Robertogreen
March 2009
edit
This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Jill Greenberg, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 06:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
November 2010
edit
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 20:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Hello, this is in reply to your e-mail. This is a more detailed explanation why you are blocked:
Wikipedia policy strictly forbids you from writing anything that reflects negatively on living persons, unless you provide at the same time, in the form of a footnote in the text, a reference to a reliable published source that directly supports what you add to the text. This is explained in great detail in the policy page WP:BLP, about which you have been warned above and which you should have read. You violated that policy by making this change, in which you write among other things:
- "For example, [name of living person] called his current wife a cunt in front of reporters, and he had cheated on his first wife after she had waited for him and raised his children, once he returned stateside and realized how she had been disfigured in a car accident."
This sort of allegation with respect to a living person may be included in a Wikipedia article, if at all – I do not see how it is at all relevant in an article that is not about that person – only if it is at the same time accompanied by a citation of a reliable published source that supports that allegation.
It is insufficient, for our purposes here, that you believe that this allegation is true, or that you are in possession of documents that you believe prove that it is true. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that for you to be allowed to write something negative about another living person, it must not only be true, but you must also immediately enable readers to verify it for themselves by indicating the published reliable source in which readers can look up whether what you write is indeed true.
Please also understand that Wikipedia may not take anybody's side in disputes such as the one you wrote about. This is explained at our policy page WP:NPOV. Our purpose is to write a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. That has absolute priority. This means that we will not carry content that, even though possibly true, is not neutral and verifiable. If you do not convince us that you share these goals and inted to contribute to Wikipedia in this spirit, you will remain blocked. Sandstein 07:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Robertogreen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i have been blocked due to my wife making an admittedly tendentious edit of her wikipedia page. it has subsequently been rewritten following the guidelines outlined in your missive above to reflect the community policies and guidelines. i'd appreciate if you would remove my block as i would like to upload a photo of ms. greenberg (that is her and that she has allowed to be used in this context) without being blocked. thank you. Robertogreen (talk) 12:33 am, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
If I understand your unblock request correctly, it seems that multiple people are using this account. That is not permitted and generally, grounds for the block remaining in place. TNXMan 11:32, 17 May 2011 (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.
Robertogreen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
no, i am the only responsible party for updating this page as of now, though others who i don't know nor control had originally written it. they had been negative towards greenberg without attribution, and broke all the rules cited above by sandstein, but were not cited in any way. the page has been updated to reflect those rules. i now need to add jill's photo, per the request on the discussion page. i continue to understand the terms of use and am not in breach so again, please unblock me. we are also going to upload jill's photo of jimmy wales taken for fast company magazine, but the copyright of which is held by jill, as a meta-wiki-reference, and also because it is a great exemplar of jill's signature style, one which is referenced on twitter and flickr on a daily basis around the worldl
Decline reason:
Since by your own admission someone other than you used this account, per WP:GOTHACKED, we would really have no choice but to consider it compromised and leave it blocked. You would be free to start a new account under a different name, assuming we're OK with the other issues, which is far from certain. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2011 (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.
- "We are going to"? Accounts are for one person as stated above. Before you upload a copyright image (if you are unblocked), look at WP:COPYVIO to see what is involved with releasing copyright. I an a little concerned, under the circumstances, with your username containing 'green' - this may be coincidence but could indicate a conflict of interest somewhere down the line... Peridon (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Robertogreen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am Greenberg's husband, and she owns the copyright to all of her work except under rare circumstances and has given specific permission to upload her work to her wiki page. much of the what the original writer of the entry did was based on the verfiably false belief that a) greenberg didn't own copyright of her mccain images and b) that in general the subject rather than the photographer owns said copyright. this isn't true. it's perception. so yes, i, in my role as jill's husband/factotum/webmonkey, am going, with HER permission, to upload photos that she owns the copyright to. i can add that it is a convention to allow publicists to control said usages via a tacit permission system that is unwritten depending on circumstances, but the fact of the copyright is quite clear. i continue to ask that i be unblocked as i feel the blockage to me, though justified, was arbitrary given the nature of the original posting on this page, and given that i accept and will accede happily to the community's rules. can someone please do this for me?l
Decline reason:
See above. And even though I don't need to address the copyright issue, let me just remind you that, per our policy, simply giving permission to upload the photos isn't enough. It must have been originally published under an acceptable free license (GFDL, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, or public domain). Yes, it is permissible to either change the licensing at the point of original publication or send an email to OTRS, if the uploader is the rightsholder or acting on behalf of same, releasing it under one of those licenses. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2011 (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.
