User talk:Mosquera: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:44, 12 July 2007 editMosquera (talk \| contribs)1,396 edits clarification← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:52, 12 July 2007 edit undoDuja (talk \| contribs)16,752 edits decline unblockNext edit →
Line 25:		Line 25:
	He also deleted the disputed images ''before the time limit was up'' and erased evidence that I went to great lengths to follow policy. He is trying to punish me for disagreeing with him. I agree, this cannot be tolerated.] 05:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)		He also deleted the disputed images ''before the time limit was up'' and erased evidence that I went to great lengths to follow policy. He is trying to punish me for disagreeing with him. I agree, this cannot be tolerated.] 05:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	{{unblock\|I acted in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Misplaced Pages. I am participating in ongoing discussion about fair use images. This admin is upset that I am defending "disputed" images and participating in an arbitration discussion. I have done nothing that violates current Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I understand that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=I acted in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Misplaced Pages. I am participating in ongoing discussion about fair use images. This admin is upset that I am defending "disputed" images and participating in an arbitration discussion. I have done nothing that violates current Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I understand that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.
			\|decline=You have been told several times, by several good-faith users and administrators, that the images you uploaded don't comply with our policies. As images of publicly available living people, used only for illustration, those were NOT anyway near borderline cases, and no amount of ruleslawyering nor 100 kB of fair use rationales would change that. Rather than accepting the said facts, you keep on accusing them on vandalism, wikistalking, and bad faith. You can expect good faith towards yourself only if you ]. ]<span style="font-size:70%;">]</span> 07:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 07:52, 12 July 2007

My statement on the fair use squabble, with reference to one of my accusers, is posted elsewhere.
Mosquera 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you

Thanks for the barnstar! It is clear that you and I are on the same page re our mutual "friend". PageantUpdater 01:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that we were both targeted after posting pictures of pretty girls. Maybe the problem is something more than policy. ;-)
Mosquera 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Groovy

Love you're "world's most detailed explanation". Mind if I cut and paste it onto the explanation for some of my images and await the inevitable non-response? ==OneCyclone 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free. I hope it helps. Mosquera 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 12 hours for your continuing disruption about non-free images. You know that the images you uploaded don't match our current policy; most of them are blatant cases of replaceable non-free images, as multiple people have been telling you. Now you are revert-warring about them and making personal attacks against several users. Please stop it. Future(...) 04:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you start a flame war, you only hurt yourself. By it you contribute nothing to society or anything else. If that gives you your kicks, so be it. When you're old and gray, you can look back on the days you harassed and bullied people over 75px fair use images as "the good old days." -Mosquera

I know no such thing and I NOT revert-warring. You are simply retaliating against me because of a policy dispute. Please rever, as this is disruptive behavior that violates policy. 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It is highly improper for an admin to block based solely on a policy difference, as seems to have been done in this case. According to another point of view, the wikistalking and massive tagging that has taken place against User:Mosquera may be seen as equally highly disruptive (and the cause of User:Mosquera's edits in the first place), and equally worthy of blocking. Such blocks undermine the faith WP users should have in their admins as impartial, and lend credence to the growing suspicion that certain admins use their powers to intimidate those with whom they have policy differences. This cannot be tolerated. Badagnani 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Plot Thickens He seems to be blocking me because I responded to the dispute tags. After blocking me, he rushed to delete both the images and my tags. Apparently this guy believes that filling in the explanation part of a dispute tag is "making personal attacks against several users." It makes no sense.

He also deleted the disputed images before the time limit was up and erased evidence that I went to great lengths to follow policy. He is trying to punish me for disagreeing with him. I agree, this cannot be tolerated.Mosquera 05:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mosquera (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I acted in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Misplaced Pages. I am participating in ongoing discussion about fair use images. This admin is upset that I am defending "disputed" images and participating in an arbitration discussion. I have done nothing that violates current Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I understand that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.

Decline reason:

You have been told several times, by several good-faith users and administrators, that the images you uploaded don't comply with our policies. As images of publicly available living people, used only for illustration, those were NOT anyway near borderline cases, and no amount of ruleslawyering nor 100 kB of fair use rationales would change that. Rather than accepting the said facts, you keep on accusing them on vandalism, wikistalking, and bad faith. You can expect good faith towards yourself only if you show some in return. Duja ► 07:52, 12 July 2007 (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.