User talk:Rokemronnie
Rokemronnie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for the following nonsensical reason: "Editing from Rokemronnie (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by DragonflySixtyseven for the following reason(s): user hates Wikipedia This block has been set to expire: indefinite. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email." I certainly don't hate Wikipedia. I simply started a page based on a news article from the National Post, with copyright permission from the author. Immediately unblock my account. It appears that Wikipedia editors and administrators don't like substantive criticism of anyone in their club, but feel free to post libelous comments about users. Since I don't "hate" Wikipedia, and in fact recommend it to many people, that's a false defamatory statement and libelous. DragonflySixtySeven is acting as an official agent of Wikipedia and therefore Wikipedia is just as liable for DragonflySixtySeven's libelous remarks as he/she is. Please provide me with the legal name of DragonflySixtySeven so that I can pursue the appropriate avenues for redress.
Decline reason:
That's a legal threat. — Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:47, 17 April 2008 (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.
And on a side note, Dragonfly is, like nearly all administrators, a volunteer, and has no relation to the Wikimedia Foundation. Furthermore, your edits (here specifically) were disruptive and deserving of a block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Rokemronnie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Short Version: Hersford says that the underlying rationale for my blocking is that my original edits were disruptive. If that's actually the reason for my blocking, Wikipedia procedures for blocking allegedly disruptive editors were not followed. Not a single one of the procedures covered under "Dealing with disruptive editors" was even attempted by DragonflySixtySeven or any subsequent admins. I was summarily blocked. I understand now why my edits were problematic and ran afoul of Wikipedia admins. Now that I know the rules, I'll be happy to abide by them. If Wikipedia admins are genuinely dedicated to following Wikipedia guidelines, you will restore my account. Long Version: The block appeals procedure expects me to explain what is wrong with my block and assume that the admin who blocked me was acting in good faith. Since the original explanation given for blocking me was "user hates Wikipedia", that puts me at a bit of a disadvantage since it is almost impossible to argue against a charge that I have a particular emotion. More so, it is rather difficult to assume that an admin who uses a phrase like "user hates Wikipedia" is acting in good faith. I'm supposed to offer facts and evidence to rebut a charge that itself is emotional and provides no evidence to support itself. Since the Wikipedia community prides itself in making sure that what goes on the site is well sourced, it's seems peculiar that "user hates Wikipedia" is allowed to stand with no sourcing, an no rebuttals allowed. Do I have to even try to explain the absurdity of assuming that DragonflySixtySeven assumed that I was acting in good faith when he/she accused me of hating Wikipedia? I realize that not acting submissively and abjectly to a Star Chamber-like process is likely to result in a denied appeal, but I can go on living just fine if my appeals are ultimately denied. To quote poet e.e. cummings, there is some shit I will not eat. Hanging out with the cool kids is not my thing, anyhow, and if the admins who review this think I'm not one of the cool kids you want to hang with, well, just so long as you can sleep well at night thinking that you're righteous. However, since I'm not a hater of Wikipedia, and since I would like to share what information I have with others, I am again requesting that my account be unblocked. If I erred in my original posting on Kim Dabelstein Petersen, it was because I did not realize that posting something sourced in a respected publication like the National Post that was critical of a Wikipedia admin would be considered "disruptive". Now that I know that criticism of Wikipedia administrators is not allowed, I will abide by that rule. It does seem a bit inconsistent that posting a sourced and documented article critical of a Wikipedia admin is considered disruptive, but posting an unsourced and undocumented attack on an individual user, "user hates Wikipedia", is not considered disruptive. However, it's your playground and I'll abide by the rules, whether or not they are consistent. As far as Hersfold's post facto rationalization that my original edits were disruptive and deserving of a block is concerned, if that's the case then my blocking was not done according to "Dealing with disruptive editors" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DDE . I was neither guilty of a "pattern" of disruptive edits, nor was the procedure for dealing with disruptive editors followed. I was summarily blocked. From the "user hates Wikipedia" comment, it's clear that my post hit a nerve, DragonflySixtySeven reacted in haste and I was blocked without proper Wikipedia procedure. Also, I was unaware that asking Wikipedia to cooperate with me in an attempt to prevent defamation and misinformation about myself was considered making a legal threat. In fact, I was also unaware that making what would be considered a legal threat was further grounds for blocking. Like a Wikipedia admin deleting an inappropriate edit, all I wanted to do was make sure that Wikipedia was putting out accurate information, in this case about myself. Of course ignorance of the law is no excuse, but then, the appeals procedure makes it clear that this is not a legal proceeding, so maybe it is a good excuse in this matter. Does Wikipedia expect all users to read all the rules, regulations and guidelines before offering an edit or post? In any case, in the future I will abide by this rule and parse my words carefully when communicating with Wikipedia admins so that my words cannot be perceived as a legal threat. That is problematic, though. Since this isn't a legal proceeding I'll cite a philosopher, Karl Popper. Popper said that it's impossible to not be misunderstood, and since those approving or denying the appeals