Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 3 December 2009

Pinochet

I would suggest you consult WP:CANVAS your history suggests you should.Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your history would suggest that not only do you not know what fascism is, you also are ignorant of the policy that to which you have inanely linked. I suggest you go and take a gander and learn to differentiate between friendly notices and requests for comments and bad faithed, personal attacks that assume bad faith and mendaciously suggesting policy violations.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest you consult WP:CIVIL as your recent comments on my talkpage were a violation of this policy, and a rather eggregious one. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks on you. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You posted requests for assistance on the Pinochet article on talk pages for multiple users who then supported your position. If I suggested you consult WP:CANVAS it was not as an attack on you, it was WP:SPADE. Please feel no need to reply. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot help that my position was the correct one. Being right does not equal canvassing. It was transparent and neutrally worded. those editors happen to work on fascism articles and seem to know what it is. You do not appear to know, or are being obtuse. I assume that most responded to the RfC.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How could I possibly be aware of either of those things? I was citing a specific Misplaced Pages policy with regards to calling your actions canvassing. I have absolutely no prior knowlege of your descent. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Mention that Pinochet was 'President of Chile' & that ought to do it. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Oversight

If an IP address has been oversighted it is wrong for you to repost the redacted address since you don't know why it was oversighted and you may be conpromising somone's privacy or safety. You can make the exact same point without citing the redacted IP address or the location it resolves to. Please be more sensitive to privacy issues in the future, particularly when an Oversighter has specifically removed an IP address from an article's edit history. 69.172.104.119 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I created a talkpage for you and responded there.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, some of his edits made my chuckle. "That's not POV." Grsz 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, a certain IP forgot to mention that he nominated File:Shanemartinez3.jpg for deletion. Grsz 01:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these various IPs are related, and I urge you to follow through on the advice jpgordon gave you. Grsz 01:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page, for the sake of organization. Grsz 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image

Unfortunately, I think not. There are two ways an image can be used on Misplaced Pages (and I apologize of you knew this already; just trying to be thorough):

• It can be "free", meaning that any person can reuse it for any purpose without needing permission. These images are either in the public domain (generally either because its copyright has expired, because it's a work of the U.S. government, or because the copyright holder has released it into the public domain—note that merely lacking a copyright notice does not indicate that it's in the public domain) or licensed by the copyright holder under a free license (such as the GNU Free Documentation License or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License). This image is not free, because neither of these things is true.
• It can be used under fair use if it meets our Non-free content criteria. With a very limited number of exceptions, photographs of living people used to illustrate article subjects are considered to fail the first of these criteria, because there's nothing stopping somebody from taking a photograph of the subject and releasing it under a free license.

I hope this clarifies things, and please let me know if you have any further questions. Steve Smith (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Since you're not going to be able to use anything under fair use, you'll only be able to use a free image, which it's very unlikely that you can find. If you want, you can start contacting the owners of websites that feature the pictures you want to use, and ask if they'll license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If they will, get them to send an e-mail to permissions@wikimedia.org reading something like "I certify that I am the copyright owner of and that I release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, allowing its use by any person for any purpose without further permission from me." Otherwise, the article will probably have to remain picture-free for now. Steve Smith (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The source of the image doesn't really matter. However, I strongly doubt that Stormfront owns the copyright to any photos of the subject that appear on their site; more likely they have just taken them from some other site, and are in no permission to grant the free license. Steve Smith (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they claim ownership and agree to license it under a free license, you can have them send the e-mail I quoted above. But from there what most likely happens is that it gets listed at WP:PUI, and editors decide whether they actually believe Stormfront. My guess is that they wouldn't. Steve Smith (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If the owner of the Photobucket account owns the copyright for the pictures he/she displays and is willing to license them freely, yes. Steve Smith (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are. On Flickr, each image shows its licensing status, with the default being "all rights reserved". Photobucket does not have this feature, but it also has nothing in its terms of use or other policies requiring or implying any grant of license, besides the license granted to Photobucket to display the material. Accordingly, the copyright status of a photo is not changed by uploading it to Photobucket. Steve Smith (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

Please read WP:UP#NOT, point 9. Black Kite 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Right back at you. Now go play.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Divisive statements such as the one you added to your userpage are not allowed per the sentence that Black Kite cited: "Polemical statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages ; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive." Veinor 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

... and edit-warring to restore them is unlikely to end well. Black Kite 21:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Often considered.. Blah , Blah. This time it is not. No one was vilified nor attacked. Please go play some where else--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure that saying "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" is an implicit attack on that person. Veinor 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the final version that I placed was neutral enough. No one mentioned death or used the language you have iimplied. Nice tag team to try and enforce a 3rr on user space when I was reverting vandalism to my page--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You weren't blocked for 3RR. You were blocked for repeatedly replacing an offensive statement on your userpage. Playing semantics is irrelevant. Black Kite 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is how you are supposed to handle this.http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:UP#Deleting_user_pages_and_subpages You should read a little farther down the policy if you don't fully understand.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Low level harassment by a bored admin. Please look at the vandalism. Hell , you could even call it a content dispute on my user page and he is an involved admin. Some one fix this

Decline reason:

"I'm glad he's dead" is unacceptable soapboxing, no matter how delicately you phrase it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (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.

