has raised alarm bells of Electoral Fraud, as was explained to you on the page mentioned. This is also Harassing behaviour and under the Harassment Act, a warning has to be given to cease and desist, as was given, from a legal point of view, before cases can be escalated. This was done. Following our legal obligations.
We understand fully that Wikipedia is run by volunteers by and large they may not in fact be aware of the full legal implications of their actions or their accountability for them. Sadly ignorance is not a legal defence.
Myself and our campaign have followed our legal obligations issue cease and desist notices for harassing behaviour leading to electoral fraud. As stated we are obliged to escalate such issues and give notice. Which was done.
I am however greatly saddened and disturbed by the unprofessional way Wikipedia admins have dealt with this and when your actions have been pointed out to be in error, with evidence and documentation provided your resulting action was to apply an ineffectual ban against a user account.
As covered in the link you provided, we will now follow the advice of the admin Mz7 who has offered an alternate route, only yesterday, as to getting content onto Wikipedia. Our outstanding complaints to Wikipedia central, will remain open. I will of course be sending them a copy of this email as supporting evidence as I do believe you have breached your own contract with Wikipedia by this approach. I assume that this is because your now aware that the complaints will be mainly about your conduct and behaviour at this point. This is just an assumption of course as I assume you’re are the user NeilN. The admin responsible for putting ban’s in place on this occasion and supporting the illegal actions and removal of content that has not in fact breached Wikipedia’s licensing.
I would advise that you restrict all future correspondence through official channels via Wikipedia’s complaint process.
To quote you however “I'm not going to lie, I don't believe a word that has come out of TecSatans mouth here.”. As you have been now proven wrong I assuming you will be retracting such public statements. Also as a personal note of advice, stating in public, as a face of a company, that you don’t believe your customers when they complain against harassment against them, it’s common curtesy to at least investigate the issues and not just fob off that user (customer) with insults.
Thanks
Adam Schemanoff
Senior Solutions Architect
This email carries a disclaimer which can be read here
From: Beverley Nielsen [redacted] Sent: 11 April 2017 12:52 To: Kate Canty [redacted] Adam Schemanoff [redacted] Subject: Fwd: Public domain images of you
FYI
[redacted] Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 at 12:48 Subject: Public domain images of you To: Beverly Nielsen Cc: Amy
Dear Beverley
I am enquiring if on your website there are an images of you that have been placed in the public domain. By this I mean an image which is clearly labelled as being released under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (or 4.0) licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ The purpose of asking is to find an image of you to add to the Wikipedia pages where you are mentioned. I there isn't one on the site can one be labelled or someone take a photo of you and upload it themselves under the appropriate licence.
Unfortunately the poor behaviour of Adam Nicholas Schemanoff in dealing with a copyright query from Wikipedia about the image of you he uploaded has led to his being banned from the site. He uploaded an image which is also used on your Twitter account which he claims to operate on your behalf. Wikipedia takes a strict line about copyright so as the image had already been published Adam was asked to provide proof by way of email or the original image that he was the copyright holder. When this wasn't forthcoming the image was deleted. Adam instead of complying with the request and providing evidence which would have allowed the image to be restored goes off on a claim of electoral fraud and harassment and claims to have reported Wikipedia to West Midlands Police and the Electoral Commission for fraud and discrimination against you. You can read the whole saga at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tecsatan and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beverley_Nielsen.jpg
All of this unpleasantness can be avoided if an image is uploaded by the person who took it and it's a new photo or an existing image on your website is labelled, on the website, as being licenced under the aforementioned Creative Commons licence (this is the easier and fastest way of resolving this).
Yours
Nigel Pepper Voting Lib-Dem since 1983
What to do now
editHello Tecsatan. I'm Mz7, and I am a volunteer administrator on Wikipedia. You have been blocked by another administrator from editing Wikipedia because you appear to have threatened to take legal action in your statement here. I believe I understand why you are frustrated, and I wanted to explain what is happening and how we can resolve this situation amiably.
Firstly, none of us are not trying to commit election fraud; instead, we need more evidence that you are (or represent) the copyright holder of the image you want to add, as well as evidence that you intend to license the image under a license compatible with Wikipedia. I would like to explain how you can provide this evidence so that we can use the image in the article. However, you must first retract your legal threat.
As you know, Wikipedia has a very strict copyrights policy – we want to ensure that we have the full permission from the copyright holders before publishing their creative works. One of our fundamental principles as a movement is that Wikipedia should consist of free content – that is, content that is licensed in such a way that anyone, not just Wikipedia, may use them freely without having to ask for permission. One of the most common licenses is the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 license, which allows anyone to use, copy, and edit the image for any reason, provided that they attribute the author and release derivative works under the same or similar license.
If you (as the copyright holder) are satisfied with these terms, please send an email to permissions-commons
wikmedia.org with a specific statement of permission. For your convenience, an email template has been provided here that you can simply fill out and send to us, which we will be able to readily accept. Please send this email from an address affiliated with the copyright holder so that we can verify that the permission is coming from the copyright holder. Please leave a note here once you have sent this email. You must retract your legal threat above before you may continue contributing Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please leave a note here. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Mz7 Thank you for your reply. This issue has been escalated to your internal support team via an unblock request. There is additional evidence across the campaign of foul play and a police case is now open. I can provide UK crime numbers to references, as evidence, of wrong doing within this matter that is now under police investigation.
Please note that under UK law a cease and desist statement has to be issued for cases of harassment. As was done. I am therefore unable to retract such as statement as to do so would breach UK electoral guidelines (accords to the UK election commission) and UK law, which has been followed within this matter. Sadly, the law and electoral commission guidelines supersedes any terms and conditions that may be held by Wikipedia, but I very much appreciate you are following company policy and yourself or Wikipedia as a company as not doing anything to restrict access to campaign materials which could viewed viewed as acting within a bias manner.
I will submit evidence for the image as requested via your suggested route.
This is now however out of my hands and within the hands of the authority’s.
April 2017
edit
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Tecsatan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #17998 was submitted on Apr 13, 2017 10:39:25. This review is now closed.