are humans and subjective, not objective, I'm again at a disadvantage because an admin may misunderstand me and accuse me of making a legal threat. However, I will make a good faith attempt to avoid making any legal threats. I would like a clarification of the legal threat rule, though. If no comments threatening legal action are posted on the Wikipedia site but a user indeed takes legal action against an admin or editor, would that too result in the user's account being blocked? Since my right to freedom of speech does not prevent Wikipedia from enacting and enforcing your own policies and guidelines, I was wondering if Wikipedia might let me know the exercise of which other constitutional and human rights would put my Wikipedia account in jeopardy for blocking? I believe that I can contribute to Wikipedia. I'm not a bad writer - that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of editors at web sites that request me to contribute and also pay me for my contributions. I'm very careful to research what I write and try very hard to make sure that any factual statements are accurate and historical. For example, today I wanted to post a list on Wikipedia about Jews who have had notable roles in the automotive history. That list is the result of research I've done over the past two years, goes back over 150 years and includes people active in that industry today. Some of them, like Siegfried Marcus and Josef Ganz were literally wiped out of history by the Nazis, and I was hoping that posting the list would, in a small way, help restore accuracy to the historical record. I would imagine that would appeal to an organization that prides itself in accuracy. Thank you for reviewing this request.
Decline reason:
Ok, I'll keep this brief.
- Writing a Wikipedia article criticizing specific Wikipedia editors is obviously inappropriate. There are many noticeboards and processes for dealing with problems with point of view editing and other problems, we don't use the articles themselves to criticize one another. If you can't understand or abide by that, you should remain blocked.
- You have not retracted the legal threats you made above, you will absolutely not be unblocked until the threats are retracted, that is one of the few things on Wikipedia that is not negotiable.
- Thanks for making sure to bring up censorship and Nazis, these are considered very good telltale signs that unblocking would be a mistake.
- Although I actually read your whole manifesto and the deleted page, "wall of text" unblock requests are a bad idea, try to keep it simple if you try again.
Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (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.
Rokemronnie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Unfortunately Beeblebrox did not address the substance of my appeal, that my blocking violated Wikipedia's own rules for blocking a disruptive editor. Administrators do have to follow rules, don't they? Regarding articles criticizing specific Wikipedia editors, according to comments made by a Wikipedia administrator on this very page, Wikipedia administrators have "no relation to the Wikimedia Foundation". Please explain how it is not inconsistent to say that Wikimedia has no responsibility for the actions of administrators while it indeed gives those administrators privileges, in this case, immunity from criticism. If administrators are just regular folks with "no relation" to Wikimedia why should articles about those administrators be treated any differently from articles about other people? Speaking of telltale signs, it's rather telling that Wikipedia administrators find an article criticizing an administrator/editor to be "obviously inappropriate" regardless of the fact that the article was sourced on a major publication, yet those same administrators have no problem with their peers of the Wikimedia realm not just criticizing but insultingly disparaging an editor that is not part of the club. If it's obviously inappropriate to post an article criticizing an editor, isn't it equally inappropriate to say "User hates Wikipedia"? I will be happy to abide by Wikipedia's (apparently unwritten) rule that editors are not allowed to criticize other editors. Can you explain how "User hates Wikipedia" does not violate that rule? As for any legal threat that Wikipedia administrators perceive, if a "legal threat" was perceived, then I retract whichever words may have led to that perception. Thanks for the specious inferential invocation of Godwin. For the matter, I was online years before Mike Godwin coined the phrase, and I've watched it transform from a clever analysis of human behavior in debates into a heckler's veto. I was not comparing anyone to Nazis nor inferring that Wikipedia was censoring anything or anyone. Methinks thou dost protest a bit too much. In fact, I praised Wikipedia's stated devotion to accuracy. I was just doing what Wikipedia suggested. The guide to appealing a blocking suggested that appeals include proposed articles: "Say how you intend to help contribute to the encyclopedia after you are unblocked." As an example of how I can contribute I suggested an article about notable Jews in the auto industry, which would include attempts by the Nazis to write them out of history. I further suggested that correcting such historical revisionism would be consistent with Wikipedia's stated commitment to accuracy. That Beeblebrox could somehow take that and twist it into me comparing Wikipedia to Nazis and that I was suggesting that Wikipedia is engaging in censorship is mind boggling. It's also another telltale sign (or are only the Wiki elect allowed to read people's minds?). It would be enlightening to have a Wikipedia administrator explain how the blocking and blocking appeals process is different from the Inquisition, the Star Chamber and Soviet show trials. Perhaps there really is a difference and the similarities, the assumed guilt, the compelled recantations, the double standards for the accused and the accusers, the illusion of due process, etc. are only superficial. I realize that there is nothing that I can do that will penetrate Wikigroupthink and get my account unblocked. You don't just want me to abide by your rules and guidelines, you want me to do it with a smile on my face, but I quit working on Maggie's Farm a long time ago.
