User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page57

Help me #1
I would like to request the help of an admin. Please advise. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * We're going to have a hard time helping you if you don't tell us what you need. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And now you have two... --Stephen 05:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. Yes, please help.  I posted a very simple (and reasonable and legitimate) question on a Talk Page.  And some other editor (an Admin?) responded to me with this: "Consider this a level 4 BLP warning: next time you post anything that asserts or assumes anyone's guilt in any crime whatsoever, you will be blocked and topic banned from this article, period."  I have no idea what brought about his wrath.  And I did not appreciate him biting my head off, in response to a very simple and reasonable question.  Please advise.  Thanks.  The thread in question is here: Talk:Murder of Robert Eric Wone.  Thank you.  Please advise. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * On my reading of the discussion it would seem that there was a misinterpretation of your intent and an overreaction to your query. However, you must remain calm and decide whether you want to take this up further with the admin on his talk page, or just walk away and let the issue drop.--Stephen 06:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. (1) I agree with your assessment ... on the misinterpretation / over-reaction of that editor.  (2) I am indeed calm.  (3)  I'd prefer some assistance / intervention in the matter.  That indeed is what prompted my "help me" request.  It is clear to me that I cannot engage in mutually reasoned / civil dialogue with this person.  He clearly has some agenda and he does not assume good faith.  I have no reason to believe that he will change in his attitude and treatment of me.  Which, by the way, I'd characterize as abusive ... especially if he is an Admin.  He bit off my head for absolutely no reason.  And he threatened me with a "level 4 warning" ... whatever that even means?  This is the very reason I sent out an "I need help" SOS to an admin.  I am disinclined to have faith that my approaching him on his Talk Page will have any benefit.  I am not sure why you believe it would, given the "history" of the matter?  Please explain why you think so?  Your alternative of "walking away and letting the issue drop" is likewise unrealistic and impractical.  I am intending to do edits on that very page ... as is he, I am sure.  (In fact, I see that he has the most edits by far on that page -- when reviewing the article statistics.  I am sure that he thinks he "owns" the page and is territorial about it.)  How is your alternative (I walk away and let his abuse issue just drop) a "solution" at all?  Seems like it is just postponing the inevitable.  Which is ... namely ... at some point --- it's only a matter of time --- he will burst in tirade at some misperceived sleight or violation.  Basically based on the simple fact that he just doesn't like or agree with one of my edits.  And then he will say "I told you, I warned you, that you had a Level 4 BLP warning!"  And then he will block and ban me.  It is very clear that that is the direction in which this is heading.  And, again, the very reason why I requested help.  Please help me understand how your two proposed alternatives address my needs?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Walking away and letting the issue drop solely on the title of the article, not your ongoing edits to the same. And as an involved admin editing the same page he is prohibited from blocking you. --Stephen 06:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The title of the article is not my concern at all.  And that "issue" (title of the article) was not why I posted the "Help Me" request.  My issue --- and the reason for my Help Me request --- was to seek assistance / intervention on his (seemingly unfounded) abuse / threats / etc.  That was my issue of concern ... not the article title.  I am looking for an Administrator to intervene in the matter on the abuse/threats issue ... I am not seeking help on the "title of article" issue.  Also ... you state ... "And as an involved admin editing the same page he is prohibited from blocking you."  I am not so confident that I believe that.  There are many ways to skin a cat.  Perhaps he specifically is prohibited from blocking me.  And, I am sure that his "back door method" is to just go and complain to some other Admin (translation: one of his buddies) who can block me.  So, back to my original Help Me Request.  Is it possible / if so how ... to get some assistance / intervention in this matter?  Please advise.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * (outdent) Joseph, I just read through the discussion, and it appears as though the discussion has moved on without further incident; I don't see that there is anything further to intervene in. The situation seems to be a mutual misunderstanding, and the impression that I'm getting from your comments above is that you're letting this get to you more than you need to be worrying about it, and as a result you're seeing phantoms where there are none. If you truly didn't do anything wrong, then just remember to be more careful about how you word things so as to avoid further misunderstandings, and move on. I'm going to remove the help template now, as I don't feel as though any admin intervention is needed here. