the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

inour
Member
Posts: 4
kołdry
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 3:15 pm
Wikipedia User: IP

the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by inour » Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:25 pm

This one killed me and so sorry if they have been discussed here before. Background-a ways back when I was banned and hanging-out in the IRC chat, i noticed the huge number of complaints about new page creations being denied. (not just spammy ones)
A few days ago I found this gem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... roo_on_AfC

Apparently they have a contest in AFC for the most pages cleared and this kid was winning. But the list of pages denied is crazy. Also never responded to people about why they were declined. The story goes much deeper. Arctic K is now "retired", and blocked in the Commons. A big FUSS was raised and he wanted to revoke © on the tons of photos he had uploaded. The whole story is just crazy!

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by lilburne » Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:42 pm

inour wrote:This one killed me and so sorry if they have been discussed here before. Background-a ways back when I was banned and hanging-out in the IRC chat, i noticed the huge number of complaints about new page creations being denied. (not just spammy ones)
A few days ago I found this gem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... roo_on_AfC

Apparently they have a contest in AFC for the most pages cleared and this kid was winning. But the list of pages denied is crazy. Also never responded to people about why they were declined. The story goes much deeper. Arctic K is now "retired", and blocked in the Commons. A big FUSS was raised and he wanted to revoke © on the tons of photos he had uploaded. The whole story is just crazy!
He's a kid and he has the right to withdraw his images from Commons. The grasping, bullying nature of Commons caused the problem they should just have let the image go.

As for the AFC he's a kid what do they expect?

He should issue a DMCA takedown and walk away from the arseholes.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

inour
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 3:15 pm
Wikipedia User: IP

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by inour » Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:05 pm

OH-i just found the other AK topic. Yes I agree that based on not being allowed to enter into a contract the image(s) can be deleted.
I just found the entire career of this kid on WP to be hilarious.
Literally they are handling him with "Kid"-gloves. (not the goatskin kind). Whatever happened to just banning those who make legal threats and demands?
And yeah, too-bad about the editors who tried to submit articles. AK is exactly the kind of editor with rollback etc. rights that made me join this forum. Arrogant, not very smart yet acts like they think they are, non-English-speaking native, (although this guy has an exceptionally excellent command of English especially compared to many others and their multitudes of SPs).

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:45 pm

lilburne wrote:
inour wrote:This one killed me and so sorry if they have been discussed here before. Background-a ways back when I was banned and hanging-out in the IRC chat, i noticed the huge number of complaints about new page creations being denied. (not just spammy ones)
A few days ago I found this gem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... roo_on_AfC

Apparently they have a contest in AFC for the most pages cleared and this kid was winning. But the list of pages denied is crazy. Also never responded to people about why they were declined. The story goes much deeper. Arctic K is now "retired", and blocked in the Commons. A big FUSS was raised and he wanted to revoke © on the tons of photos he had uploaded. The whole story is just crazy!
He's a kid and he has the right to withdraw his images from Commons. The grasping, bullying nature of Commons caused the problem they should just have let the image go.

As for the AFC he's a kid what do they expect?

He should issue a DMCA takedown and walk away from the arseholes.
They're fucked.
There's no good answer here.

If a case like this makes it into a court, they will lose.
The CC license is like the GPL in that the use of the content protected by the license is wrapped in a contract.

Minor's cannot be held to contracts in the US.

Either the WMF can start requiring people to prove age of majority or they can sit atop this nuclear warhead until someone pushes that little red button.


I've got an inkling to get a minor I know to post a bunch of stuff to a WMF site, wait six months and then file a DMCA takedown backed by their legal guardians.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by EricBarbour » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:30 pm

Vigilant wrote:I've got an inkling to get a minor I know to post a bunch of stuff to a WMF site, wait six months and then file a DMCA takedown backed by their legal guardians.
That might be an effective way of ruining any leftover "morale", if done often enough. As with actual lawsuits, the WMF has never, ever revealed
how many DMCA notices it receives. They're johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to making someone else take down their content, but when they're
the subject, a grim silence ensues. (This is all they'll admit to receiving.)

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4695
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by tarantino » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:25 am

wp seems to be OK with an anonymous creepy guy, Demiurge1000, asking permission from a liar and a fraud, Bwilkins, to mentor a 12 year old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... c_Pengaroo

User avatar
Jaranda
Critic
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:47 pm
Wikipedia User: Secret
Wikipedia Review Member: Jaranda

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Jaranda » Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:47 am

tarantino wrote:wp seems to be OK with an anonymous creepy guy, Demiurge1000, asking permission from a liar and a fraud, Bwilkins, to mentor a 12 year old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... c_Pengaroo
How do we know he's 12 though? Underage extremely likely, like his request for commons to delete this Commons File:Doleschallia_bisaltide_bisaltide_(Autumn_Leaf)_-_male,_January_2013,_Singapore.jpg featured picture of a butterfly that he took which sounded like AK was partially motivated from reading information here or on Wiki about here. 12 year olds don't easily create featured pictures of butterflies, and especially that the featured picture process is (in my opinion) harder than the featured article process.

