User talk:Randomcommenter

Blocked

Oh, wikipedia, how you failed me. My last edit was an attempt, however humble, to add a rationale to an image, cleaning up the mess caused by random deletions. My edits before were to talk pages.

I guess the discussion I started will be a lot easier to finish now that now that you had to resort to strong-arm tactics to stop the discussion. Bad show, Wikipedia, bad show. Shame shame shame. I raised valid questions that can't be blocked away.

Now I feel comfortable in citing WP:DICK. Banning me to silence discussion is a dick move.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

It is not appropriate to block in order to stop a valid discussion on talk pages. I believe the points I raised merit genuine replies, not dismissal as trolling. See summary of discussion below, the questions raised ARE valid and logical. Additionally, regardless of my block status, kindly pass on my question to the Arbcom candidates so that they may decide whether it merits a reply.

Decline reason:

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

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This is an arbcom case against this user who's got problems dating back years. I'll be pursuing it with Arbcom and will be edting only talkspace until that time. If it would be more appropriate for me to create a new account to do this, please let me know, my understanding is that I should keep this one.

Decline reason:

You still have yet to answer the points brought up in your original unblock request. In addition, you are making personal attacks left, right and center on here. I am going to remove your talk page access. If you would like to contact arbcom, please do so via email Guerillero | My Talk 06:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Evidence on Conduct issue (wrt Hammersoft)

I have a disagreement about what our policy should become. Another editor has a radically different stance, and has been tendentiously arguing about the same exact subject since his very first edit [1]. IF I got heated with that editor, rest assured, there have been lots more before me, and until somebody takes this to arbcom, there will be lots more after me.

I'll step up to hash this out, arbcom needs to review both our behaviors. --Randomcommenter (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern

Dec 08 dispute
[2]
I'm not really uninvolved, but my experience of Hammersoft was extraordinarily unpleasant and uncomfortable too. Majorly talk 15:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
"Here is a third opinion: having looked at the diffs and contribs, I agree that Hammersoft has recently been making minimal contributions while repeatedly showing disrespect for other editors, and that this pattern will call for sanctions if it continues." Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)"

The Substantive Discussion: What's Going Wrong Image Deletions Process

Here's my point, distilled to it's finest:

Sometimes fair use images are necessary.
Some people have an ideological commitment to a free-content-only encyclopedia.
Sometimes images are being deleting at the EXPENSE of article quality. That is, sometimes legal images are being deleted and the result is a less informative article.
For a vocal minority (or more) of editors, they are happy gain "ideological purity" at the expense of "educational quality"
For readers, editors, and donors, they are not well served by this "ideological purity". They would prefer to keep "article quality'.
I do not believe this extreme stance has true consensus of any group.
I believe changes to the guidelines should be made to encourage 'rehabilitation' of images wherever feasible, recognizing that the 'burden of proof' to produce such a rationale can never be on those arguing for deletion, I nevertheless feel those arguing for deletion have a duty to their fellow editors to try to explain or rehabilitate the images if possible.
I have proposed changes to the policy to clarify this.
I am currently unable to discuss the subject on any of the previous venues due to block. Although I had not yet raised theses issues with the candidates on the arbcom election, that's all the more reason we shouldn't be blocking people for "allegedly-disruptive conversation". Claiming I have no interest in improving the encyclopedia is not a defensible allegation given my extensive statements on policy matters above and beyond any specific content dispute. --Randomcommenter (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the Candidates

Your philosophy and vision is important, because you won't just be arbs, you'll also be our representatives and our leaders.

As a general principle, how would you describe yourself philosophically on the issue for Fair Use media. On the one hand, fair-use-media presents some ideological and bureaucratic problems for us. At the other hand, each image presents a unique educational opportunity. All things being equal, should we be maximizing educational opportunity or should we be minimizing fair-use-media?

As we go forward, do you think Wikipedia should aim to include more fair-use-media or less? In five years, do you see Wikipedia having more fair-use-images than we do now? Or fewer?

(This must be considered in raw numbers in order to present a dilemma-- everyone wants the overall percentage of free-license-media will increase.)

Someone care to post this before my block wears off? much obliged.