Maybe should have left that for someone else to since you made a driveby statement at ANI and then refused to discuss it when I asked for help. Perhaps a less biased one admi n ought to review.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

]. Looks like the whole Frank Pais club house is out in force today.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please take a look at the history on my Userpage. From beginning to the end of this. BTW , How do you attack a dead person. This is lunacy. I wasnt even notified of the ANI discussion that had started before this masked man started editing my page. He didnt even give me the courtesy of notification. This is very poor form all around.

Decline reason:

It is unfortunate that you were not notified about the ANI thread, but the proper response when the content was removed was not to simply add it again while placing comments such as this on your user page. Disagreements should be settled via collegial discussion, not by telling others to "play somewhere else". If you had taken the time to discuss the situation, I am sure you would have become aware of the ANI thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:44, 8 October 2009 (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.

What is your specific problem with that edit? There does not seem to be a clear consensus that the removal was appropriate in the first place. If it was not appropriate in the first place, I was fully justified to revert in my user space. People revert others' tampering with those pages regularly. The correct think, after having been reverted twice on a userpage would ahve been to open a request for comment. I really don't see your logic. Edit warring to remove a grey area, non bright line question of taste and then blocking someone you disagree with about that is capricious. The editors an ani are hardly neutral. look at the ones who have had issues in the past and axes to grind. Sort out that, and it seems that there is no clear consensus that this was a good block. If that is the case, then the block is not appropriate.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As two people explained, the content you added was not in agreement with WP:UP#NOT, point 9. However, that was not the reason you were blocked.

The block summary made by the blocking admin was "Repeated re-insertion of offensive material on userpage". If you had stopped to (attempt to) obtain consensus that the content was appropriate before you reverted its removal, everything would have been fine.

According to your edit history, which I reviewed before declining the unblock, you gave a dismissive reply to Black Kite's warning to stop edit warring , and then immediately resumed edit warring , without discussing the issue at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Then if it was edit warring, as an involved admin he should have taken this for a review before abusing the tools by using them in an edit war. Usually edit warring with a user on his pages is frowned apon and great leeway is given and a strong presumption that the foreign editor step back.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You had every opportunity to take the edits to review instead of reverting them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As did they. Seems like there is a lack of evenhandedness here, and this is userspace. He should ahve backed off, as this is a grey area, and not a bright line issue. He should ahve got concensus to continue to edit war, as i was the offended party, having been sought out. I understand that it is possible that admins back other admins blindly. i hope that this is not the case. you have not specifically answer to his abusing the tools as an involved editor in an edit war. Is this by design or lapse?--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite was not involved here as one of many editors making changes to an article; he was already in the role of administrator resolving what appears to be a clear violation of WP:USER#NOT. Indeed, he came here directly in response to a report to ANI, and posted back there when he removed the content intitially. So the block by Black Kite simply continued the same string of administrative actions that was started by the ANI thread. As I pointed out in my note above, it was unfortunate you were not notified of the ANI thread, but if you had avoided edit warring you would have become aware of the ANI thread quickly enough. The underlying reason for the block is that you did not take the time to follow up on the situation, but only reverted the changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not at all clear, per the ANI discussion, that what I had was a violation of policy. Several admins on this page and the notice board have said so. In questionable matters that are not bright line, he should have sought consensus instead of playing Captain America. No individual was attacked, no users abused, and no personal attack was involved. This is a clear casee of admins using the tools for IDONTLIKE.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If the appropriateness was not clear, then you also had no justification for re-inserting the content. But a plain reading of WP:USER#NOT point 9 strongly suggests the content was indeed inappropriate:

"...statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive."

In any case, I reviewed the block and I have now given you ample explanation of my reasoning. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You did, and I think your judgment and discernment is lacking in the case. What persons were villified? Who was attacked? What anonymous gropu of editors was attacked? You did not report that my last edit had removed the last part of the statement, and borders on mendacious. The comments about canvassing from the editor who edit wars on the Pinochet article and is angry that a RFC that I requested didnt go his way is out right lying. i never called him a racist. look at the edit. I specifically assumed good faith and gave the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you should find something else to do with your time, since you haven't been able to report accurately what transpired and are using weasel words like apparently to justify this flimsiest of pretenses for a block. There is no clear consensus here. Lacking concensus, there should be a presumption in favor of the blocked editor. Open your eyes, man, check out the axes being ground. don't be a patsy for 223 at ani. This I swear is no attack, but I was led to understand that you were interested in logic. I am not having this conversation with you to be unblocked by you. You are wrong and expecting collegial dealings withte those who are vandalizing your userpage is absurd on its face. the presumption is that if it is not clear that there was a violation, then you do not block. It is in no ways clear that my page was a violation. Several admins have said this, one even going as far as to revert to my last edit on my page. i am reminded of the infamous sociological experiment where some were made guards and others prisoners and the capricious meltdown that neccesitated the termination of the program.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:UP#Deleting_user_pages_and_subpages is the proper way to handle this, not blocks. Per all of the above, and all of the below and the numerous editors and admins who have expressed questions about blocking admins use of tools in this case. There was no concensus for the remmoval of the content. it was redacted the last time I edited my space, and the block was inapprpropriate and capricious and the removal did not follow policy outlines that the community should be able to expect that admins follow.