Note however we did had people who passed RFA at extremely young ages, I think the youngest was 11 (correct me if I'm wrong).

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by lilburne » Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:47 am

There is no reason why he couldn't have taken the photo. Depends on how flighty the species and he may have taken several 100 photos. He has uploaded 7 images 2 butterflies and 5 birsd taken over an 18 month period.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Woden.Ragnarok
Critic
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:59 pm
Wikipedia User: Woden.Ragnarok

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Woden.Ragnarok » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:20 pm

AK has been on the periphery of my Radar since he arrived. I caught and reverted a few bad edits by him and then watched as he began to circulate in amongst the editors previously groomed by Demiurge (the likes of Rcsprinter)

It is a good thing that this is recieving so much attention but I suspect I'll be waiting a long time for Mattbuck, Russavia, and Demiurge to fall on their swords over this one.

Kudos to the several IP's trolling the situation doing a good job shining light on the issues.
-- Woden "A wise king never seeks out war, but he must always be ready for it." Ragnarok

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:44 pm

And we're at ANI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... t_again.29

DemiWit being against the banning should surprise nobody.

I do find it curious that the bright minds at ANI are hinging their entire theory of the irrevocable nature of CC licenses on the work of a legal intern...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilega ... _of_minors

Written by
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hahnw

I'd call this reasoning tenuous, at best.
Licenses granted by minors are as valid as those granted by adults.[1] Both minors and adults are protected by the same copyright laws and they can issue equal licenses. Contracts used to transfer licenses are controlled by state law, which arguably gives minors the right to disaffirm (i.e. cancel) in many situations - but only within certain limits. For example, generally a minor can neither reap the benefits of a contract and subsequently avoid its burdens[2] nor solely disaffirm the “irksome portions” of a contract.[3] A minor who posts photos on Commons, for example, receives a large benefit from the use of and international recognition and exposure gained from the global project.

That said, the enforceability of a minor's license seems subordinate to a number of issues, legal and otherwise, arising from certain types of posted pictures. In a recent resolution, the Board of Trustees has urged the Wikimedia community to “[t]reat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patient, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.”[4] This spirit is reflected in the guideline on photographs of identifiable people, which advises administrators to be sympathetic toward removal requests with good rationales.[5] That policy also requires consent for photographs taken in a private place. The community may well choose to exercise its patience, kindness, and respect in reviewing the request of a child to remove his or her photograph and find the age of the child, the nature of the photograph, and the claimed absence of ongoing consent as a "good rationale" to remove the photograph.

Of course, to the extent such photos would ever constitute child pornography or violate related laws, they are not only illegal but also forbidden by our Terms of Use.[6][7]
How do they reap the benefits of international recognition and exposure if they are editing behind a pseudonym?

At some point, the WMF legal team had better get their behind in gear.
It's not very surprising to find them just as competent as the dev teams and HR group.

Is there anyone at WMF who DOESN'T suck at their job?

Edit: Still more over at COM:AN
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:AN
Are we reading the same thing? Quote: "Contracts used to transfer licenses are controlled by state law, which arguably gives minors the right to disaffirm (i.e. cancel) in many situations - but only within certain limits. For example, generally a minor can neither reap the benefits of a contract and subsequently avoid its burdens[2] nor solely disaffirm the “irksome portions” of a contract." AK has requested deletion, which is a complete dissafirmation. So he is not trying to avoid any "irksome portions". He can certainly do that. --Slaunger (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone with a clue. Quick! Ban him!
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by lilburne » Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:01 pm

Even better we have Brigham dissembling on Talk Wales
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566773419

wonder if it was anything I said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566761138
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:12 pm

You'll notice that he doesn't answer the question directly.
Much of what he writes is wikipediot dribble that reads like a boiler plate "statement of principles" from an ARBCOM decision page.

Minors can repudiate contracts in many situations.
Terms of Use have been found to be unenforceable in many cases.

How can he reconcile these two two true statements with "The CC license is irrevocable" ?


I swear, I've yet to find someone employed at the WMF that I would be tempted to hire.

I predict that in future years, having WMF on your resume will be as helpful as having "ComicCon security" as a prominent bullet item.
Last edited by Vigilant on Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by DanMurphy » Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:14 pm

The stupid is rather astonishing.