Decline reason:
Your statement, "DragonflySixtySeven is acting as an official agent of Wikipedia and therefore Wikipedia is just as liable for DragonflySixtySeven's libelous remarks as he/she is. Please provide me with the legal name of DragonflySixtySeven so that I can pursue the appropriate avenues for redress." is a clear declaration that you intend to sue- not a misunderstanding of ambiguous words. You have not yet clearly said that you will not be suing, now or in the future, so an unblock is not possible. The article in question was written so long ago that I'd certainly support unblocking this account if you had indicated that you understand why your previous edits were incorrect. However, this request indicates that you'd be likely to make the same mistakes again, because you seem to be unfamiliar with the relevant rules. I suggest that you read WP:NPOV and WP:RS before considering another request, and if you ask again, try to make the request free of insults, and don't forget to withdraw your legal threat clearly and unambiguously. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:16, 5 February 2010 (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.
I would be happy to answer some of your other questions.
- Are administrators allowed to block an account without warnings? Yes; see WP:BLOCK for more information.
- Are administrators legal representatives of the Wikimedia Foundations? No; see WP:ADMIN for more information about administrators and their work.
- Are administrators immune from criticism? No; WP:ANI is the usual place to report when an administrator breaks the rules.
- Why shouldn't I be allowed to freely criticize other editors? WP:CIVIL is the relevant guideline; good manners are required.
- Can a user be blocked for just one legal threat? Yes, and such blocks are actually required; see WP:LEGAL for more details on why Wikipedia won't let you edit until your lawsuit is concluded.
- Why can't I create an encyclopedia article critical of someone or something? Because that isn't an encyclopedia article, but an essay, and belongs more appropriately on your blog. See WP:NPOV for more information on this key policy.
- Are links to car fan sites useful to the encyclopedia? No, see WP:EL and WP:RS for more information about useful sources and non-useful links.
You seem to have come to Wikipedia expecting it to be something like a blog host, and then, when it turned out to be an encyclopedia, you started insulting people. That's not fair; it's like going to a basketball game and then insulting the other players for being terrible people when they won't let you play soccer. So far, you have made zero useful edits, and while we're here to play 'write-an-encyclopedia,' you seem to be looking for a game of 'toss-the-insult.' If you want to play our game, you're welcome here. If you want to play something else, you'll need to find a place where they're playing the game you want to play. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Rokemronnie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Is "user hates Wikipedia" good manners? I'm supposedly guilty of "toss-the-insult" when an Administrator makes the following criticism of some links I may have added: "Are links to car fan sites useful to the encyclopedia? No" What you refer disparagingly to as "car fan sites" were in fact legitimate automotive news sites when the links were edited in. As a credentialed automotive journalist who gets paid to cover the auto industry, I believe that I'm a better judge of sources for reliable info on cars than FisherQueen, whose contributions to Wikipedia have nothing to do with cars or the auto industry. Perhaps had I been profiling former Ford executive Allan Gilmour, FisherQueen's expertise might come into play, but in the case of directing people to sites where they can get more news and information about a particular vehicle, FisherQueen, at least based on what he or she has contributed to Wikipedia, has little informed judgment. Since some administrators believe themselves to have the power to discern intent and "telltale signs", the power to read people's minds, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that a Wiki administrator who exhibits zero knowledge about cars and the auto industry would pass judgment about a site being a useful and reliable source about particular vehicles. FisherQueen claims that I have made "zero useful edits". Please explain what was wrong with my edits on the Norton Motorcycle page. Please also explain how "pursue the appropriate avenues for redress" is a "clear declaration" that I "intend to sue". An implicit threat of legal action, perhaps, maybe. A clear declaration of intent to sue, hardly. I'm pretty sure that I have a better idea what my intents are than a Wiki administrator does. While "appropriate avenues for redress" might possibly include lawsuits and litigation, that is not a clear declaration of intent to sue. However, since you insist on a specific declarative statement, I clearly state that I have no intent to sue Wikipedia or its official agents over DragonflySixtySeven's false and malicious statement that I hate Wikpedia, and I am not pursing legal action over that statement. I believe that's as clear and specific a declaration as can be made. As an aside, I'd like to point out the hypocrisy inherent in accusing me of "toss-the-insult" while FisherQueen patronizingly tries to infantalize me by accusing me of playing games.