Decline reason:

This is a proper enforcement of WP:UP#NOT, which is very clear: "Polemical statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive."  Sandstein  06:15, 8 October 2009 (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.

Could I email you about something tangently related that is sensitive? --Die4Dixie (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you wish, but I dislike using e-mail for wiki purposes (see my user page) and may not mail back if I do not think the matter is actionable.  Sandstein  06:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You have mail. I trust your descretion.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons given in my e-mail reply, I can't do what you request.  Sandstein  08:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but it has been taken care of. TY.--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Block

Would someone please deal with this.

It's a joke. Grsz 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let some one know, please.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

While we may not share (many) opinions, they are just that, you're opinions. And while it may or may not be against some certain policy, aren't there more prominent issues to deal with here then blocking a user for editing his own damn page. We've got administrators that actively campaign for sockpuppets, noticeboards backlogged half of the time, go solve a real issue. Grsz 22:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion at ANI opened before he vandalized my user page. He didn't even have the courtesy to notify me. Some starts edit warring on your user page and doesn't even discuss or inform of an ongoing ANI. Poor form all the way around. Vulcan has been waiting in the wings since he didn't like my complaint about Pais and his IP abuses. --Die4Dixie (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dix, the comment doesn't seem very collegial or constructive. It would have been better just to keep your thoughts to yourself even if you were just venting. I think you'd benefit from working on less contentious material or from taking a self-imposed break. A week off?

The block and the rapidfire review from Sarek were bad. I've seen lots of nasty comments on various pages about LIVING people. I reiterate that I don't think celebrating someone's death on your userpage in that way is very collegial, but the double standards and arbitrary justice here are also problematic. But that's the way it goes. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Take a break Dix. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that your use of "pinko fag" helps your case much. Your block is only 24 hours. Perhaps you can use it reading. PhGustaf (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how your trolling is constructive to alleviating this situation. Do you need a time out to correct your inappropriate behavior and taunting PhGustaf? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dixie, I understand you're frustrated with how this was handled. But I encourage you to step away from the computer and to get a break without looking back. The block will remain in the log no matter what. I know you want to be unblocked (and should be). I think the dispute could have been resolved amicably if it had been handled better by the admins involved. But it's too late for that now. And you need to be more careful about making that kind of statement on Misplaced Pages and about getting frustrated. It happens to all of us. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a general statement that attacked no one. It is damned offenssive that we sent 52,000 of our best to die in the stinkink jungles of SE Asia to fight the communists, and we have pages apon pages of user related crappolla about what great folks they were. Do I cry about being offended? No. I was blocked after I had evaluated the second part of the quote and removed it, so you are absolutely correct in what you said I was blocked for. ANI is a magnet for people with an axe to grind because they want to push POV and call everyone they don't like a fascist, and are butt sore when people respond to an RFC and I'm vindicated. They just kinda lie in wait to pounce. I haven't interacted with the dickishly behaving troll in a long time. There he is to swoop in and gloat like a primary school kid. Sure, my views are very popular, and there are very few admins willing to speak up on this for the simple fact that they don't like my politics. This block is one of the most capricious that I have ever had. Jossi, the sock puppet, did once, Drini was way out of line. The last was late, as I had struck the comment and disengaged, but was lifted by the blocker. The edits on Pinochet that i broke 3rr with (and was the only one sactioned, Frank Pais got a free pass for his provocation and edit warring) even if he has a tremendous COI, I shouldn't have edit warred. What a bunch of crap. I read the book years ago that was reccommend. Wasn't all that great. basically just use people's names over and over, because people like the sound of their own name, and the will like you. A little vapid... but what do you expect. I'm not particularly angry about the block. It was capricious and juvenile and a clear abuse of sysop priveledges, but what can one expect? I am appreciative of your comments, and those of the admins who saw this for what it was. How the hell does one ask for a review, and then argue with the reviewers? Asking for the review is the first sign that he knew he was wrong. The axegrinders will validate him,but he will know. He already does. someone will see it, or it will expire, and hey, I will ask if it is permitted. People don't have a right not to be offended, and people choose what to be offended by. I dislike child pornography, so I choose not to seak it out. Such a big project to cause so much drama about a neutrally worded statement. Silly.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I'm sure it could have been worked out with some collegial discussion.