They have a 12-year-old (so he implies at least) asserting full control over his contributions. And maybe on the basis that he's a minor he might have a point! (I don't know the law relevant to this and don't particularly care to). But they're still squabbling over what conditions they should allow him to continue to edit what aspires to be the world's premier online reference work.

Among almost none of that discussion is the simple point made: "He's 12, he's not useful, could in fact do great harm, and at any rate he's making a mess. Let's just quietly send him back to grade school."

Remarkable.

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:22 pm

lilburne wrote:There is no reason why he couldn't have taken the photo. Depends on how flighty the species and he may have taken several 100 photos. He has uploaded 7 images 2 butterflies and 5 birsd taken over an 18 month period.
Sweden's (thin and living) version of Frank P. Ramsey (T-H-L), mathematical logician and statistician Per Martin-Löf (T-H-L), was about that age when he published his first article on bird watching.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:29 pm

Vigilant wrote:And we're at ANI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... t_again.29

DemiWit being against the banning should surprise nobody.

I do find it curious that the bright minds at ANI are hinging their entire theory of the irrevocable nature of CC licenses on the work of a legal intern...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilega ... _of_minors

Written by
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hahnw

I'd call this reasoning tenuous, at best.
Licenses granted by minors are as valid as those granted by adults.[1] Both minors and adults are protected by the same copyright laws and they can issue equal licenses. Contracts used to transfer licenses are controlled by state law, which arguably gives minors the right to disaffirm (i.e. cancel) in many situations - but only within certain limits. For example, generally a minor can neither reap the benefits of a contract and subsequently avoid its burdens[2] nor solely disaffirm the “irksome portions” of a contract.[3] A minor who posts photos on Commons, for example, receives a large benefit from the use of and international recognition and exposure gained from the global project.

That said, the enforceability of a minor's license seems subordinate to a number of issues, legal and otherwise, arising from certain types of posted pictures. In a recent resolution, the Board of Trustees has urged the Wikimedia community to “[t]reat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patient, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.”[4] This spirit is reflected in the guideline on photographs of identifiable people, which advises administrators to be sympathetic toward removal requests with good rationales.[5] That policy also requires consent for photographs taken in a private place. The community may well choose to exercise its patience, kindness, and respect in reviewing the request of a child to remove his or her photograph and find the age of the child, the nature of the photograph, and the claimed absence of ongoing consent as a "good rationale" to remove the photograph.

Of course, to the extent such photos would ever constitute child pornography or violate related laws, they are not only illegal but also forbidden by our Terms of Use.[6][7]
How do they reap the benefits of international recognition and exposure if they are editing behind a pseudonym?

At some point, the WMF legal team had better get their behind in gear.
It's not very surprising to find them just as competent as the dev teams and HR group.

Is there anyone at WMF who DOESN'T suck at their job?

Edit: Still more over at COM:AN
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:AN
Are we reading the same thing? Quote: "Contracts used to transfer licenses are controlled by state law, which arguably gives minors the right to disaffirm (i.e. cancel) in many situations - but only within certain limits. For example, generally a minor can neither reap the benefits of a contract and subsequently avoid its burdens[2] nor solely disaffirm the “irksome portions” of a contract." AK has requested deletion, which is a complete dissafirmation. So he is not trying to avoid any "irksome portions". He can certainly do that. --Slaunger (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone with a clue. Quick! Ban him!
At ANI, I wrote
Support a block on all minors, who cannot sign contracts and who should not be exploited by Wikipedia. Also, Arbcom has complained about its inability to enforce even its toothless WP:Child Protection and its 20 yearly cases of apparent child-predators, so it's not a safe environment for kids. The US's COPPA and COPA laws prohibit participation by minors under 12 and require parental consent for those 13-17 years old. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 1:27 am, Today (UTC+2)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:07 am

I wonder what the DoJ/RIAA/MPAA would think of this case.

Here you've got a copyright holder who is trying to assert rights associated with their copyright ownership and are being denied the legal exercise of said rights by the Frie Kulture Kinder.

I bet there's a lawyer somewhere who'd be interested in making an example of someone at WMF.


The shitstorm on ANI is awesome to behold.

