75.105.13.17

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "a legitimate concern about lack of notice for "derivatives" for a CC 2.5 image is not "trolling"." Decline reason: "I'm not seeing a committment not to edit disruptively. Just a continuation of the disruptive argument. Decline for now, pending a change in approach. --++Lar: t/c 16:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Please give me more information & why you would like to get unblocked. Thanks, --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the convesation. It was a simple delete so that a new image could be put in its place that correctly marked that it was a derivative. Since we don't have the original uploader around, we need someone else to crop the photo, mention the original licensing, and then upload the photo to be compliant. Instead, it is filled with people from Wikipedia who believe that the current concerns are "censorship" when the people who put forward the concerns are only about CC 2.5 licensing (since there was a larger photo that was not cropped already on Wikipedia's logs). 75.105.13.17 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained at length by multiple people on the DR and as shown by my Sourcing section on the original image (did you look?) the matter of that is resolved. Multiple admins have reviewed it. The original author and owner fat fingering the text in the upload box--which is what this boils down to, by him not saying he cropped his OWN image--is not grounds for deletion. Your repeated hammering that we extra work or steps are needed on this case is problematic. Why does extra work need to be done here, plus an undelete of the original image? Is it because you want to see the original? Why the extra hoops for this image? rootology (T) 17:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You can say whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true. The tag is extremely sloppy and it all began on Wikipedia. Multiple admin can review it all they want, but few admit that there is a larger, uncropped image, which makes this a derivative and fall under that. Just because an admin makes a claim, it does not mean that they are correct nor prejudiced in the matter. I gave you the ways on how to make this compliant. And yes, by not saying who cropped the image, we have no proof that he did it or anyone else. Your inability to understand copyright law and the importance behind having licensing correct is problematic. 75.105.13.17 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And for your information, I have had to change many of my own images uploaded here to conform correctly, and they are PD because they are old. And yeah, I had to jump through hoops. Everyone has to. If you are unwilling to then you shouldn't upload things here. 75.105.13.17 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not deal with the block review as I confess I came to the page considering a block myself. I looked on this as a good faith deletion request however this user's behaviour is more and more like trolling. There is little or no concern with valid arguments. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is a larger edition that was not cropped shows that there is a valid argument. How complicated is it to delete the item and replace it with a derivative that follows protocol? 75.105.13.17 18:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock declined

Unblock request declined for now. We need a commitment not to disrupt. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats a large assumption that this is disruption, especially when there have been multiple admin who I've talked with who believe that there is a concern here. 75.105.13.17 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar, this would violate your necessity to be a third party reviewer. Either pick the keep or pick the overturning the unblock. It wouldn't be fair to do both. 75.105.13.17 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I can express my opinion non-disruptively, it's one of many, while also evaluating your disruption. Are you prepared to commit to make your points, without repeating yourself or being disruptive? If so I'll unblock. Or you could use an ID... ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've expressed how I feel about this matter to you privately. That is all I will say here. 75.105.13.17 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would sincerely like to know who these admins are? They really should express their opinion on the page if they have views on it. That is how it all works. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the conversations, you will see many that have already, but scattered throughout. It is obvious that the current deletion review turned into a popularity contest with most of the people ignoring the problem and crying "censorship" instead. I offered a simple solution. Do people care? No. Of course no one cares. They aren't here to make sure images are correct, as per their comments. 75.105.13.17 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the  Delete I would have expected to see, all I see is a lot of  Keep... But that's immaterial. This discussion is about your disruption. By the way, as a note to all and sundry, WR is not a dispute resolution mechanism for activities on Commons. Please don't use it that way. I repeat my offer, commmit not to be disruptive and I'll lift the block. That's pretty simple. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar, point out what my disruption is. By the initial admin blocking me for a week, it appears that they believe my disruption is participation upon the deletion review. By staying blocked, it provides me with leverage to show that Commons admins use their authority in order to protect images that are sketchy at best by considering any challenge as a disruption. I have not cussed. I have followed procedures. I have not personally attacked. It is obvious that if it was any thing else besides the above, I would have been warned first, let alone blocked for less than a week span of time. And contacting an admin directly has always been an appropriate way to deal with such things. 75.105.13.17 18:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You were arguing with all and sundry, and in a way that's unacceptably non mellow. That's disruption. You're arguing with me now, in fact. If some other admin wants to review this and lift it, that's fine by me. I'll bring this to the proper noticeboard if it's not there already. Further, by using WR you are putting a burden on me to keep your true identity secret. I will of course, but I resent it, since it's needless. This page is fine for all discussion as far as I am concerned, I see no need for anonymity, if your case won't stand on the merits, anonymous communication is unlikely to sway me. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where was my warning? Maybe I was in the heat of the moment? Hell, where was the notification that I was even blocked? Why a week and not a day? Where is the AGF or the trying to talk to me? Where is the "this may be problematic, tone ___ action down"? You aren't burdened to do anything. I can wait out a week of a block time, because it is clear that if this admin didn't block me, some other admin would, because there is a status quo to uphold, and the mob is having their say. 75.105.13.17 18:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored this page as I have asked other admins to review this matter. The page is important to that process so all interested parties can do so. It is possible, as always, that I have misjudged matters and hence I think a review is appropriate. Please leave it restored for now. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already expressed reservations against continuing, and that it is clear from the above that I cannot AGF about the process at hand, especially with the state of the current reviewing. The unblock review was already declined, and I did not put up another, nor do I wish it to continue. Please respect those wishes. 75.105.13.17 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You were haranguing me via WR that your block was unfair, unjustified, that my refusing to lift it was unfair, etc. etc. etc... now when I take it to be reviewed by my peers, as is appropriate, because hey, maybe I erred, you don't want a review after all, and you delete the page to make it slightly more difficult for others to review it? That seems rather not very helpful... then when I bring it back and patiently explain why, you accuse all and sundry of lack of good faith. I'm just not seeing the collegiality in your approach here. Seems kind of argue against whatever someone else says kind of behaviour, rather than reasonable behaviour to me. I could be wrong though, as per always. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread my intentions then. I only messaged you to clarify who I was and why I originally said those things. Now, you can unstrike your comments on the deletion review and let me remove this discussion and we can all move on. :) Now, to be clear, I'm not accusing you of any of the problems. I have the highest respect for you, which is why I went to you directly. This is probably all a mess. Just ignore it if its unintelligible. 75.105.13.17 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK... I'll go back to saying that if you'll just commit to try a bit harder to be collegial, I'll unblock you. And I'll try to make sure that if you veer off, that you get warned first before just getting slammed with another block... would you try that? I think we actually need to work through that deletion discussion and get to what the right outcome is. Will you work with me? ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I wont be participating anymore. The only other things I needed to do on commons were taken care of by some other admin (yes, this involved in expanding data on copyright tags to make sure that they are proper). So nothing to worry from me. Sorry for wasting your time. 75.105.13.17 19:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it reasonable to commute to time served and will, therefore, unblock. IP 75 was perhaps over zealous in defense of his/her opinion, but a week-long block -- especially without warning -- seems excessive. The deletion discussion has closed and, even before that occurred, IP 75 noted an intention to disengage.

IP 75, discussions that spill over from other projects, especially en.wiki ANI, have a propensity to become emotional and heated. Sometimes it is best to pick your battles and, no matter how right you may think you are or may actually be, wait for a time when calmer mindsets are prevailing. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)