Megalibrarygirl (talk | contribs) →unblock request - answers above: rto WBG |
Winged Blades of Godric (AWB) (talk | contribs) →unblock request - answers above: R to MLG Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::*Please see the t/p history for tracks; I am afraid that I can't elucidate more clearly. Whether Elissa self-recognizes any issues at all, as to the above locus, is the most important factor in my stand on the unblock request. Regards, [[User:Winged Blades of Godric (AWB)|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 17:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
::*Please see the t/p history for tracks; I am afraid that I can't elucidate more clearly. Whether Elissa self-recognizes any issues at all, as to the above locus, is the most important factor in my stand on the unblock request. Regards, [[User:Winged Blades of Godric (AWB)|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 17:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::*{{u|Winged Blades of Godric}} then there seems to me no reason for Elisa to elucidate about anything if you can't come up with specific behavior that you find problematic. It's very unhelpful to the discussion to not provide specifics that can be looked at by admins here. [[User:Megalibrarygirl|Megalibrarygirl]] ([[User talk:Megalibrarygirl|talk]]) 18:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
:::*{{u|Winged Blades of Godric}} then there seems to me no reason for Elisa to elucidate about anything if you can't come up with specific behavior that you find problematic. It's very unhelpful to the discussion to not provide specifics that can be looked at by admins here. [[User:Megalibrarygirl|Megalibrarygirl]] ([[User talk:Megalibrarygirl|talk]]) 18:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::*Sysops are not an elite class of power-users with the sole ability to adjudicate. At any case, if you go by the concurrent AN thread, multiple ''sysops'' (Tony et al) have commented on every aspect of my mention (except [[WP:CANVASS]]) and have directly proposed/supported relevant sanctions (no manual archiving et al) to tackle the issues. I instead choose to believe that hearing from her on these issues might lead me to conclude that there's no need for such sanctions, at all. This is the last comment of mine over here, feel free to have the last word. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric (AWB)|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 18:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* I am considering this to be a valid application of the [[WP:OFFER|standard offer]]. About a year ago, I was managing the block with {{u|TonyBallioni}} and we agreed to drop it down to a fixed time so we could talk about copyright, before {{u|Fram}} popped in and reblocked indefinitely, causing Elisa to quit the project (and a truck load of off-wiki complaints about Fram landing in my mailbox). I am happy to unblock Elisa; she is a prolific content creator and published author and we need people like her working on the project - and if people find themselves putting {{tlx|db-copyvio}} on her work four days after unblocking .... well, blocks are cheap and easy for any admin to do ''if'' they know they have consensus between them. Elisa, if you want me to do a standard offer review at AN, respond in the affirmative and I'll get it done. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
* I am considering this to be a valid application of the [[WP:OFFER|standard offer]]. About a year ago, I was managing the block with {{u|TonyBallioni}} and we agreed to drop it down to a fixed time so we could talk about copyright, before {{u|Fram}} popped in and reblocked indefinitely, causing Elisa to quit the project (and a truck load of off-wiki complaints about Fram landing in my mailbox). I am happy to unblock Elisa; she is a prolific content creator and published author and we need people like her working on the project - and if people find themselves putting {{tlx|db-copyvio}} on her work four days after unblocking .... well, blocks are cheap and easy for any admin to do ''if'' they know they have consensus between them. Elisa, if you want me to do a standard offer review at AN, respond in the affirmative and I'll get it done. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
: Thank you [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]], yes, please, consider this as a standard offer request (hopefully I read correctly the link you posted). If I have to ask or confirm this somewhere else, please let me know. [[User:Elisa.rolle|Elisa.rolle]] ([[User talk:Elisa.rolle#top|talk]]) 16:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
: Thank you [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]], yes, please, consider this as a standard offer request (hopefully I read correctly the link you posted). If I have to ask or confirm this somewhere else, please let me know. [[User:Elisa.rolle|Elisa.rolle]] ([[User talk:Elisa.rolle#top|talk]]) 16:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:27, 17 July 2019
Washington Post's article using Wikimedia common picture
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/III_Cimitero_Inglese%2C_Bagni_di_Lucca%2C_Italia_3_%282%29.jpg/220px-III_Cimitero_Inglese%2C_Bagni_di_Lucca%2C_Italia_3_%282%29.jpg)
The author of this article for the Washington Post (link [1]) contacted me to have the right to use the picture I originally uploaded on Wikicommons for the article. I gave the consent. The article itself is a good one and it has been reblogged many times since. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
unblock request
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Elisa.rolle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like for my block to be reviewed. The block happened 11 months ago, and in the meantime I just monitored the articles I wrote. I kindly ask to unblock me for mainly one reason: I would like to be able to update/maintain the articles I contributed (for small changes like: the new magazine article on Eda Lord Dixon: link [2] which could be a good source to improve the existing article which I originally wrote; or the above article on the Washington Post). I understand the logic behind the previous copyvio block, and this is the reason why, at this point, is not my intention to contribute whole articles from scratch. Unless there is a matter on which I'm confident I can contribute positively, but in this last case, I would prefer to interact with a more expert Wikipedia user and find with them the correct approach. Said that, I sincerely do not think I will resume my usual pace of editing (which is also one of the issues of my block), in this last year much changed in my life, and I can truly say I'm a totally different type of user. Please let me know if there is something else I can contribute to my reason here. Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:
- What is copyright?