Here's my favorite quote. Note the religious fervor.
@Kim: I think the problem goes beyond images, simply because of AK's lack of understanding (or willingness to understand) that he is invoking the CC/GFDL licenses each and every time he makes an edit to an article or posts a comment. The editing page is very clear about that, and there's no real distinction between uploading text and unloading an image. If AK doesn't understand (or agree) that he has voluntarily licensed his image by uploading it, then he also doesn't understand that he has similarly licensed his words by uploading text. Wikipedia is utterly dependent on every editor implicitly agreeing to the licensing sceme (whether they are a minor or not) - the whole house of cards falls down if that is undermined. Given that, AK's refusal to understand in regard to images cannot stand in isolation. He cannot say that everything's hunky-dory when he licenses his text, but not when he licenses his images. It is this fundamental lack of competence that concerns me, and lead me to support an indef block until he can show that he understand the way this system works. A topic ban on image uploads is not, I think, sufficient, since it's AK's global lack of understanding which is the underlying issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
That's the sure sign of eye rolling panic right there.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by EricBarbour » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:26 am

Vigilant wrote:I wonder what the DoJ/RIAA/MPAA would think of this case.
Believe me, people have been trying to get rightsholders organizations to watch WMF projects more carefully. Past threats are supposed to be a major
reason why Flickr-washing of photos is so commonplace now. Because WP/Commons/etc. don't host a lot of video or audio files, and the RIAA/MPAA/etc
are almost moribund anyway, WMF gets something close to a "free ride". And it doesn't help that the WMF is secretive about the actual legal threats
it receives every year, not to mention DMCA takedown notices.

Do you realize how many outright copyright violations are on YouTube on any given day? Millions. It is routine for people to create sockpuppet accounts,
post entire movies (now that the old 10-minute length limit has been removed), and disappear. If the movie is deleted by a DMCA order, they just use
another sock to repost it. THAT is where the MPAA and RIAA concentrate their efforts, and they appear to be failing, due to the sheer volume of abuses.
Thus..
But it is also likely that Google created Copyright School because the company faces ongoing condemnation from lawmakers, as well as litigation from the entertainment industry, for not doing enough to combat copyright infringement -- be it unabashed piracy or incidental violations like Carlisle's. YouTube surely has to be militant in its efforts to obey copyright law: Its hundreds of millions of users upload an average of 72 hours of new video every minute.
How does the penny-ante shit on Commons compare to that?

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:36 am

Fair point, Eric.

I wonder how this would be resolved.
You are correct that sending a DMCA notification will get the works taken down. It will also probably get AK banned from the site for life. --Carnildo (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
AK has 21K edits on en.wp.
I watched with great amusement as ProjectQworty died a slow and ignored death.

How would they back out all those changes?

Fool's errand comes to mind.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Woden.Ragnarok
Critic
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:59 pm
Wikipedia User: Woden.Ragnarok

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Woden.Ragnarok » Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:33 am

Vigilant wrote:Fair point, Eric.

I wonder how this would be resolved.
You are correct that sending a DMCA notification will get the works taken down. It will also probably get AK banned from the site for life. --Carnildo (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
AK has 21K edits on en.wp.
I watched with great amusement as ProjectQworty died a slow and ignored death.

How would they back out all those changes?

Fool's errand comes to mind.
Only 8k in mainspace and liable to be problematic.
Of that 8k some have already been reverted, many more are minor like below threshold maintainance and reverts of vandalism. You'd be lucky if 4k editsv are actually a problem
-- Woden "A wise king never seeks out war, but he must always be ready for it." Ragnarok

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by lilburne » Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:34 am

EricBarbour wrote:
But it is also likely that Google created Copyright School because the company faces ongoing condemnation from lawmakers, as well as litigation from the entertainment industry, for not doing enough to combat copyright infringement -- be it unabashed piracy or incidental violations like Carlisle's. YouTube surely has to be militant in its efforts to obey copyright law: Its hundreds of millions of users upload an average of 72 hours of new video every minute.
How does the penny-ante shit on Commons compare to that?
They won't say how much they are dealing with on YouTube but its over 20 million legit DMCA takedowns they are dealing with every month. Recently they were complaining to Congress about the expenses of it all. Just think about that for a moment. Google complain that because their business model requires the their advertising around the reuse of content they didn't create and that much of that content is infringing, the law should be changed to ease the burden of them doing business.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by lilburne » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:36 pm

Sense has broke out at Commons and they've deleted AK's images.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:26 pm

lilburne wrote:Sense has broke out at Commons and they've deleted AK's images.
I saw that and was amazed.
Perhaps someone spiked the commons water with LSD...

I am watching with relish as the wikipediots discover that they may have a very serious problem with minors and the CC license.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Zoloft » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:10 pm

Vigilant wrote:
lilburne wrote:Sense has broke out at Commons and they've deleted AK's images.
I saw that and was amazed.
Perhaps someone spiked the commons water with LSD...

I am watching with relish as the wikipediots discover that they may have a very serious problem with minors and the CC license.
If minors can't contribute because they can't consent to a binding contract, then neither can IPs, who potentially could be minors. No way to be certain that they are not.

How does 199.213.45.76 sign a contract, precisely?

Extending the idea one more step: In a contract, who exactly is "Prioryman" and what does "Prioryman's" agreement to release his contributions really mean?