Decline reason:
All well and good. None of which has to do with your original block, which concerned the attack pages you created and the inappropriate links you added to pages. TNXMan 19:08, 7 February 2010 (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.
Please explain the edits which got you blocked (see here, which from what I see is basically link-spamming). –MuZemike 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Now you're playing the "expert" card. Classic. You ask us what was wrong with your edits to the Norton motorcycle page, I'll tell you: you've never edited that page. This accounts only edits consisted of posting external links to several car pages, and creating a now-deleted inappropriate article at Kim Dabelstein Petersen. Have you perhaps used another account? Your next unblock request had better make some sense, and address the actual reasons for the block instead of attacking others, or you will likely find that your talk page privileges will be revoked as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
{{Unblock on hold|1=DragonflySixtyseven|2= As has been explained to me by Wikipedia administrators, on this page, as part of the appeals process, the only two reasons for my being blocked are the original article about Kim Dabelstein Peterson, and Wikipedia's subsequent perception of a "legal threat". The subject of the links to car sites was not a reason for the original block but rather a post facto rationalization made recently, two years after the original block, by someone other than the original blocking administrator. I say that not to attack anyone but rather to clarify the factual situation. Also, to clarify facts, the most recent declination of my appeal also says that I posted "attacking pages" in the plural. There is only a single page at issue. Regarding that original article about Kim Dabelstein Petersen, I've already said that I now understand and will comply with rules about criticizing other Wikipedia editors or Wikipedia administrators. I've further stated that I will not sue Wikipedia regarding the statement "user hates Wikipedia". So far I have complied with everything that has been requested of me to unblock the account. I assume that the appeals process is impartial and not a sham, that Wikipedia administrators will follow the procedures they themselves lay out, and that my account will be unblocked. Thank you. This has been most illuminating. |3=Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)}}
- I am a great believer in fairness and second chances, and at last we seem to have arrived at somewhat of an understanding, so I'm going to consult with the blocking admin and get back to you. I want to make sure you understand that we are all acting in good faith in the interest of Wikipedia. We deal with an awful lot of people who come here with very real bad intentions, so many of us have learned to be very cautious when dealing with unblock requests. Also, we actually can't unblock you with even a perceived legal threat hanging in the air, but luckily that issue is resolved and we can move on. Hopefully we'll have an up or down answer for you shortly. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I think his combative style is sure to be a problem for him in editing Wikipedia, which depends so much on peaceful cooperation. It also troubles me that he still appears not to understand the neutral point of view policy, and thinks that Kim Dabelstein Peterson was a problem because it was critical of a Wikipedia administrator. But if he doesn't understand the policy and can't play nicely with others, it's inevitable that he'll be re-blocked anyway, and if he wants another try, it seems harmless enough to let him have it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think all three of us are basically in agreement, any more instances of treating Wikipedia as a battleground will result in a rapid re-blocking of this account without further warning. This is a much bigger problem than the adding of inappropriate links, but obviously you can consider yourself warned about that as well, welcome back and happy editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess I must run with scissors too. Nothing infantalizing in the remark "can't play nicely with others", is there?
- Hey, I just unblocked you, so why are you still grousing about it? Just don't engage in the behaviors that led to the block again and everything will be fine. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:FreddyFlypoggerRF.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:FreddyFlypoggerRF.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