- How is Wikipedia licenced?
- Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
- Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
- How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?
Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2019 (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.
unblock request - answers above
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Appointment_blue.svg/48px-Appointment_blue.svg.png)
Elisa.rolle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- What is copyright? the copyright is the right of the author to their work. The author of a work (being a text, a photo, a paint, ...) is the only with the right to publish their work.
- How is Wikipedia licenced? Most of Wikipedia's text are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA). The main points are Attribution (others can use Wikipedia, but they need to attribute what they use to the author in Wikipedia, and share-alike, i.e. they have to share it with the same licence).
- Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? only the CC0 content or else Public Domain Content (Freeing content globally without restrictions) is allowed on Wikipedia, but it has to be correctly identified in the references with the correct template. Other than that no other copyrighted content is allowed on Wikipedia. Copyright content is not allowed in Wikipedia, since, using Wipedia a CC3 licence, it would invalidate the copyright of the original author, those allowing other users to say, it's on Wikipedia with a CC3 license, therefore I can use it under this licence. This would be a legal issue on which Wikipedia would incur.
- Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? see above, CC0 if correctly identified.
- How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? in general everything that was printed before 1923 is Public Domain; after 1923 it can be public domain, but to avoid issue, I will never trust to use material published after 1923 and for material published before 1923 I will check if it's tagged with a CC0 copyright.
- Please let me know if this answer your questions, I do not want to incur in the mistake to post to many unblock request (I read above this is to avoid) Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=answers to above questions: *What is copyright? the copyright is the right of the author to their work. The author of a work (being a text, a photo, a paint, ...) is the only with the right to publish their work. *How is Wikipedia licenced? Most of Wikipedia's text are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA). The main points are Attribution (others can use Wikipedia, but they need to attribute what they use to the author in Wikipedia, and share-alike, i.e. they have to share it with the same licence). *Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? only the CC0 content or else Public Domain Content (Freeing content globally without restrictions) is allowed on Wikipedia, but it has to be correctly identified in the references with the correct template. Other than that no other copyrighted content is allowed on Wikipedia. Copyright content is not allowed in Wikipedia, since, using Wipedia a CC3 licence, it would invalidate the copyright of the original author, those allowing other users to say, it's on Wikipedia with a CC3 license, therefore I can use it under this licence. This would be a legal issue on which Wikipedia would incur. *Under what circumstances ''can'' we use copyrighted content? see above, CC0 if correctly identified. *How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? in general everything that was printed before 1923 is Public Domain; after 1923 it can be public domain, but to avoid issue, I will never trust to use material published after 1923 and for material published before 1923 I will check if it's tagged with a CC0 copyright. *Please let me know if this answer your questions, I do not want to incur in the mistake to post to many unblock request (I read above this is to avoid) [[User:Elisa.rolle|Elisa.rolle]] ([[User talk:Elisa.rolle#top|talk]]) 13:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=answers to above questions: *What is copyright? the copyright is the right of the author to their work. The author of a work (being a text, a photo, a paint, ...) is the only with the right to publish their work. *How is Wikipedia licenced? Most of Wikipedia's text are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA). The main points are Attribution (others can use Wikipedia, but they need to attribute what they use to the author in Wikipedia, and share-alike, i.e. they have to share it with the same licence). *Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? only the CC0 content or else Public Domain Content (Freeing content globally without restrictions) is allowed on Wikipedia, but it has to be correctly identified in the references with the correct template. Other than that no other copyrighted content is allowed on Wikipedia. Copyright content is not allowed in Wikipedia, since, using Wipedia a CC3 licence, it would invalidate the copyright of the original author, those allowing other users to say, it's on Wikipedia with a CC3 license, therefore I can use it under this licence. This would be a legal issue on which Wikipedia would incur. *Under what circumstances ''can'' we use copyrighted content? see above, CC0 if correctly identified. *How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? in general everything that was printed before 1923 is Public Domain; after 1923 it can be public domain, but to avoid issue, I will never trust to use material published after 1923 and for material published before 1923 I will check if it's tagged with a CC0 copyright. *Please let me know if this answer your questions, I do not want to incur in the mistake to post to many unblock request (I read above this is to avoid) [[User:Elisa.rolle|Elisa.rolle]] ([[User talk:Elisa.rolle#top|talk]]) 13:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=answers to above questions: *What is copyright? the copyright is the right of the author to their work. The author of a work (being a text, a photo, a paint, ...) is the only with the right to publish their work. *How is Wikipedia licenced? Most of Wikipedia's text are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA). The main points are Attribution (others can use Wikipedia, but they need to attribute what they use to the author in Wikipedia, and share-alike, i.e. they