Is it possible that if examined closely, it would turn out that everything in Wikipedia is actually copyrighted to each content creator, all rights reserved?

Doom, doom, doom. Drums in the deep. They are coming.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:17 pm

Zoloft wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
lilburne wrote:Sense has broke out at Commons and they've deleted AK's images.
I saw that and was amazed.
Perhaps someone spiked the commons water with LSD...

I am watching with relish as the wikipediots discover that they may have a very serious problem with minors and the CC license.
If minors can't contribute because they can't consent to a binding contract, then neither can IPs, who potentially could be minors. No way to be certain that they are not.

How does 199.213.45.76 sign a contract, precisely?

Extending the idea one more step: In a contract, who exactly is "Prioryman" and what does "Prioryman's" agreement to release his contributions really mean?

Is it possible that if examined closely, it would turn out that everything in Wikipedia is actually copyrighted to each content creator, all rights reserved?

Doom, doom, doom. Drums in the deep. They are coming.
Absolutely.
What demonstrated benefit does an IP editor receive for their contributions.
Contracts require a two way street.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by lilburne » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:50 pm

Vigilant wrote: Absolutely.
What demonstrated benefit does an IP editor receive for their contributions.
Contracts require a two way street.
Absolute idiocy from Brigham
Fortunately, this issue rarely comes up on our projects because the Wikimedia movement has selected a creative commons license that permits contributors, of any age, to freely license their work and also sell it for a profit to others, if they so desire. The CC FAQs specifically provide that an author can license a work under a free license and also sell it under the regular copyright regime (non-exclusively). Indeed, this cc license was designed “to encourage creators and rightsholders to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work.” The user can therefore promote his work by distributing it through the Wikimedia projects, which have around 500 million unique visitors per month, and then sell copies (non-exclusively). Again, this is not legal advice, but merely observations regarding the relevant cc license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566772092
I have over 750,000 image views on flickr. The result is a stream of request from commercial outfits asking for a freebie.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:50 pm

Give it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... ndef_block
Topic ban, and postponed indef block

AK,

As an uninvolved admin, I've reviewed the ANI thread. There are a few things that need to be crystal clear:

1. You are topic banned from uploading any more media to Wikipedia or Commons. If you upload any more media before this topic ban is removed, you will be blocked indefinitely. I would usually not threaten a block for doing something on Commons, but this is a special case. You still have a very obvious misunderstanding of licensing, and that mlack of understanding has sucked up a lot of other people's time and attention. I will attempt to explain more clearly in a while, but i need to get this summary down first.

2. There is a very clear consensus to indef block you as well. I'm going against consensus and declining to do that. Another admin may see it differently, and if they choose to block you, I cannot fight it. So keep in mind that comments I make about what you need to do to stay unblocked may be moot, if another admin decides to follow the very clear consensus at ANI.

3. I will explain in a little while what you'll need to do to stay unblocked, but a sneak preview is: keep your head down, don't do anything remotely controversial, and be constantly aware that there is, evidently, one stupid admin standing between you and an indef block. You've used up your 9 lives, and half of a 10th.

More in a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the biggest reasons people think you should be indef blocked is that you don't appear to understand how licensing works; the same theory applies to images and to text.

There is a message when you edit that indicates you accept the CC-BY-SA license (there was also such a message when you upload images). You may have been aware of it before, but you can't claim to be aware of it now. So I'd like you to confirm, before you edit anymore:

Do you acknowledge that all text you contribute to any Wikimedia project is automatically licensed CC-BY-SA, and cannot be revoked, ever?

--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You cannot override contract issues by trying to force someone under threat to agree to give up their contract rights.
It just doesn't work like that.

I think it's about time that Arctic Kangaroos parents were brought into this despicable discussion.
They probably have no idea what wikipedia is trying to do to their child.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Ming » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:54 pm

Vigilant wrote:What demonstrated benefit does an IP editor receive for their contributions.
They get published.

Nobody is going to give minors the power to take back their postings just because they are underage, and it wouldn't surprise Ming if the courts took the view that, if parents let their children post on such a site, they've tacitly accepted that their kid's stuff can be published there. that said, Wikimedia's "if you give it to us you can't take it back" position is so unlike any place else when it comes to media publication that it's hard to predict what would happen were the matter put to the test.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:03 pm

Ming wrote:
Vigilant wrote:What demonstrated benefit does an IP editor receive for their contributions.
They get published.

Nobody is going to give minors the power to take back their postings just because they are underage, and it wouldn't surprise Ming if the courts took the view that, if parents let their children post on such a site, they've tacitly accepted that their kid's stuff can be published there. that said, Wikimedia's "if you give it to us you can't take it back" position is so unlike any place else when it comes to media publication that it's hard to predict what would happen were the matter put to the test.
You're saying that the parents would be bound by Terms Of Use that they had never personally even seen?
I find that position untenable.

