Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:13, 7 June 2009

Allstarecho (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per the block statement Anyone may unblock if he promises not to copy and paste copyrighted content into Misplaced Pages anymore, I promise not to copy and paste copyrighted content into Misplaced Pages anymore since I am retired from Misplaced Pages. Additionally, no need in an indef block of a retired user.

Decline reason:

you are not retired from wikipedia, you are quite clearly still here. Viridae 08:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Allstarecho (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Retirement isn't a condition of my being unblocked. The block reason specifically said Anyone may unblock if he promises not to copy and paste copyrighted content into Misplaced Pages anymore and I specifically promised not to copy and past copyrighted content into Misplaced Pages anymore. I am abiding by the specific statement that said I could be unblocked. So now, unblock me.

Decline reason:

I am declining this one too because it doesn't address the reason why the first one was declined. You stated "I promise not to copy and paste copyrighted content into Misplaced Pages anymore since I am retired from Misplaced Pages", since your promise not to copy copyrighted material into[REDACTED] hinges on you being retired, and you clearly aren't retired (which is why the first unblock request was declined). Viridae 10:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Viridae, my retirement is a non-issue as it's not a stipulation that was given in the stipulation for being unblocked. It doesn't matter whether I am retired, not retired, still editing, not editing.. the stipulations say if I promised not to add copyrighted material anymore, I can be unblocked. I promised not to add copyrighted material. I abided by the stipulation given. So now I should be unblocked, period. I'm afraid you not honoring the stipulation as it was set, is bad faith and speaks to other motives of keeping me blocked. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 3:19 pm, Today (UTC−5)

In both your unblock requests you promised to not add copyrighted material because you are retired. You aren't retired, you are still here, so the promise doesn't hold any weight. Viridae 4:59 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Whether I am retired or not is not the point. I abided by the stipulations that were laid out in the block. What part of "retired or not is not in the stipulations and has nothing to do with whether I am blocked or unblocked" is so hard to understand?? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 7:05 pm, Today (UTC−5)

You could just say "I will not add copyrighted material and will also retire AllstarSoxwon (talk) 7:07 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I shouldn't have to say that since it's not part of the stipulations for being unblocked. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 7:10 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I think he means that you have implied that as long as you aren't retired you will make Copyright vios, but really I agree, it shouldn't be part of it. Soxwon (talk) 7:14 pm, Today (UTC−5)

In fact, it was the only one. Whether or not that remains the case is an open question.  Frank  |  talk  7:17 pm, Today (UTC−5) However, further information has resulted in the block being reaffirmed (you've already commented on this below).  Frank  |  talk  00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not copyvios

And now Durova is CSDing articles that aren't copyvios or that had the copyvio content removed. Man, y'all are paranoid. Seriously, it looks like I'm not the one that needs to calm down and take a deep breathe. I have witnessed non-copyvio articles and images get deleted as well as images and articles of which I didn't add the copyvio content to, but got blamed for it in the edit/deletion summaries. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Diffs?  Frank  |  talk  00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Try this one of yourself.. paranoia over a question mark.. if you'll look at the history you'll see where I went over the copyright info after moonwhateverhernameis brought it to my attention Friday. Which brings me to another damn point.. moonwhateverhernameis brought articles to my attention, I worked on them to correct the issues and then the witch-hunt began. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not paranoia...it's a non-encyclopedic sentence that looks very much like it was lifted straight from a DVD sleeve. I don't have immediate access to that title or I would have checked it myself. I've already ordered a book from my library. And yes, I do have a life, believe it or not.  Frank  |  talk  00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you will look at my damn edit to the article you will see I wrote the damn sentence. It's a question so why wouldn't a question have a question mark?? Yes, it is paranoia. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