have to share it with the same licence). *Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? only the CC0 content or else Public Domain Content (Freeing content globally without restrictions) is allowed on Wikipedia, but it has to be correctly identified in the references with the correct template. Other than that no other copyrighted content is allowed on Wikipedia. Copyright content is not allowed in Wikipedia, since, using Wipedia a CC3 licence, it would invalidate the copyright of the original author, those allowing other users to say, it's on Wikipedia with a CC3 license, therefore I can use it under this licence. This would be a legal issue on which Wikipedia would incur. *Under what circumstances ''can'' we use copyrighted content? see above, CC0 if correctly identified. *How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? in general everything that was printed before 1923 is Public Domain; after 1923 it can be public domain, but to avoid issue, I will never trust to use material published after 1923 and for material published before 1923 I will check if it's tagged with a CC0 copyright. *Please let me know if this answer your questions, I do not want to incur in the mistake to post to many unblock request (I read above this is to avoid) [[User:Elisa.rolle|Elisa.rolle]] ([[User talk:Elisa.rolle#top|talk]]) 13:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Well the first gesture would be to take those black banners off your user and talk pages. I see no point in unblocking anyone who is retired.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can only update my talk page. I will update the user page if the unblock request is accepted. I would prefer not to have other user change my user page, I would prefer to do it myself. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Are portions of this appeal copy pasted from Wikipedia w/o attribution? Is this not mere parroting for the most part and expressive of an intent to go on copy pasting, but only from PD? Such would still require attribution. I'm not seeing sufficient grasp of copyright on Wikipedia to unblock. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Truth be told this is not copied and pasted from Wikipedia, the only thing that is "copied" (if you can say so) is the correct name of the licences. As asked above I tried to use my own word. As I said in my first request, rejected, I told I do not want to write from scratch articles, but one question was, how I would, eventually (I understood) avoid copyright violation? and my answer is, respecting copyright tag even for material before 1923 (that is the most "safe" content). Nevertheless, I remain of my first position, I do not want to create articles from scratch, but just maintain the ones I have already wrote. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am opposing any unblock request unless Elissa elucidates about (1) whether she finds anything wrong with her prior behavior, when in disagreement with other users, (2) if yes, how does she plan to rectify it and (3) her understandings of WP:CANVASS. Also, any unblock shall include an indefinite 1RR restriction. ~ Winged BladesGodric 15:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Winged Blades of Godric can you be more specific about prior behavior and provide diffs. Thank you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please see the t/p history for tracks; I am afraid that I can't elucidate more clearly. Whether Elissa self-recognizes any issues at all, as to the above locus, is the most important factor in my stand on the unblock request. Regards, ~ Winged BladesGodric 17:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Winged Blades of Godric then there seems to me no reason for Elisa to elucidate about anything if you can't come up with specific behavior that you find problematic. It's very unhelpful to the discussion to not provide specifics that can be looked at by admins here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sysops are not an elite class of power-users with the sole ability to adjudicate. At any case, if you go by the concurrent AN thread, multiple sysops (Tony et al) have commented on every aspect of my mention (except WP:CANVASS) and have directly proposed/supported relevant sanctions (no manual archiving et al) to tackle the issues. I instead choose to believe that hearing from her on these issues might lead me to conclude that there's no need for such sanctions, at all. This is the last comment of mine over here, feel free to have the last word. ~ Winged BladesGodric 18:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am considering this to be a valid application of the standard offer. About a year ago, I was managing the block with TonyBallioni and we agreed to drop it down to a fixed time so we could talk about copyright, before Fram popped in and reblocked indefinitely, causing Elisa to quit the project (and a truck load of off-wiki complaints about Fram landing in my mailbox). I am happy to unblock Elisa; she is a prolific content creator and published author and we need people like her working on the project - and if people find themselves putting
{{db-copyvio}}
on her work four days after unblocking .... well, blocks are cheap and easy for any admin to do if they know they have consensus between them. Elisa, if you want me to do a standard offer review at AN, respond in the affirmative and I'll get it done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Ritchie333, yes, please, consider this as a standard offer request (hopefully I read correctly the link you posted). If I have to ask or confirm this somewhere else, please let me know. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think I’m technically listed as the blocking admin even though it’s really Fram’s block. I don’t really have an opinion either way on this and think copying to AN makes sense to get wider community feedback. Thanks for the ping, Ritchie. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer request - Elisa Rolle. In the meantime Elisa, please read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. Just to be clear, as you said, my request spurs from an edit I saw on Eda Lord Dixon on July 16 (link [3]) and little before that an article posted by the Washington Post on June 20 (link [4]). Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer request - Elisa Rolle. In the meantime Elisa, please read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)