{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.
--Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
KirthMersenne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not "make legal threats or take legal action". Your suggestion is insulting and inaccurate. Read much? Hint: I AM NOT A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR. Merely remarking (and correctly) that engaging in secondarily "producing" an image in violation of Section 2257 is not a legal threat; it's an aid to help others avoid exposing themselves to possible criminal sanctions (which, again, will not come from me because I AM NOT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT).
And by the way, you should hire a real working lawyer next time to read the statute correctly-- it might avoid quite a hassle in the long run. Misunderstanding of the requirements of the act seems to be rampant here, based on users parroting each other's words in an attempt at reassurance.
Decline reason:
Claiming other volunteers' edits are illegal -- and edit warring on that basis -- is using the implied threat of legal action to get your own way, and you may not do that. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:06, 9 September 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.
KirthMersenne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not "make legal threats or take legal action". Noting correctly the illegal status of an image used in a Wikipedia page is not threatening prosecution by a random government prosecutor. Just as kiddie porn can be noted as illegal, an image in violation of 2257 record keeping requirements can be noted as such.
Also, it is extremely tiresome for people with agendas regarding obscene content to play shithouse lawyer. Nor have you followed Wikipedia blocking policy by giving me an indefinite block; please read the block policy linked above if you wish to abide by Wikipedia's own policies.
Misunderstanding of 2257 record keeping requirements, on the part of other users, is not a valid reason to block me. Nor has any attorney ever associated with Wikimedia or Wikipedia ever said that images such as the one I removed are legal to post; one merely asserted (and highly questionably) that in his opinion the Wikimedia foundation would not be found at fault for hosting the illegal images.
I understand you may have some porn-related or homosexuality-related agenda, Orange Mike, but that is also no reason to ban anyone. Keeping Wikipedia content legal is not a bad aim-- but punishing people who note and edit out clearly illegal content is.
Users with an agenda, who like obscene (and valueless) content on Wikipedia, cannot be relied upon for sound decisions on the legality of content. In the example of the Autofellatio page, it was even proposed as a featured article, with the obvious intent that the (illegal) picture of autofellation be featured on the front page of the site. This goes beyond the pale; incessantly repeating "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't mean that all objectionable content is to wind up in Wikipedia. The obscenity rule is oft-misquoted.
But all of that is unnecessary to note-- it is obvious to anyone that can read that under U.S. law, images which fit the 2257 record-keeping requirements trigger those requirements in the U.S. That means that 1) any such image, when attempted to be inserted into Wikipedia without satisfying those informational requirements, violates U.S. law, since even non-citizens can violate the law when the content is sent within the U.S., and Wikipedia is both hosted in the U.S. and viewed by millions of U.S. viewers by design; and 2) it is actually irrelevant whether Wikimedia could be sued in civil or criminal court by anyone (it could), since the content itself is illegal and Wikipedia rules prohibit hosting illegal content. The image in question features a sexually explicit image created after 1990, and has been provided without satisfying the informational requirement of indicating where the required records are kept; it's illegal. End of story-- there's no argument on the illegality of the image itself.
Decline reason:
The first paragraph of your response is most relevant, where you note that you did not make legal threats. The edit summaries you entered when removing the image from autofellatio, and subsequent comments, clearly indicate that legal consequences could follow if someone undoes your edit - and that is precisely what our No Legal Threats policy is intended to avoid. You might be right, you might be wrong - but the violation of policy is from the threat itself, not from the legal position you take. Discuss the legality of the image as you like - that's what the talk page is for. But you do not get to use the threat of legal action (from you, the federal government, or anyone else) to lend support to your edits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:58, 9 September 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.
On point, I must also advise you that accusing editors and administrators of having an agenda (particularly a pro pornography one) is precisely the wrong approach to discussing this issue. Whatever merits your argument may have, no one will listen when you accuse them of conspiracy. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
KirthMersenne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Noting that "legal consequences could follow" is not what I did; I noted that a photograph was illegal, and reinserting it would be illegal too. It's not off base to note that content is illegal, or else no one could nominate an article for deletion on that basis. Nor is noting that something is legal a threat. I can't prosecute someone for violating U.S. law; hence I cannot threaten someone with prosecution. Either it will happen or it won't, and I won't have any say in the matter. In fact I provided helpful advice to people who intend to insert illegal images-- i.e., that they are illegal-- which they can use to adjust their own conduct, not under any threat from me but because they don't want to put illegal content on Wikipedia. Unless they do-- in which case they're in the wrong, not me. It was indicated previously that the block would stand as long as the "threat" was in place. Well, I obviously cannot remove the "threat" in any event. This indefinite ban is against Wikipedia policy. Is it news to you that certain people, even admins here, can have an agenda? I'm stunned. User Mattbuck clearly has one. Perhaps I should not have assumed it of Orange Mike-- but it's likely, since he decided to construe my absolutely true assertion about that particular image as a "legal threat", and then give me an indefinite ban. This is punishment, because I dared to state that an illegal-in-the-U.S. image of a person sucking his own penis is illegal in the U.S. What's objectionable? Noting that an illegal photo in general is illegal? Nope. If stating that inserting illegal images is illegal is a threat, I think more bans are in order. Everywhere someone notes a 2257 violation on Wikipedia is a legal threat. Use of the template {{2257}} itself is a punishable threat, under such a silly viewpoint. It's obviously wrong; only real threats of harm are threats. Let's look at the relevant definitions of threat: 1. evincing intention or determination to inflict punishment or injury, or 2. indicating or warning of probable trouble. The first is the type of threat clearly prohibited by the anti-threat rule. Warning of potential legal trouble from using illegal images is not a threat, or no one could discuss a deletable image in recommending it. Come on-- put on the common-sense thinking cap instead of merely repeating citations to rules you either don't understand, or don't care to use correctly.
Decline reason:
Oh come on. "I can't prosecute someone for violating U.S. law; hence I cannot threaten someone with prosecution." ... well, at least you've proved conclusively that you're not a lawyer, because even most non-lawyers know that anyone can report someone for violating the law to someone with the power to initiate an arrest and/or prosecution. Since this is your third highly argumentative request using pretty much the same argument, I will revoke your talk page access to spare you further embarassment. Court is hereby adjourned, in other words. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 9 September 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.
lists.wikimedia.org.
Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way to find out how many times this guy contacted unblock-en with exactly the same unblock request? VanIsaacWS 01:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)