Consider if someone had put up an "I'm happy about the change in status of Ronald Reagan" after he had passed (and your original version was pointier than that). Editors who liked or honored him or who found that inappopriate might have objected to it. It's just not the kind of thign that's appropriate on a userpage or conducive to a collaborative encyclopedia building effort. A positive statement or userbox in favor of whatever principles and values you support would probably be a better way to go than dancing on graves anyway, if that's something you feel you want to share. No matter how evil or misguided the people and/ or their followers may (or may not) be, taunting of that sort is a little bit uncouth. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Such a strange world we live in where only conservatives are required to be couth. Notice not a one said anything about the trolling--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Schadenfreude' may be in bad taste; but that doesn't give anybody here the right to remove Dix's display of bad taste. As a Christian, I prefer to pray for the souls of my enemies, and my country's enemies {among the latter I certainly count the late Ronald Reagan); but that doesn't empower me to tell Dix how to interpret the Scripture we both follow. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a much better way to handel this. A request for comment, anything. I had no idea that the guy was an admin, he certainly doesnt identify himself as one. I figured someone who was bored was just harrassingg me. Didnt even tell me about the ani, just came over reverting me. I would have rather been able to tak about it there. Oh well.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would make those comments at the block review initiated at ANI by the blocker, Orange Mike.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Already did. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I really respect that you take the time to be fair, even when others can't because of their personal feelings. I saw where you tried to reinsert it. Perhaps you could ask an univolved admin to review this in its totality, bad taste and all, and see if this was capricious or justified. I don't intend to reinsert it immediately; but rather write a fuller statement, like I often see on others' pages. I also do not think that Vulcan is fully uninvolved. I think he has followed Child of midnight over here and seen his support and rejected on the basis of their relationship. I don't think that the tools should be used as a bludgeon. --Die4Dixie (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. But you gotta learn some judo. Every once in a while your fighting spirit seems to be aroused a little more than does you any good around here. --jpgordon 02:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You know you are right. Not always operating in my own best interests. I'm right an awefully lot of the time, but when I'm wrong...I've shot myself in the foot and alienated folks that later on have looked for payback, and I just open the door.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, there were those that did not care that I pointed out the fact I was gangraped last year on my page, and tried to get rid of that to hide their guilt. However, this arbitration case helped me, and it seems it would apply to Dixie's case as well: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi.--King Bedford I 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back from your timeout. Have fun and let me know if you need any help. Grsz 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What accusation are you specifically referring to? Grsz 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The ones simomn223 made on my talkpage at top and then at ANI while I was blocked.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems a perfectly legitimate set of actions. The table right there at the top of WP:CANVASS: Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open = Friendly notice, not Canvassing. If he does proceed with an RfC as he threatened, I'll be sure to chime in, and I'll look into it some more when I have time if you wish. Grsz 03:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I even wet through the old talk pages to find people who would not support my position and notified them too. Repeated accusations of abuse or violations of policy are uncivil after a certain point. I think that report was crossed a long tme ago. BTW, USER:Frank Pais left rather than disclose his COI or face arbcom. The project has been improved. I wonder if the admin who was covering for him knew about the COI and his identity. He had alluded to being in contact with some and having got some kind of feed back about me that reflected poorly on me or some such nonsense. Theadmins have been strangely silient about that whole thing, and he closed up shop. I expect that he will find it rather hard to stay away, and his editing style and choice of subjects will give him away. I was right about User:Stephen Ewen a long time before they finally caught up with him (from TUCC days). Vanity tripped him up, as did Frank´s. Funny how the desire for recognition makes some men frail.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• You've got e-mail! Grsz 18:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm I understanding from the conversation with Orangemike that you're at FSU? Grsz 03:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FFD entry/notification formats

I took the liberty of adding the uploader name to Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 October 3#File:Pinochet prensa.jpeg, and the file name (in recommended forms) to User talk:Bukharin#File:Pinochet prensa.jpeg listed for deletion (previously listed as User talk:Bukharin#File:File name.ext listed for deletion). Note that including a colon (:) before the picture filename, just inside the brackets, shows the filename in text (e.g. "File:Pinochet_prensa.jpeg") rather than the picture itself. Please look these entries over, perhaps comparing their previous content and appearance, to see how the formats work. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Torture Never Again MfD

I've speedy closed this, because articles in mainspace are not eligible for Miscellany for Deletion. If you wish to renominate it, please review WP:Articles for deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

P

Hey, Dixie, you do know that these links are not viable for anybody not on the FSU campus, don't you? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes , they are for my research. But if cited properly to the source, they are usable. Just storage, and I couldn´t find my sandbox. I will cite to the hard copy of the books when I get there. There coming on interlibrary loan.--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just that that kind of thing is technically a violation of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. (And you can create a sandbox any time by typing User:Die4Dixie/sandbox, clicking the redlink, then putting in text.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Its for article improvement. Is that still a violation?--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd stash 'em in a sandbox titled something like User:Orangemike/References for improving the article on metal demangement. On the other hand, I think it's been established pretty clearly that you're not me (though you might be Grsz or Grits or whatever yourhis name is). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

MFD

"Seems peculiar for an account created Oct 8th´s first action to be on a nomination for deletion page and to be so involved. Have you edited under another name?"