The CC license secures copyright rights for redistribution tied to a contract and, in this way, is very similar to the various strains of GPL.

For a contract to be valid, both sides must receive consideration aka something of value. If one side receives nothing from the other, then the contract is typically held to be unenforceable.

What does a pseudonym/IP editor receive that makes the contract enforceable?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
AndyTheGrump
Habitué
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:44 pm
Wikipedia User: AndyTheGrump (editor/heckler)

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by AndyTheGrump » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:22 pm

What does a pseudonym/IP editor receive that makes the contract enforceable?
The use of the website to publish their material?

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:34 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
What does a pseudonym/IP editor receive that makes the contract enforceable?
The use of the website to publish their material?
I doubt that would satisfy the consideration requirement.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by lilburne » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:54 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
What does a pseudonym/IP editor receive that makes the contract enforceable?
The use of the website to publish their material?
Flickr provides 1TB of storage for free. Also they don't require people to give up control by using the site. Here are some quotes from Stewart Butterfield the guy that started flickr on the issue:
You said

"In a very clear sense, by making your information public, you already gave permission for it to be redistributed this way".

I think that's wrong too. She didn't "give permission" except in some slimey "you clicked through the EULA so screw you" way. It's true that making it public made it possible to retreive the photos via the API, but that's not the same as giving persmission.

...

The position that "by making a photo public on Flickr, you give permission for it to be used in any and all ways off the Flickr site" is totally, unambigiously wrong.

Openness and sharing can easily exist in harmony with respecting people's preferences. We are planning to enable a preference which would allow people to choose whether they want their public photos to show up outside Flickr, including things like image search engines and API-based applications like, say, the Related Tag Browser or ColrPickr. (There are some technical issues which come into play here which is why this hasn't been done yet.)

...

I get that you thought that the original complaint was unfair, but you have to understand that it can be a little shocking for some people to see their photos show up wholesale on another website. It can be an emotional issue. Cut some slack and listen to the underlying thought - it does make sense.

Imagine you're uploading photos of your kids, your family vacation, whatever. It's not your "work", and you're not "publishing" or looking for an "audience". You're willing to make them public because you like participating in a global community, but you don't want some random blogger (from your perspective; sorry lumis) redistributing all those photos. You don't necessarily understand apis and web services and rss and syndication, etc. -- it just seems like fun.

In that case, I don't think you should have to give up that much control to use Flickr. And in cases like this, a little understanding goes a long way.

...

But I have to say that I don't get your position at all. What you mean when you say "sharing" is "give permission for others to use in all kinds of ways, including ways that you may not anticipate, understand or desire". Why should people have to do that?? Why not let people share to the degree to which they are comfortable?

We encourage creative commons licensing and we encourage people participating in all kinds of creative, open, exploratory stuff. And that's not going to stop. But we don't demand it or require their participation, and neither should you. There are and will be many millions of photos which can be used in all kinds of ways - that we don't have to worry about.

But to say that people have to play by your rules if they want to make a photo public is bizarre to me. If the software supports the expression of their preference, why should they have to keep their photos private? If there are some that don't show up in the API's search methods or have the 'blog this' button, who cares? This seems like a basic issue of respect.


http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/13063/
That's a guy that understands that you don't have to demand every one dances to you tune, and that you don't have to grab as the crown jewels every last butterfly photo that comes within reach.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Woden.Ragnarok
Critic
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:59 pm
Wikipedia User: Woden.Ragnarok

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Woden.Ragnarok » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:13 am

This great message from Lilburne is sponsored by Yahoo! To whom you grant a
royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.
The only new addition is that the licence no longer applies to photos or "Graphics" but that's a fairly recent change probably from around the time of the Facebook/Instagram outcry. They now get a similar licence term allowing them to be used in regard to the service until you delete them.
-- Woden "A wise king never seeks out war, but he must always be ready for it." Ragnarok

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by lilburne » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:55 am

Woden.Ragnarok wrote:This great message from Lilburne is sponsored by Yahoo! To whom you grant a
royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.
The only new addition is that the licence no longer applies to photos or "Graphics" but that's a fairly recent change probably from around the time of the Facebook/Instagram outcry. They now get a similar licence term allowing them to be used in regard to the service until you delete them.
Its always funny when freetards think that everyone is as gasping as themselves.
in the case of photos or graphics, solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Services. This licence exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Services and shall be terminated at the time you delete such Content from the Services.
has been there for the last 8 years to my knowledge. Here is a help forum post from 7.5 years ago that references it. Six years ago some web monkeys at Y! screw up when they pulled tagged flickr photos as part of a wii commercial. That idiocy lasted all of 4 hours and by the time they'd fixed it the wii tag was full of "Fuck Yahoo"" and "The wii is SHIT" images.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Ming » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:08 pm

Vigilant wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:
What does a pseudonym/IP editor receive that makes the contract enforceable?
The use of the website to publish their material?
I doubt that would satisfy the consideration requirement.
Given that's what Yahoo! and Google use as consideration, Ming expects it satisfies it quite nicely.

