User talk:Mosquera

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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.--

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I acted in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia.  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 Wikipedia 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.--  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I acted in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia.  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 Wikipedia 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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I acted in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia.  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 Wikipedia 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.--  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]