Um... you haven't figured out how to read an account's contribution history, have you? Senatrix (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you and Grsz seem to follow each other around a lot. Are you sure the same person isn't operating both those accounts? Senatrix (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I left some history for your viewing please on your talk page.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So? You could have just been pretending to be bitter rivals in order to deceive people into thinking you were different people. Senatrix (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. D4D is an uber-conservative, me not so much. Unless we're the same person with multiple personalities, I think we can rule that out. Grsz 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That´s right Dixie Gsrz, you tell him.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And Dixie is not such a good tipper typer.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Or you're the same person pretending to have slight differences in order to be less suspicious. The fact that there is a strong correlation in your editing suggests you could be the same person. Senatrix (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, this is a very revealing error. Senatrix (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, or sarcasm. I encourage you to open a WP:SPI to discover our true motives. Have fun with that. Grsz 19:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

NOOooo. We were just kidding, Senatrix.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review

See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Senatrix (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WHat is your point?--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is the procedure for getting an article undeleted is at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. If that's what you want to do then go ahead and see if anyone takes your argument seriously. Senatrix (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I will. I am digging right now. Need a little more concrete stuff.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Senatrix (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Any reason your back, or are just enjoying kicking it with me?--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Back? I've been here all day. Feeling lonely? I'm going home now so I hope you find someone else to play with until I log on again. Senatrix (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation is to leave the article dead. It was barely notable to begin with, and has been plagued by fishy accounts doing all sorts of biased edits for or against the man in question. - Balthcat (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I need to get that fixed, I guess. - BalthCat (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My name and yours

I didn't have time to answer your question this morning because I had to get to work and I see you've removed the part about my nickname since then. In case you're still wondering "Ungawa Black Power" was a slogan from the 1960's and 1970's. Maybe you've figured that out by then since I hope your link to "george of the jungle" and "ungawa the gorilla god" wasn't meant to be offensive. I had to wonder because of your own name which I find very offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungawa Black Power (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I really had no idea. As soon as I found out, I hastily changed it, and I apologize if you were offended. I was only a tot in the late sixties and early 70´s, and missed that whole scene. The other I was intimately familiar with. Anyway, I hope you found the WP link helpful and the cite. Let me know if I can help with anything else.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

This account has been blocked for WP:POINT. Please see full explanation here, and any subsequent discussion. Jehochman 05:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please post the block template so that I can appeal.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hochman, I really question your blocking on behalf of another Jew in this case. The comment was not designed to get a rise, it was a statement on the picture. I hardly see you as unbiased here. Please post the template so that i can appeal.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's TOTALLY over the line. May your 1 week in the sin-bin become indefinite. Crafty (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is not obvious to you, then I don´t know how much more it can be.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that's obvious here is you making an anti-semitic slur. Crafty (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the slur? Who is slurred? What is the slur? That I think that I was blocked by a Jewish admin? That is a slur? Ask him! Google the man! Oy vey (smacks head)--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You can appeal by posting {{unblock|reason here}}, I endorse an unblock, I don't see a valid reason for this block. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please review this in its totality. I posted the links since the reason given for closing was he was not an admin, and I didn´t reopen it to avoid this. These two admins have seen something in my original post to the talkpage that was not there. Could a non involved gentile please look at this? It seems that some sensibilities have been ruffled where none was intended.

Decline reason:

I agree with Jehochman's reasoning for your block, and after the clearly anti-semetic comment above, I am considering making this block indefinite. Hersfold 06:26, 2 December 2009 (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.

• Die4Dixie has shown their agenda with the following edit Hochman, I really question your blocking on behalf of another Jew in this case. . Is there another admin who could review this matter, please, and determine whether this warrants an increase to indefinite blocking?Jehochman 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That is no agenda. It is an observation on the events that happened. And please unblock my ability to see my contributions so that I can collect diffs.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocks do not affect your ability to access Special:Contributions. Hersfold 06:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I didn´t scroll down far enough. As far as pointing out that aJewish editor was uncivil, and then a Jewish admin blocked me for having the audacity to complain, and perceiving the common link, where is the antisemetism?--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that it has been made indef now. I see no slur, nor anyone willing to point out one.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is PC, religion cannot be pointed out, and it cannot be singled out as a motivation for an action. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Even when it obviously is a factor? I was more thinking ethnically, rather than religiously. This has ertainly been educational.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't obviously a factor. That you would see it as one, and would post as such, is the reason people are considering extending your block. SlimVirgin 06:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regardless of how you were thinking, asserting that an administrative action was based solely on racial biases is incredibly inappropriate. You've made similar comments elsewhere, and such comments are not in the least conducive to a collaborative environment such as Misplaced Pages. User:Protonk has just made your block indefinite, and I was just about to do the same. Antisemitism is not tolerated here. Further comments of that nature will result in the loss of you ability to edit this page. Hersfold 06:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the antisemitism? What? Where?