Blocking admin's comment: Issues related to images and copyright are not relevant for the question of whether or not you should be unblocked. You are blocked because you inserted unsourced contentious material about living persons in an article, in violation of our relevant policy, as explained above. Your unblock request does not address this, let alone convince me that you understand the policy and will abide by it if you are unblocked. Also, if you are an article subject's husband, you have a conflict of interest with respect to that article and should not edit it; and if making such edits is your only purpose here, you should not be unblocked. Sandstein 17:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
i said quite clearly that i understand the issues that were raised, that things need to sourced in way that meets the community's standards of verifiability. as the page had sat for over two years with unverified defamatory information about greenberg i am very appreciative that now it is being watched so closely, and i pledge to adhere to said standards. i will also say that the specific accusation that sandstein made, that i had added unverifiable information, is false: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/81588/ is an example (and one i should have added myself at the time had i better understood the terms of use, a fault of no one but mine) is one of thousands of supporting references. as for the copyright issue--are you telling me that my wife doesn't know or understand copyright? i'm confused. she can't have her own work uploaded to wikipedia despite having registered her copyright, right? but she has. she has undisputed ownership of all of her work (with limited exceptions, and i'm happy to have a long conversation about copyright with you at any time). so again, you are saying that my wife DOESN'T own her copyright? how is one supposed to prove this to your satisfaction? overall i'm at a loss here-i have stated unequivacally that i accept and will abide by all the terms of wikipedia. so, again, I will happily do so and won't make the same mistake, which i admit was entirely my fault. i take seriously the terms of use here, and though i do feel aggrieved insofar as they seem to have been selectively applied, i can get over that (and myself) and move on. so again, may i be unblocked please.
- Please sign posts with ~~~~ - that puts name and date on in one go. No, we aren't saying that your wife doesn't own the copyright. We are saying that the problem is that she DOES. You both will understand copyright as it applies in the commercial world, where things are paid for. This is different. Everyone who contributes to Wikipedia actually has a copyright on their contributions. I have a copyright on this statement, but by clicking 'Save page' I release the use of the material I create or upload to Wikipedia. This statement can be freely used by anyone, anywhere in the world so long as it is attributed to Wikipedia as a source. There are outfits that publish hard copy selections from Wikipedia - and sell them. So long as the attribution to Wikipedia as the original source is there, this is quite legal. (Can't see why anyone would buy them, but people can be strange...) If people upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons, they are also releasing the use of the pictures in the same way. I travelled to Halsall and took a picture of the Halsall Navvy, to upload it here. (Someone beat me to it.) That picture would still have been mine, but it could have been used anywhere. Read WP:COPYVIO - it isn't only about violations of copyright, but tells you in more and better detail about things like copyright release and fair use (which is for things like a photo or scan of an album cover, where there is no chance of an independent image being obtainable). The Halsall Navvy is a sculpture, and is obviously copyright to the sculptor in terms of making loads of copies of it for people's gardens. A photo of it is copyright to the photographer. I say again, read WP:COPYVIO. Peridon (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, blogs and forums are not generally regarded as reliable sources here. There are some exceptions for bloggers who are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia, but they are not taken as reliable concerning the person concerned. The notable Ruritanian art critic Jan Dismas Krupoff may write in the national press, and his writing there is regarded as reliable. If he also has a blog that is certainly his, his comments there about the Borogrovian painter Igor Sandusky are usually considered reliable (at least until the hearing into his sanity is concluded...). His remarks about himself are not. Peridon (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
alternet is not a blog, it's a professional news organization. i am aware of all internet traditions--here i'm quoting noted right wing publisher and blogger gerard van der leun in the style of the great Sadly! No, a quite brilliant blog. which makes it different than alternet. which was in turn quoting rolling stone magazine, in an article by matt taibbi, A REPORTER, who was quoting OTHER REPORTERS in the Arizona Republic, a newspaper. which is not a blog. look, i sent my first e-mail on a vax system at UMass in 1980 or so. i was a usenet regular. i used nazi as an insult before Godwin's law was a mote in Godwin's eye. the mistake i made was not slander against mccain, nor was it libel, nor was it even saying something that was not verifiable. it was failing to follow the rules and regulations of this particular slice of the web. this difference between a thing being verifiable and a thing being verified is actually quite large. i was guilty of posting and doing the latter, not the former, despite sandstein's accusation. every statement that was on the page was more than verifiable by the standards and practices of wikipedia. the fact that sandstein seems to continue not to care about that, nor to care that i have averred emphatically that i both understand and pledge to follow all rules here regarding posting and updating and yet he hasn't changed his stance at all...look, he made a specific claim. i have refuted it quite clearly. i have stated that i get it. and i get it. and yet i'm not unblocked. i'm starting to think that perhaps there is an ad hominem component to sandstein's complaint about me (and more so about jill). perhaps something having to do with a particular set of political beliefs. that's what the evidence seems to be pointing towards. as for copyright, yes, jill, who owns a rather large amount of copyrighted material and whose level of expertise on use and release thereof far outstrips yours (or mine) wants to see her particular photo and is willing to allow the commons usage as defined here. so...one more time, please unblock me, and i appreciate your taking the time to consider this, peridon.