User avatar
Woden.Ragnarok
Critic
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:59 pm
Wikipedia User: Woden.Ragnarok

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Woden.Ragnarok » Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:13 pm

lilburne wrote: Its always funny when freetards think that everyone is as gasping as themselves.
I'm afraid I don't understand "gasping" in this context could be a lost in translation thing or some poor taste asthma joke you need to explain.

On the other point I need to take the instagram point back. I went through a number of site's TOS in 2007/2008 after a tech site I had been contributing to for years applied a license claiming retrospective ownership of our contributions - I thought Yahoo had been one of those but it was probably Facebook I was thinking of. Still though Yahoo photo/graphic opt out is good it still allows them too much specific authority over other media contributions. (the photo/graphic clause origates with Google groups at least as early as 2002) Flickr adopted it after the merge and existing Flickr users had to relicense at that time.)
-- Woden "A wise king never seeks out war, but he must always be ready for it." Ragnarok

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Poetlister » Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:13 pm

You can't quite compare Flickr to Wikipedia or Commons. If you upload to Flickr and choose "All rights reserved", you have placed the photo on the net and anyone can copy it, but they would be breaching your copyright even if they acknowledge the source. However, you cannot upload to Wikipedia or Commons on that basis. That's not a case of a contract between you and WMF; it's what you implicitly declare when you add text, and explicitly declare when you assign a licence to an image.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by lilburne » Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:30 pm

Outsider wrote:You can't quite compare Flickr to Wikipedia or Commons. If you upload to Flickr and choose "All rights reserved", you have placed the photo on the net and anyone can copy it, but they would be breaching your copyright even if they acknowledge the source. However, you cannot upload to Wikipedia or Commons on that basis. That's not a case of a contract between you and WMF; it's what you implicitly declare when you add text, and explicitly declare when you assign a licence to an image.
The point here is that regardless as to what a minor agrees to, even if one signs an agreement, they can repudiate it before they reach the age of 18.

This is particularly clear in circumstances involving property. Whilst they can give away their property rights they may reclaim them at any time before they reach the age of majority. This has been the legal position since the 1200s, it is a settled thing and nothing that wikipedia can do can change that.

Their ToS are similarly void. Not only with regards to minors but with respect to everyone else to. This is because no one has to explicitly agree to them before editing a page. You cannot implicitly agree to anything which isn't thrust foremost in your face.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:42 pm

Vigilant wrote:And we're at ANI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... t_again.29

DemiWit being against the banning should surprise nobody.

I do find it curious that the bright minds at ANI are hinging their entire theory of the irrevocable nature of CC licenses on the work of a legal intern...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilega ... _of_minors

Written by
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hahnw

I'd call this reasoning tenuous, at best.
Gee, Geoff Brigham was as good as his word then. After I wrote to him last year, this was the intern he told me he asked to look into this. It's a real pity none of them ever told me about the outcome, and that page having gone up on Meta. For more than a year, I thought they had just forgotten. :unsure:

Malleus
Habitué
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Malleus » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:19 pm

lilburne wrote:
Outsider wrote:You can't quite compare Flickr to Wikipedia or Commons. If you upload to Flickr and choose "All rights reserved", you have placed the photo on the net and anyone can copy it, but they would be breaching your copyright even if they acknowledge the source. However, you cannot upload to Wikipedia or Commons on that basis. That's not a case of a contract between you and WMF; it's what you implicitly declare when you add text, and explicitly declare when you assign a licence to an image.
The point here is that regardless as to what a minor agrees to, even if one signs an agreement, they can repudiate it before they reach the age of 18.

This is particularly clear in circumstances involving property. Whilst they can give away their property rights they may reclaim them at any time before they reach the age of majority. This has been the legal position since the 1200s, it is a settled thing and nothing that wikipedia can do can change that.

Their ToS are similarly void. Not only with regards to minors but with respect to everyone else to. This is because no one has to explicitly agree to them before editing a page. You cannot implicitly agree to anything which isn't thrust foremost in your face.
A very good point, and one that seems to have escaped the WMF's legal team.
Last edited by Malleus on Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:20 pm

Ming wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:
What does a pseudonym/IP editor receive that makes the contract enforceable?
The use of the website to publish their material?
I doubt that would satisfy the consideration requirement.
Given that's what Yahoo! and Google use as consideration, Ming expects it satisfies it quite nicely.
Perhaps Ming could direct us to the voluminous court decisions that support your supposition?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:08 pm

Oh good, they've indeffed him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... lock.22.29

Nice to see the fear induced pile on at ANI.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12082
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:12 pm

Vigilant wrote:Oh good, they've indeffed him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... lock.22.29

Nice to see the fear induced pile on at ANI.
Dude needed to go, and fast.

