User:AKMask/FUThoughts

Outside Inside/Involved view by AKMask
A couple things. One, RfC's can not desysop people, regardless of what happens, so the part of the offered complaint requesting that should be struck and/or moved to an arbcom request.

And here's the crux of the matter. Ed was reverting gratuitus fair use images that run directly counter to a foundation-level policy. These images were readded by users who participated in the discussion that informed editors of the change in enforcement, and had bickered on many other pages about it since. They knew the policy, and yet still refused to abide by it, resulting in some behavior that at the very least qualifies as pointy. These actions are inexcusable. A policy you are unaware of earns you some slack, a policy that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a blanket excuse to run around being disruptive.

Then this was compounded by several users adding a block of text to WP:NONFREE that directly contradicts the licenseing policy from the WMF, without consensus, indeed, with a discussion clearly showing a minimum of support to their posistion. Ed then, not edit warning or involved, really, reverted this and protected it. Standing up for the integrity of policy is to be rewarded.

Someone give Ed a prize.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) - M  ask?  23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Nicely put. I find it flatly ridiculous that people think they can corrupt our free values in contradiction with WMF policies if only they yell loud enough.  Ain't gonna happen.  -- Cyde Weys  03:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Ned Scott 03:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) -- User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Inserting "policy" that runs directly counter to Foundation directives is akin to vandalism in my book.  howcheng   {chat} 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  Dan Beale  11:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Less the prize, perhaps. I expect a number of sysops would've reverted and protected that page if I hadn't, and it was absolutely the correct thing to do. ed g2s &bull; talk 11:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Foundation policy is Foundation policy. --bainer (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Complete support to Ed in the matter of the episode screenshot, that was simple, straightforward enforcement of policy against an opposition that was just being eminently unreasonable. I'm not quite so sure about the policy incident though - there can be intelligent, good-faith wikipedians who support Wikipedia ideals and still honestly believe that the exception in question is justified and supported by consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Agree with every word of AKMask's view, including "and" and "the".  ⋐⋑  REDVEЯS  14:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Agree per Fut.Perf. - I don't believe the opposing editors were 'vandals', just wrong-headed. Addhoc 15:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 14)  Daniel Bryant  00:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) --  Nick  t  15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) --Abu badali (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)