More to the point...do you have a diff that supports "Durova is CSDing articles that aren't copyvios"?  Frank  |  talk  00:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Way to ignore your own paranoia over the question mark. Yes, see Lanier High School (Jackson, Mississippi) and tell me what in that article is now a copyvio. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am ignoring the personal attack and looking into that one. Any others?  Frank  |  talk  00:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And based on this comment, now people are trying to hide things from me?? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have re-blocked you indefinitely for repeated copyright violations in spite of warnings not to in accordance with our copyright policy. That policy notes that "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems." I request that any administrators considering unblocking first review the history of this talk and the thread at the administrator's noticeboard for scale of the problem. This block has been applied in the face of significant disruption cross multiple articles and multiple years. I will make note that I have reset your block at the administrator's noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl 00:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't just go and change my block and why I was blocked, after I've already been blocked. That's just WP:POINT and punishment, which blocks are not supposed to be for. You should be desysopped for that move. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You've drawn attention to yourself and been combative at every step, and further information has come to light as a result of the intense scrutiny. WP:POINT is about disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Reaffirming your block is not disruptive, it is exactly what blocks are all about - protecting the project.  Frank  |  talk  00:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

She reset my block as retaliation for this to make sure I am never unblocked. Whatever Frank. She should be desysopped immediately. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already reported the reblock at WP:ANI, where it will certainly receive plenty of scrutiny. You have taken my actions personally from the beginning, so I am not surprised that you would see this in similar light. --Moonriddengirl 00:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The admin that blocked my talk page should be dealt with as well. That was unacceptable. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself. That unblock was in response to my assertion that this dialogue is not disruptive to the project. Only you have the ability to make that assertion actually true. If you want to convince uninvolved admins (not User:Durova, not me, not User:Moonriddengirl, not User:Viridae) that you should be unblocked, you could start here and join us in the cleanup by posting information here on your talk page.  Frank  |  talk  00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My talk page should not have been blocked in the first place specifically for that reason, that I'm not being disruptive on my talk page. An out of the blue admin blocks my talk page for what reason? No explanation or nothing, just does it. That is unacceptable of any admin. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your past actions and current level of activity here are keeping at least three admins from doing other stuff. The uninvolved admin may well have judged that to be disruptive in itself. Nevertheless, after a quick word, that admin undid the block. That's not to say someone else won't come along and do it again. At some point, interest in this will all fade away. The question that remains is...when that happens, will you have become a productive, policy-abiding member of Misplaced Pages, or will you be indefinitely blocked, with your talk page protected?  Frank  |  talk  00:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making at least three admins do anything. It's your choice whether you come to my talk page or not. And I guess you missed the part where I promised not to add copyvio content as was the stipulations for me being unblocked. Then of course that was followed with the retaliation to make sure I am not unblocked. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 01:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So perhaps we should request your page be protected after all. Then we could clean up the copyvios more quickly. I did miss it. If you are referring to this edit, it was a transparent attempt to have the block lifted so you could refer to it as "retirement". To guess what would happen at that point would be conjecture, but that was not an agreement to avoid copyvios.

What you are missing is the massive amount of good faith that has been extended to you. Editors are working on going through your contributions (as am I) and some are taking time to engage you here. You're really not giving anyone much to work with; I'm close to unwatching myself, because what I see is trolling. What I have hoped for is that you'd turn just a little bit and become constructive. I'm not seeing it, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that if I can't see it, few (if any) others can.  Frank  |  talk  01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oy, gevalt

First, I owe an apology. During attempts at copyright compliance review I tried to use the Twinkle interface to mark a copy/paste as speedy. The tool defaults to notifying the page creator, which I thought I could de-toggle, but as soon as I filled in a URL the tool completed the operation. Serves me right for not nominating anything for deletion very often. In addition to that, was having problems capturing the URL. Had navigated to the wrong page accidentally; returned and corrected that error quickly, and hoped it wouldn't cause problems here, and got caught up in other stuff. Reading the history now, apparently that caused additional drama--which was not intentional at all. Am very sorry for the confusion.

Someone posted to my user talk, and am trying to thread through events. Unblock per an AN discussion that doesn't turn up on searches? Reblock per continued problems? Very confusing. (more to follow) Durova 01:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)