Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mosquera (talk | contribs) at 09:48, 12 July 2007 (rm unnecessary ornamention). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 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)

¿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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. Mosquera 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. Badagnani 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be barking up the wrong tree, but in my experience the user who blocked you (User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) has generally appeared to be to be in cahoots with User:Abu badali. Need I say more. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I, of course, think it is ridiculous. PageantUpdater 08:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A small, loose-knit group obsesses over this one issue and creates an illusion of consensus. By contrast, most editors who upload images are easy targets, since they are neither admins nor wikilawyers. -M.

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.

Please do not revert the unblock review, as you did here, 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. Duja 09:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More latitude is extended for user talk pages. Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. Mosquera 09:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)