User:Slowking4/block appeal

"I've spotchecked a bunch of images, and all of them were photographs; maybe you'd find a little art in there if you checked everything, but if there's any there, it's not much. File:Delia Akeley.jpg was particularly egregious: it was deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 17#File:Delia Akeley.jpg because the nominator found a free image (okay, we all can overlook a free image), but then it was again deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 8#File:Delia Akeley.jpg because Slowking uploaded another nonfree image (rationale: no demonstration that a free photo exists; rather your flights of fancy doubt that one doesn't. prove a free photo exists by uploading one. as we can see in this photo, family photos can exist that remain in copyright; prove that the existing photos in books are free and not under copyright.) instead of uploading the free image. When you're having a large number of images deleted for improper fair-use claims, the only appropriate responses are "I'll be much more careful" (and complying) or "I'll stop uploading nonfree images". But when you make this kind of argument, and you keep going and uploading more such images despite warnings and a block, there's no reason to believe that you'll stop unless you are stopped. " [1]

i had forgotten what the block was about after all these years. however, i have reviewed the images in question. seventeen deleted image have not been replaced; three images were replaced by another fair use image. Delia Akeley is particularly egregious, given the deleting admin is now banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. internet archive automatically cropped a magazine image 2 years after the fair use image deletion, and it was automatically uploaded to commons. at the time, it was not a free alternative. merely pointing to an group image that is not cropped and uploaded is not an alternative to a head shot in the article.

when an admin issues a drive by block without warning, and a sentence fragment justification, and years later misrepresents the facts in self-justification, then the only appropriate response by that admin is "I'm sorry, and I will not block editors in a summary way again."

list of images in dispute


prologue edit

when i found a fair use image from the washington post deleted summarily,[5] something was rotten in Denmark. it turns out the rottenness was betacommand.[6]; [7] when an admin deleted an image previously prod'ed by betacommand,[8]: what did he know and when did he know it?

this a bad block against the block policy: edit

  • this block is punitive; it does not "prevent" anything.
  • it does not protect the project, it stops discussion; just as discussion continues to be stopped i.e. here [9]
  • the project is not disrupted: account not exclusively for disruption; rather it stops non-discussion of policy.
  • no reasonable person could conclude that the block helps, but rather it harms the project.
  • the five hundred fair use images i uploaded remain in use, i.e. the the attempt to discredit uploads appears pre-functory.
  • english is on it's own here, i am very productive on other projects.

the block reasoning is faulty: edit

  1. "Continued systematic abuse of non-free content policy, plus repeated personal attacks"
  2. "I have blocked your account indefinitely. This is for a combination of reasons — your continued personal attacks and your continued defiance of our nonfree content criteria. Like anyone else, you're welcome to appeal this block (you still can edit your talk page), but let me remind you that using your talk page access to attack anyone is likely to mean that your talk page access will be revoked"
  • no evidence given; no discussion
  • 1- in fact not systematic, random. i responded to the systematic abuse of the fair use policy, when it appeared on my watchlist.
  • 1 - NFCC policy amended without clear consensus - as others note: "Reinterpreting NFCC to include "no press image can be reused as it might infringe on someone's future profits" is a pretty big deal, and contrary to policy guidance (informal and nonspecific as it was) from on high. So, I think there's a problem." [10]
  • 1- in fact not repeated personal attacks, a single pointed remark on my talk-page in response to repeated hounding.
  • 2- no reason why indefinite is appropriate; there is no evidence that the extraordinary term is justified.
  • 2- i am not defiant of the policy; rather i object to the abuse of the policy; editor's strongly held ideologies are not policy.
  • 2- no citations of policy or consensus, rather rule by fiat.
  • 2- i can have no confidence in a fair process here; it is unclear what evidence or reasoning is necessary given the manifestly false statements by admins.
  • 2- let me remind you that preemptive warnings are not AGF; i invite you to revoke talk page access; i am amused by the repeated drama to control user and user talk pages.

non-policy personal judgement substitution for policy edit

  • "Your uploads make it clear that you're not making any effort beyond a google-find-upload-repeat sequence. Take File:Franz Aigner.jpg. According to {{PD-Austria}}, copyright of photos expires 50 years from publication and is PD in the US if it was PD in Austria in 1996 (so if it was published pre-1946). Are we really to believe that a guy who wrestled in Austria in the 1920s didn't have a photo published before 1946? Heck, this one might even be public domain. And regardless of whether it is, you uploaded a tiny unusable photo rather than scrolling down to the bottom of the source website and finding one of usable quality. You're not taking the time to do any of this right - you're just creating a mess."
  • "The problem with settling with a fair use image is once we do it, our chances of getting a free one go to nil. Imagine the conversation: "Hi, I'm B, an editor at Wikipedia. I see your nice photo of person XYZ and would like to use it here. Would you be willing to license it to us under the terms of the GFDL or a free content Creative Commons license such as the attribution or attribution-sharealike licenses?" "It looks like you already have a photo - what's wrong with that one?" "Well, the photo we have is non-free - we want a free one." "What does that even mean? You're willing to use the photo you have now - why should I do this licensing stuff when you already have a photo?" "We believe in free content - free as in speech, not as in soda. So we try to replace photos used under a claim of fair use with ones where the copyright holder publishes the image under a free content license." "I don't understand a word you're saying to me. I'm going to stop talking now - you have a photo and sound like some kind of geek with too much time on your hands."
  • "This newspaper (page 9 according to Google's numbering) tells that there was a TV broadcast titled "A. A. Allen" on "Channel 13–ABC–Asheville". Other newspapers, including newspapers from other years, mention a programme with the same name, so I would assume that this was something broadcast once a week or something. A search for "A A Allen" at returns no hits, so I would assume that all programmes in this TV series are PD-US-not renewed. I would assume that you can find old TV programmes in some archive somewhere in which case you could take a screenshot from one of those TV programmes. The image clearly violates WP:NFCC#1."
  • "Unencyclopedic photo being used under a claim of fair use. The giant watermark renders the image inappropriate for use here." ..." Wikipedia respects copyright - we don't ignore it. There is no fair use defense for using a photo from a commercial content provider (unless you are doing so to comment on the photo itself). Think about it - you're a professional photographer. News organizations pay you for your photographs. If "fair use" were a legitimate defense, then no news organization would ever pay you - they would just claim "fair use". You would have no income." [11]

conclusion edit

  • a free only ideology harms the wiki, by failing to increase traffic to articles that could have, but do not have an image. (between 25 and 70 percent).
  • by practising "adversive leadership", editors in control drive away more productive editors; editor decline will continue.

November 2015 edit

Hello Slowking4,

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that either the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead.

Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Beeblebrox English Wikipedia Administrator

November 2017 edit

Hello Slowking4,

As you still have access to your talk page, and as there is no private information associated with your appeal, please post your unblock request to your user talk page for administrator review. You can follow these instructions.

Thank you,

Just Chilling English Wikipedia Administrator