| Revision as of 12:51, 12 July 2007 editDurin (talk | contribs)25,247 edits →The Editor's Barnstar: response← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:58, 12 July 2007 edit undoMosquera (talk | contribs)1,396 edits remove entire arc, wheat and chaff, per WP:TALKNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| My |
My full length image rationale is ]. My statement on anti-fair use hysteria is . | ||
| == Why thank you == | == Why thank you == | ||
| Thanks for the barnstar! It is clear that you and I are on the same page re our mutual "friend". ] 01:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | Thanks for the barnstar! It is clear that you and I are on the same page re our mutual "friend". ] 01:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
| ]. I hope it helps. ] 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | ]. I hope it helps. ] 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 Perfect at Sunrise 04:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===On enforcing policy=== | |||
| #Mr. Sunrise provides no evidence for his accusations against me. The "multiple people" who have "been telling me" all share a common agenda. Nothing stated here supports a block other than ideological animosity. | |||
| #After blocking me, Mr. Sunrise rushed to delete both the images and my tags. Apparently he believes that filling in the explanation part of a dispute tag is "making personal attacks against several users." It makes no sense. Mr. Sunrise also deleted the disputed images ''before the time limit was up'' and erased evidence that I went to great lengths to follow policy. | |||
| #I acted in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Misplaced Pages. Mr. Sunrise is upset that I take a position opposite his. That another person or a group disagrees with my interpretation is not itself a policy issue. ] 09:38, 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. ] 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I may be barking up the wrong tree, but in my experience the user who blocked you (]) has generally appeared to be to be in cahoots with ]. Need I say more. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I, of course, think it is ridiculous. ] 08:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A small, loose-knit group obsesses over this one issue and . By contrast, most editors who upload images are easy targets, since they are neither admins nor wikilawyers. -M. | |||
| {{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 ]. ] 07:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| Please do not revert the unblock review, as you did , under false pretense of "personal atack". If you do it again, I will be forced to protect this page and extend the block, for the abuse of unblock template. Thanks. ] 09:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| '']'' | |||
| Users can remove warnings from their talk pages. There is no policy or guideline that forbids this, although one or two say that this is "frowned upon." (Nor must they archive such warnings.) "Frowned upon" does not mean "not allowed". In fact, ''removal'' of warnings is evidence that they have been read - see, for example, ]. Thanks. ] 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I support the block and denial of the unblock request. I concur that you have been shown he guiding policy regarding this issue by multiple people (such as Nadav1 and myself). I myself pointed you to ] where it notes that images of living people are considered replaceable. Further, you've similarly been shown by several people that what has been occuring with others observing your edits is not stalking. Despite these things, you chose to edit war anyways, and reverted the removal of against policy images from various articles (). | |||
| *In cases such as this when an editor has been shown the error of his ways, chooses to ignore it, and continues to edit war over it a block is appropriate. If, after the block expires, you choose to return to the same behavior it is highly likely that you will be immediately re-blocked for a greater period of time. I strongly encourage you to cease this behavior. --] 10:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :More latitude is certainly allowed, and removal of warnings is not prohibited indeed. However, the template clearly reads, in bold, '''This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request.''' What you did is equal to re-posting the unblock template, hiding the fact that the block had been already reviewed, with edit summary "remove personal attack" on top of that. "Decline reason" is not solely for your information, but for all administrators or users who might choose to investigate. As noted in {{tl|unblock}}, "Abuse of this template may result in your talk page being protected." I choose not to do that, but you should really calm down. ]<span style="font-size:70%;">]</span> 10:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The Editor's Barnstar == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | As commendation for surviving numerous fair use disputes, I present The Editor's Barnstar for your work to protect the editorial integrity of Misplaced Pages from political hysteria. | |||
| |} | |||
| Mereces tu propia estrella, mi amigo. ] 10:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I've removed the "civility barnstar" you added to your user page this morning. If someone wants to give you a barnstar, they can do so via your talk page. Off-site awarding isn't generally accepted. Further, IPs (as above) that have never edited before coming to this talk page out of the blue and awarding a barnstar is rather suspect, as would any attempt to use a sockpuppet to award barnstars to yourself. This isn't a personal attack. This isn't wikistalking. This is telling you how we do things around here. I hope you'll take the advice in the good spirit it is intended. Thanks, --] 12:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:58, 12 July 2007
My full length image rationale is here. My statement on anti-fair use hysteria is here.
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 your "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)