User talk:Dago Dazzler

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for violating BLP policy. I believe that this is not correct and therefore that the block is incorrect and unnecessary. I have been very careful in the preparation of my images so as to avoid any such complications. The images are properly licensed and there is nothing derogatory or defamatory in the contents thereof. The text is actually quite complimentary if you read it. The identity of the individual in question has been redacted and even if that were not the case the facts listed in both documents are accurate and public knowledge for the individual in question. As the text of the article makes plain the use of a Dago Dazzler is not illegal or even unethical. Finally, the images don't even purport to be real documents. They are listed as being an artist's rendition of fictional documents and I created them to aid in moving the article towards GA status by providing suitable illustrations for the subject of the article.

For these reasons I believe that this block is in violation of blocking policy since the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. I have made a single edit which was clearly a good faith effort to improve the article by moving it towards GA status. I have not damaged the project nor have I been disruptive.

Decline reason:

This has been on hold for a while now. NW explained on his talk page, that this block was pursuant to a posting at WP:ANI. Given the full context it seems valid on WP:SPA grounds. I'm not sure where JBW went, but i'm going to close this request. -Selket ^Talk 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

On the face of it I cannot see why you were blocked. However, NuclearWarfare, who blocked you, must know more about this than I do, so I will ask them to look at this. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly a sockpuppet of someone involved in CC topic-space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not blocked for sock puppetry, I was blocked for committing a BLP violation which I dispute for the reasons stated above. If you or anyone else has evidence to support your allegation please take it to the proper venue, otherwise please refrain from making such accusations. --Dago Dazzler (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user's name violates WP:USERNAME policy. Hey, DD, I enjoyed it, but the joke's over. Use your regular account or, if you're banned, find another user name. Stay funny. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't actually considered this aspect but if it is a problem and if I am unblocked I agree to change my name to comply with the stated policy. It was not my intention to violate that policy.

As for the images themselves, while I obviously intended them to have a humorous aspect I actually was careful about the licensing and to avoid anything that could be considered derogatory or defamatory because these are legitimate representations of modern day dazzlers. The thing that seems to be getting lost here is that these are legitimate content contributions to the article. Do you have any suitable alternative images for this article? --Dago Dazzler (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were careful to avoid all but the most obviously brain-dead violations of Wikipedia policies - which leads me to believe that you are a sock puppet of a banned editor. Have you ever edited Wikipedia with another account? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know which brain-dead policy you are referring to. No need to be cryptic, please just state your point plainly. --Dago Dazzler (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are curious, and I know you are out there ...

Since it appears I shall remain blocked and the admins at Wikimedia Commons are not going to undelete the files in question I have made them available on Flickr [Redacted] Go check out for yourself what a BLP violation so severe it warrants an indefinite block actually looks like. --Dago Dazzler (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Flickr limits the resolution of the image compared to that which was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I have enabled my Wikipedia email so feel free to contact me using that if you would like to get the high resolution version of the DagoDazzler-2.png file. --Dago Dazzler (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While cute, Wikipedia is not the forum for spreading images you consider humorous. Accordingly this page is being locked as well. -Selket ^Talk 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]