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect ... I must say ... I am not only surprised but also disappointed by your above response and by your decision to remove my "help" tag. I needed (rather, need -- present tense) help; I asked for help; and I pursued the appropriate means to request that help (via the admin "help me" tag).  Your response -- and the response of the previous admin -- was, in essence, "everything seems just fine to me ... no need for any help from us".  (Or have I misunderstood, in some way?) But, in all honesty, it does seem to me like "your" goal here ("you" being the admins, collectively) is not to solve the problem ... but, rather, to avoid solving the problem.  (Or, perhaps, to just "cover for" other admins?)  In other words ... to simply sweep it under the rug ... to simply "get it off of your desk" ... all under the guise of "everything seems fine ... problem solved!".  So, my specific questions.  (1) What exactly is the purpose of the "admin help me" tag?  Maybe I have misunderstood its use.  (2)  With regard to the editor against whom I have lodged a complaint.  First, I have no idea if he is / is not an admin.  I assumed he was.  Is he?  And, if so, does he have the "right" (if you will) to say to me -- under my specific circumstances, as indicated -- "Consider this a level 4 BLP warning: next time you post anything that asserts or assumes anyone's guilt in any crime whatsoever, you will be blocked and topic banned from this article, period."?   If he is an admin, has he handled his admin role correctly or not?  And if he is not an admin (i.e., just a "regular" editor) ... is he "allowed" to do that to me?  In other words ... is that conduct in conforming or not in conforming with proper Wikipedia policy?  My guess was "no" ... but the replies that I have gotten from my "help me" tag seem to be "yes".  So, I am asking for clarity on this. (3) If this conduct is indeed in conforming with proper Wikipedia behavior, then I also have the right to treat others that way ... am I correct?  (4)  If it is not in conforming with policy, what exactly are the repercussions, if any, to the offender?  Your quick decision to remove my help tag and indicate "problem solved here" seem to indicate no repercussions whatsoever fall upon the offending admin.  Is my understanding correct or no?  Again, that is, if he is an admin ... and if this conduct offends policy at all.  Still, all points unclear to me ... despite your assertion that this item is resolved in your book ... and that I no longer need assistance.  (5) What exactly is a "level 4 warning"?  I have no idea.  It seems to me, however, to be some severe repercussion to restrict my rights to edit / to block me / etc.  Presumably, as some consequence to some bad behavior on my part.  All guesses here, as no one wants to help me.  I also assume that there are lower level (level 1, 2, 3) warnings ... that this guy simply jumped over --- and went right to level 4?  Is that correct?  (6)  I would like to know whether or not any of my actions / behaviors / edits / etc. did, in fact, violate some policy?  And whether or not they did warrant some "level 4 warning"?  If so ... I would like to know exactly what my offending behaviors are/were.  This is (a) to defend them; and (b) to -- at the very least -- understand them; ... and (c) to avoid repeating them in the future.  Which all seem to me to be both responsible and constructive motivations on my part.  Or on the part of any editor here at Wikipedia.  (7) So, in light of all of the (very) legitimate concerns that I have raised above in this post, I would like to know why you think that this issue is resolved and why you think I should not be requesting help?  If you are under the impression that I have answers already to all of the above questions that I have raised ... please let me know where I led you to believe that I already possess these answers.  (8) You also state: "it appears as though the discussion has moved on without further incident".  Since the offending editor has not replied to me and, in fact, has not at all subsequently participated in the discussion ... how can you claim that the discussion has moved on without incident?  I don't understand your assertion.  Please advise.  (9) You also state: "The situation seems to be a mutual misunderstanding".  (Emphasis added.) The word "mutual" means "both ways ... a 2-way street".  What part exactly was it that I misunderstood?  What exactly was my role in the "mutuality" of the misunderstanding?  I actually thought that I understood him perfectly well -– rather loud and clear, in fact.  But, you believe that the misunderstanding was "mutual".  So, please let me know what my specific part of that mutuality is.  Thanks.  (10)  Finally ... I think that I have valid and legitimate questions ... that deserve answers.  At the very least, to assist me (and others) in the future.  You have made comments to me such as these:  (A) "you're letting this get to you more than you need to be worrying about it"; and (B) "you're seeing phantoms where there are none"; and (C) "be more careful about how you word things so as to avoid further misunderstandings".  I think that I have raised some very valid and legitimate questions / concerns / issues.  They all relate to my (and, more broadly, "our" collectively) ability to work and edit Wikipedia material collaboratively. (In other words, my concerns are indeed relevant.)  And I have sought to resolve them through the proper means.  