94.196.223.219 (talk) →Banned or not: This seems an open invitation to abuse, but I only want to clarify the situation |
Roger Davies (talk | contribs) →Banned or not: response |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
:Not wanting to prejudge this but is there any need for ArbCom to get involved? Echigo mole is indefinitely blocked for socking and, at first sight, because of their history [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive|subsequent socking]], it seems unlikely any admin would unblock them. This is how a block becomes what's known as a [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks|''de facto'' ban]]. Nevertheless, they could request an unblock on their talk page and see what happens. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
:Not wanting to prejudge this but is there any need for ArbCom to get involved? Echigo mole is indefinitely blocked for socking and, at first sight, because of their history [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive|subsequent socking]], it seems unlikely any admin would unblock them. This is how a block becomes what's known as a [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks|''de facto'' ban]]. Nevertheless, they could request an unblock on their talk page and see what happens. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Just to clarify, then, it seems that this person, whoever they may be, is to be regarded as banned, and this entitles any user to revert any posting that they think might have been written by them, without fornmality, and irrespective of any other considerations? This seems an open invitation to abuse, but I only want to clarify the situation -- if that's what ArbComm wants ... [[Special:Contributions/94.196.223.219|94.196.223.219]] ([[User talk:94.196.223.219|talk]]) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
::Just to clarify, then, it seems that this person, whoever they may be, is to be regarded as banned, and this entitles any user to revert any posting that they think might have been written by them, without fornmality, and irrespective of any other considerations? This seems an open invitation to abuse, but I only want to clarify the situation -- if that's what ArbComm wants ... [[Special:Contributions/94.196.223.219|94.196.223.219]] ([[User talk:94.196.223.219|talk]]) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Given the history of abuse by IP editors on that IP range, yes, that's pretty much correct. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia not to let random people turn up when they like just to take potshots at various established editors. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 09:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:03, 14 May 2012
Intermission
I'm picking on you because you did the featured article work for Hamlet. What can you write about intermissions? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Roman Polanski Arbcom
I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
La Treille
Hi Roger.
On 10 March I was invited by friends to stay with them on the outskirts of Aubagne. On the Sunday (11 March) we went in the early morning to La Treille, 10 minutes away by car, and my friend, Didier Quertier, took several pictures for me, two of which I uploaded onto wikipedia the next day. A picture of the fountain, dating from 1871, and of Pagnol's grave in the cemetery down the hill. Someone is now claiming that these pictures are illegal because of French laws. Ronhjones describes the picture of the fountain as a "panoramic view".File:Fontaine-La-Treille.jpg We do have panoramas of Marseille in the article there, also taken in France. This however is of a monument occupying approximately a space of only a few cubic metres. Please could you comment there as you are familiar with La Treille and with wikipedia policy. Here are the reports Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 12#File:Fontaine-La-Treille.jpg Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 12#File:Tombeau-Pagnol-La-Treille.jpg Here is a poorer quality image of the grave uploaded on commons by a French wikipedian.File:Marseille-Pagnol94.jpg Didier's picture is of better quality and shows the view down the hill also.File:Tombeau-Pagnol-La-Treille.jpg Regards, Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks Roger for your comments. I appreciate that. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Banned or not
Hello. You mentioned the conduct of a party in a current ArbComm review towards a "banned user", who is presumably the person who at one time operated the account Echigo mole (talk · contribs). There is no evidence that this person has in fact been banned at all (although one party has repeated the claim on numerous occasions). Perhaps it would be a good opportunity for AC to rule on that issue. It would seem to be covered by objective (1) of the review's terms of reference, and it seems that there is no objection to extending the scope of the remedies to user who were not explicitly mentioned at the outset. Until then, it seems incorrect to use refer to that person in this way. Thanks. 94.196.3.173 (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not wanting to prejudge this but is there any need for ArbCom to get involved? Echigo mole is indefinitely blocked for socking and, at first sight, because of their history subsequent socking, it seems unlikely any admin would unblock them. This is how a block becomes what's known as a de facto ban. Nevertheless, they could request an unblock on their talk page and see what happens. Roger Davies talk 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, then, it seems that this person, whoever they may be, is to be regarded as banned, and this entitles any user to revert any posting that they think might have been written by them, without fornmality, and irrespective of any other considerations? This seems an open invitation to abuse, but I only want to clarify the situation -- if that's what ArbComm wants ... 94.196.223.219 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Given the history of abuse by IP editors on that IP range, yes, that's pretty much correct. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia not to let random people turn up when they like just to take potshots at various established editors. Roger Davies talk 09:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, then, it seems that this person, whoever they may be, is to be regarded as banned, and this entitles any user to revert any posting that they think might have been written by them, without fornmality, and irrespective of any other considerations? This seems an open invitation to abuse, but I only want to clarify the situation -- if that's what ArbComm wants ... 94.196.223.219 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)