RfB

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:39 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Oh good, they've indeffed him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... lock.22.29

Nice to see the fear induced pile on at ANI.
Dude needed to go, and fast.

RfB
It's funny that you think that.
He illustrates a cogent point that the WMF ignores at its peril.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:45 pm

Heh, that's really something, getting blocked from Wikipedia for incompetence.
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:47 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:Heh, that's really something, getting blocked from Wikipedia for incompetence.
Yeah, I was wondering how they singled him out given the stiff competition he's up against in there.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Woden.Ragnarok
Critic
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:59 pm
Wikipedia User: Woden.Ragnarok

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Woden.Ragnarok » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:17 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:Heh, that's really something, getting blocked from Wikipedia for incompetence.
And yet competence isn't a valid blocking reason - it's an essay not a guideline let alone a policy....
-- Woden "A wise king never seeks out war, but he must always be ready for it." Ragnarok

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12082
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:42 pm

Woden.Ragnarok wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:Heh, that's really something, getting blocked from Wikipedia for incompetence.
And yet competence isn't a valid blocking reason - it's an essay not a guideline let alone a policy....
I would have opined in favor of blocking him for an affinity for polka music, a bad haircut, or inability to drive a manual transmission car... Ditching him for the good reason of not being of legal age and thus unable to sign off on a binding rights release (contract) while at the same time explicitly declaring his non-acceptance of the validity of the Creative Commons release language didn't have traction. "Incompetence" was the convenient excuse that did have traction — leaving that very big issue for another situation on another day.

I 100% agree that back of this incident was an issue of massive concern to WP. Drama kid had to go ASAP, that was very clear. The real issue remains, obviously.

RfB

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by DanMurphy » Sat Aug 03, 2013 10:05 pm

Woden.Ragnarok wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:Heh, that's really something, getting blocked from Wikipedia for incompetence.
And yet competence isn't a valid blocking reason - it's an essay not a guideline let alone a policy....
Come on, isn't this clear?
I'm really sorry, Arctic Kangaroo, I know this looks like I'm pulling the rug out from under you, and I feel bad doing it, but due to some new information that has been emailed to me, I can no longer support keeping you unblocked while I try to help you through some of these complications. I'm blocking you, not because of this email, but because of the clear consensus for it at ANI. The email comes into it only because it is a factor against me bending the rules and ignoring consensus to allow you to continue editing here.

I'm not comfortable discussing this on-wiki, and since it isn't a factor in the block rationale
, I don't think I need to. Also, I don't really want to talk with you about it by email. I've emailed the pertinent info to ArbCom; if you need to email someone, they're the people to contact. Special:Emailuser/ArbCom. I'm also suggesting in the block log that ArbCom be contacted before an unblock, and I've removed your talk page access.

Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Where do they find these people?

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:25 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
I'm really sorry, Arctic Kangaroo, I know this looks like I'm pulling the rug out from under you, and I feel bad doing it, but due to some new information that has been emailed to me, I can no longer support keeping you unblocked while I try to help you through some of these complications. I'm blocking you, not because of this email, but because of the clear consensus for it at ANI. The email comes into it only because it is a factor against me bending the rules and ignoring consensus to allow you to continue editing here.

I'm not comfortable discussing this on-wiki, and since it isn't a factor in the block rationale
, I don't think I need to. Also, I don't really want to talk with you about it by email. I've emailed the pertinent info to ArbCom; if you need to email someone, they're the people to contact. Special:Emailuser/ArbCom. I'm also suggesting in the block log that ArbCom be contacted before an unblock, and I've removed your talk page access.
Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Where do they find these people?
The people find them. And come on, how is this any different from dirty office politics, practiced in a similar manner all over the world?
Only difference here is, there are written traces left of the backstabbing. In the "real world" backstabbing can be covered up.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: the curious case of Arctic Kangaroo

Unread post by Poetlister » Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:58 pm

lilburne wrote:The point here is that regardless as to what a minor agrees to, even if one signs an agreement, they can repudiate it before they reach the age of 18.
They can no more repudiate an agreement than enter into a binding one. The agreement is probably null and void ab initio, and presumably can be repudiated by the child's parent or guardian. If the parent becomes aware of the agreement and does not repudiate it, maybe a case can be made that he/she has agreed to it, but that's a bit flimsy.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

Post Reply