Look, THE EMPEROR IS NA-FUCKING-ED. So my block was already indefed because of my perception? Considering, it was already done 10 minutes ago. You are a bright woman, Slim. I went to ANI for help with a uncivil admin. A simple request from another admin that he tone it down was all I wanted. Instead of getting that, Hochman blocks me. I didn´t reopen the thread that was closed based on faulty information. That is not a battle. I should have just reopened it and posted, since adminship is not supposed to be anything special. I posted to the closing admins talk. He ignored me. I posted to the top and bottom in order not to cross him. That is no battle. Two said i had no case. rather than investigate, Hochman blocks. WTF is this?--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify, "some wikipedians" practice PC, and block accordingly, "level-headed wikipedians" usually will not. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please strike that comment. I'm unsure who it's directed at, but it's not the slightest bit helpful and is several bits offensive. Hersfold 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the comment. Some wikipedians are too inclined to block due to their perception of bigotry. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Perception of bigotry? Anti-semitism is not acceptable. If you think differently, I insist you edit a different encyclopedia. —Dark 07:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your perception of anti-semitism. Personally, I'm not seeing it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you'll need to pay more attention to his prior blocks and contributions. —Dark 07:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How thoroughly have you reviewed the contribution history and block log of Die4Dixie? He's been blocked twice since the end of September for disruptive editing. He was posting flamebait at Talk:Holocaust. When an editor predictably responded, he ran here to file a complaint against the editor. That's cynical, battlefield behavior. We do not need such editors at Misplaced Pages. Jehochman Talk 06:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I cant reply there. Look a the time line. It was days before I came to ANI. I had hoped my first reply would take care of it. When it didn´t I took it to ANI to avoid more drama. Looks like drama was taken care of for me.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

William, where does Jehochman declare his religion, and on what basis did this editor accuse him of religious bias? Now he clarifies above that he is talking about ethnicity. Sorry, but you can't try to delegitimize editors based on their perceived ethnicity; it's a non-starter, something no reasonable environment could tolerate. Incidentally, see Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F. This isn't about the editors involved, but a very basic principle. I would encourage Die4Dixie to acknowledge that the comment is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy; that would be a good start, although the edits on talk pages I've looked at show a greater problem. Mackan79 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with the policy. Please see where is talks about pointing out a relevant COI. You and I disagree on policy interpretation here. Good faith policy disagreements do not warrant an indef.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith disagreements, no, but claiming that because two editors share an ethnicity or religion that they are automatically assumed to ignore wikipedia policies and guidelines on each other's behalf is not good faith. Reductio ad absurdum, shall we forbid any male from blocking a female who is edit warring with another male? Should we prohibit someone from England from blocking someone from Paraguay who is edit warring with someone from Belgium because they are part of the European Union? Shall we forbid a Lutheran from protecting an article being edit warred by a Jainist after a complaint by an Episcopalian because they are both Christian. Assuming good faith goes both ways. When one assumes that Jews are only out to protect one another, and only a non-Jew can be an impartial party when a non-Jew is involved, that is ipso facto bad faith in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. I looked at it in its totality before I made the link. It was not kneejerk, I assure you. I certainly do not assume all Jews would have behaved the same but I felt that an admin completely divorced from the picture in question would be best since it had come to kneejerk blocking.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If that were so, wouldn't asking for a "non-involved administrator" have been sufficient? Why specifically ask for a "non involved gentile"? -- Avi (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I know you to be scrupulously fair. Had you made the block after careful consideration, we would not be here. That Hochman lept in in his Capt. America way without having carefully considered it made me fear that I would get a series of rash admins giving a series of rash declines because of this seemingly visceral reaction on his part. Perhaps I was foolish to have been so candid about my perception of his actions. I beleive that you think I might be right about his actions, or you wouldn´t be wasting your time on an indefed editors page. It seems that these editors can´t see straight on this issue, and my fear that it might extend beyond Hochman was overarching. Had I to do it again, I would have asked for a review form an admin that had no emotional investment in any aspect of this matter and who was emotionally detached. I do not believe Hochman to be that admin. It´s not that he was defending another Jew; but rather, the subject did not allow him to be objective in this case. I think you could agree that that is possible that he wasn´t.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid there will not be agreement for the idea that sharing an ethnicity is a relevant COI. Simply, the perspective is very unlikely to be compatible with editing, certainly related to this topic area. It's a bright line. Mackan79 (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It might not be a relevant COI, but I'm not sure that any user who suggests such a COI is worthy of a block, either. It was perhaps a rather uncouth thing to say, and might not be applicable to Misplaced Pages, but that makes it a mistake, which I think we might AGF that the user has now learned from. Equazcion (talk) 08:38, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that Die4Dixie ponder what's happened here, and then post an unblock request a week from now detailing what articles they'd like to work on and what mistakes they will be careful to avoid making in the future. Jehochman 08:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be against such a demand. The editor likely knows what they did wrong by now and we can assume they know how to edit constructively and intend to do so. There's no reason to make them say it. I'd suggest merely shortening the block to a day, though I honestly don't see any reason not to simply unblock entirely. Equazcion (talk) 08:50, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

