[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Gallagher
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions
attacks, and I came across a photograph on a user page where the
subject of the photograph states that he is the creator.
I refer to
] which was
clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a
tripod or other
support such as a wall.
Okay, you have a point, but given your history I find it hard
you found these particular images during harmless "research".
Research is what I was doing, Mark. I'm not asleep until October. Like you,
I keep an eye on what people are saying about me and this
did=52631183] came up during a search on my name. I also noticed reference
on the same page to the same person being blocked for making personal
attacks. And swiftly unblocked. Working out what was going on was research,
and I think you can understand why I'd take an interest.
As you know, the thrust of my ArbCom case was that this particular user was
singling me out for abuse. I got a month in the cooler and he got a slap on
the wrist - an admonition from the ArbCom to be more civil in future. Yet
he's still making savage personal attacks against other editors.
id=31166859 are subjects for recent discussion on WP:ANI. He's always done
it and given that he ignores ArbCom rulings, he always will.
Do you understand how outrageous this is? Do you understand why I have
limited respect for the internal "justice system"? I'll take my hat off to
this user for a lot of the edit work he does, but his behaviour is dead
against wikipolicy. He is a revert warrior, he pursues vendettas, he abuses
other editors, and when he gets in a jam, he whistles up some friendly
admins. No wonder people talk about cliques and cabals.
My question about the ethics of claiming a photograph taken by someone else
as your own is a legitimate one. It applies to a great many photographs on
user pages. How I got to this particular is really immaterial, and I
mentioned research in case someone like you wondered why I chose this user
as an example.