See WP:GAB which explains how to write a good unblock request. Wait a week, and then try. Time will improve understanding, I hope. Jehochman 08:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Again: No one has yet responded to the question of what the user has actually done wrong. The user should be unblocked immediately, or at least, the block should be shortened. Equazcion (talk) 09:05, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

(EC x 2)I would recommend that you step back after you questionable block. refering to me in the third person on my talkpage is truly baiting, not an invention. Your pontificating here, and on ANI trying to ex post facto come up with straws that justify the unjustifiable, are not really appreciated. Sycophants will appreciatewhat you´ve done, but I am disinclined to view your actions favorably. You have made reference to my "friends" on your talk page. I have but few, and they are not out tonight. I certainly question your labeling of the admins who have questioned your lack of judgment as my "friends" there. If you weren´t still dancing at ANI, I would be inclined to view this as an attempt to be helpful--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Protonk

Protonk has mentioned that I have been involved in an Arbcom Case, and that it has some bearing on the present. Could someone please point that arbcom case out to me? This is an invention to boslter a weak argument for users that will assume his good faith that one exists.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit where he mendiciously makes the claim: --Die4Dixie (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture

On an even more careful exam of the picture in question due to its posting again at ANI, it seems that I might have been mistaken. The large, dark superior anatomy might infact be a testicle rather than an uncircumsized penis. Laying along that mass appears to be either artifact or a micropenis, and if it is, it appears to be circumsized. I truly cannot tell. Sorry for all the confusion if indeed I was mistaken.--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Dark at ANI

I googled. I found: . His profession matched the profile. I had no idea where the foto came from, or the place even existed or the controvesy that you allude to about circumcision in fotos ( haven´t found that on google yet, but still looking).--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Hans

Of course the Holocaust happened. This was a question about the subject of a picture, not if Jews were killed. One of the bodies is unmbiguously circumcized. Now I am being accused of being smart. "Highly intelligent" plus conservative =Holocuast denier? Some indictment , faulty logic.--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Blood Libel question.

Please see the talk page. This is why cherry picking is discouraged: ].--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't edit the talk page until over a year after the diff I provided. You didn't edit the article again for over a year either. How is that "cherrypicking"? Fram (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

It might help if you could provide an explanation for the following statement (remember I said might):

This doesn't seem to be an image of Jews, as they are not circumcised.Perhaps, unless we want to expand the Holocaust to include non Jews, we should just stick to pictures of Jews for this article? Die4Dixie (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One way this statement could be interpreted is that you didn't know other races besides Jews were victims of the Holocaust. Another is that you weren't aware that the Nazis didn't use the presence of circumcision to choose whom they considered to be Jews. The third is that you were expressing doubt as to the authenticity of the photo, as in, that it wasn't actually a depiction of the Holocaust, in which case I might be inclined to agree with my colleagues who suspect you of bating the editors at Talk:Holocaust. Yet another explanation is that you're just plain stupid, calling the photo into question for reasons that weren't well thought-out, and furthermore not realizing that in doing so you'd be implying that Holocaust evidence is unreliable.

Which of those options best fits here, or is there one I haven't thought of? An answer to this might (only might) help your case. But no promises. Equazcion (talk) 12:44, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I expect that you deserve first explanation. My web surfing brought me to a news article on the Holocaust, which has happened before. I read the intro and see the train wreck picture. I click on it, it was shocking. I saw what appeared to be an uncircumcized male. The intro was focused on Jewish exclusivity for the term. I went to the talk page without reading the entire article. I see a tread about the subject. I only got as far as the intro. I commented. The response was intemperate and I responded very calmly. A day later, I clicked my contributions and went to my last one. More of the same. I pointed out the requested information without still having read the article in its totality. With my response made, I went to ANI where I was given very short shrift. I was blocked for WP:BATTLE, and have yet to figure the battle out. I was blocked by HOchman. I googled him. I see that he is a Jewish fellow who does rodeo stuff and owns a software company. Computer stuff matched Hochman´s userpage. The irrational kneejerk block made me concerned that I wasn´t getting a fair shake when I felt I was wronged. Who trools someone and then links to the whole conversation at ANI. You have questioned if I was stupid. Stupid is as stupid does, but were I to bait someone, I wouldn´t run to ANI to say" Look at me!".

I have no idea where the photo came from. No opening parley for holocaust denial. No mention of a conspiracy by Jews. Here we are.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

An explanation for this edit would be helpful too. SlimVirgin 13:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Slim, I read the News via Yahoo every day. A Jewish researcher had published an opinion that one libel was perhaps true from Italy. He was roundly condemned. If I remember, it was based on the fact that elements of what the trial alledged could only have been known by Jews and it had to do with ritual. I am kind of hazy, but will dig through the google to see if i can find it if it is important. Based on his research, it seemed reasonable that a fact tag be put on. Hell, he was an esteemed expert, an observant Jew, and certainly not looking to bash his people. I figured he knew more than I. Ypou see how invested I was with it. I moved on to something else, and it was a long time before my surfing brought me back to the page.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

I've unblocked you, as I don't feel the administrators involved followed policy. That being said, that doesn't make your position very strong, your arguments could lead to questions about antisemitism and in fact have. Please be much more cautious, and assume that you have several admin eyes watching over your shoulder. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now requested that you be community banned, Die4Dixie. That will create a permanent block that will not be undone by any administrator. If you'd like to avoid that consequence, I suggest you strike out the unwise comments you made recently and undertake never to repeat them. I was prepared to unblock you after a week. This action by Wehwalt is no favor to you. Jehochman 15:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Final request

You are current unbanned. Consider this a final request that you avoid all edits and talk pages related to jews, jewishness, the holocaust, or anything related to the above without first approaching an experienced editor, such as Wehwalt to verify that your proposed edits or comments will not be seen as trolling or disruptive. Failure to do this may result in further sanction. Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman has made a very reasonable request on my talk page that you strike through certain passages deemed offensive. I would also settle for a statement on each talk page he mentions retracting them. If you do not do so, you will face a RfC that could result in a permanent exclusion from Misplaced Pages. If you need clarification, please ask him or me. I hope you will do this, and spare us all some trouble and grief. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused

I've tried to follow the discussions related to the indeff block, but they seem to be quite scattered. Could someone post the key diffs and an update on this editor's status? Can they still edit their talk page?

Dix, I know you are willing to stand on principle, and I respect that. But sometimes backing off controversial statements so they can be discussed and the issues worked through would be better than sticking with them and pushing forward. If something you say causes serious offense it's probably worth considering perspectives other than your own very carefully.

Some of your comments about circumcision and whether people in photos are Jewish or not, and then ascribing editor POVs to their religion, also seem pretty problematic. I want this community to be inclusive and tolerant, but individual editors also need to be respectful. Anyway, that's my two cents without knowing all the facts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• The exchange between Slrubenstein and Die4Dixie here is where it started, which you seem to have seen at least partially already.
• D4D posted an ANI report complaining of Slrubenstien's responses there, saying he was not AGF and was personally attacking him (something along those lines).
• D4D refused to drop the issue when told it was frivolous. Jehochman blocked him for 1 week as a result.
• D4D made statements to the tune of implying impropriety on the part of Jehochman because he is Jewish (allegedly?), and that as a result of common ethnicity with Slrubenstein was not an objective party. You can see his various exchanges with admins regarding those claims on this page further up, around his unblock request.
• As a result of the ethnic comments, Protonk extended block to indefinite.
• Heated ANI discussion ensued, ending with User:Wehwalt unblocking on the grounds that the original block was groundless (the original block being for mere posting of a 'frivolous' ANI report).
• Jehochman proposed community ban of D4D at ANI.
• Jehochman and Wehwalt came to an agreement here to offer D4D an ultimatum: strike all comments that were seen as offensive. If the request was not answered favorably, an RfC/u would be started to discuss a community ban. ANI thread was collapsed in light of that resolution.
• ANI thread was reopened by those who had already started discussing a community ban there and felt it should carry on.

That's about where we stand now. People are still voting on the possible ban at ANI. Whew. Hope that clears things up :) Equazcion (talk) 20:51, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I'm very much involved, as I've been a staunch supporter of unblocking D4D (for my reasons you'd have to unfortunately read through the ANI thread). Therefore my rundown might not be entirely objective, though I tried my best to make it so. Equazcion (talk) 20:54, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock request

Die4Dixie (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

IP address: That I be able to participate (That I be able to participate block log • That I be able to participate active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • That I be able to participate abuse filter log • That I be able to participate WHOIS • That I be able to participate&submit=Resolve RDNS • That I be able to participate.html RBLs • That I be able to participate&wpReason=Clearing%20%5B%5BWikipedia%3AAutoblock%7Cautoblock%5D%5D%20of%20%5B%5BUser%20talk%3ADie4Dixie%7CDie4Dixie%5D%5D unblock • That I be able to participate&reason=%5B%5BUser+talk%3ADie4Dixie%5D%5D%2C+unblock+request checkuser (That I be able to participate log))
Blocking admin: not provided.
Block message:

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Die4Dixie}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=not provided | 2=<nowiki>original block message</nowiki> | 3= That I be able to participate | 4= | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1= That I be able to participate | 2=<nowiki>original block message</nowiki> | 3=not provided | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1= That I be able to participate | 2=<nowiki>original block message</nowiki> | 3=not provided | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock
• Requests for unblock-auto