I see your Comment "A" and Comment "B" as minimizing, belittling, and dismissing my legitimate concerns and questions.  And I see Comment "C" as directing the blame back to me, as if I had done something wrong (which I still don't know what that "something" is).  To User Hersfold, specifically: I have meant no disrespect and I am not trying to come down hard on you.  In fact, I appreciate that you replied at all.  In good faith, I assume that you are/were sincerely trying to help and offering your best advice.  But, I guess my response here is to dig deeper into the surface and detail my concerns and that "it seems to me like the problem is all solved, Joe" is not an accurate or fair rendition or resolution.  So, hopefully, a learning experience for all.  If there is no help to be had ... then I can obviously resort to my own devices.  It is obvious that I can deal with that editor and that article in clearly less constructive (i.e., destructive) ways.  However, I chose not to take that route ... hoping / expecting that the constructive approach was better for all.  But, let me know if I am wrong.  Please let me know whether or not there is anyone here that can assist me in my questions ... or if I am barking up the wrong tree, expecting help from any admins on these issues.  Thanks for your time and attention.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Help me #2
Well, well, well. Just as predicted ... I just now (Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 5:18 PM EST) received the following message: "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them.  Editing from Joseph A. Spadaro (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Jclemens for the following reason(s):  BLP violations on Talk:Robert Eric Wone. Please do not unblock without consulting me first.  This block has been set to expire: indefinite."  Please see the "Help Me" posts immediately above this one for more details. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I've glanced at your post above (several times) but never read past 4 or 5 lines. To be honest, I'm not sure most people will really care to read a block of text that large. You might wanna see WP:TLDR. I sympathize with your desire to be very meticulous with regards to questioning and explaining things above, but sometimes less text is more :-) As to your block, you should read what the user below this thread wrote. BLP issues are very strict around here, as we don't want any potentially libelous text. See Appealing a block for more info on blocking, requesting an unblock, etc. Killiondude (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I fear, however, that you missed the point entirely.  The user in the thread below is exactly the problem.  A problem -- by the way -- that I tried my best to avert.  To no avail.  I guess because, as you say, the admins are unwilling to read a long post.  On second thought, however, I am not quite sure that I understand your comments above.  You claim that people will not expend the 5 minutes that it takes to read my prior post.  That's confusing to me because ... those very same people will expend countless minutes / hours (anything greater than 5 minutes will suffice to make my point) ... in reading and posting notices all over the place about having me blocked.  A notice here, a notice there, a message on this ANI thread, a message on that BLP thread, etc.  So, I don't follow your point.  Why would someone be willing to take umpteen minutes to read and post all that other stuff ... yet not be willing to take 5 minutes to read the post in question?  Makes no sense, huh?  Well, I know the answer.  People will do what they want to do ... and find any and all sorts of excuses to avoid doing what they don't want to do.  It is neither the length nor the time commitment that is the real issue here.  If so, your comment contradicts the behavior of these very same people -- about this very same issue -- on all those other threads, trying to justify my block, etc.  So, I have to disagree with your assessment.  But, thank you for your reply, nonetheless.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Additionally, can you stop using the adminhelp template? At this point, you have 2 options; request an unblock (use the unblock template), or remain blocked. I'm not sure I see a point in you continuing to use the adminhelp template. Killiondude (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your post. The point in my continuing to use the admin help template is rather simple.  That is, namely, to request some help from a willing admin.  As you have noted previously, I had posted a somewhat lengthy post (above) ... within which are several questions / issues that I am (still) seeking to resolve.  Your apparent belief is that all of the issues raised within my (lengthy) post can be resolved by requesting an unblock.  I do not see how requesting an unblock will address all of the issues that I have raised.  And, as such, I shall have to disagree with your apparent beliefs.  Nonetheless, in your belief, you have affirmatively and unilaterally decided to remove my "help me" tags.  So, I will assume that your subjective belief (that I no longer need help) essentially trumps my subjective belief (that, in fact, I do need help).  So, I guess that's the way that Wikipedia works.  If someone else (for example, you) subjectively believe that I do not need help, then I do not need help --- independent of the fact that my subjective belief is that I do need help.  That seems, to me, a rather odd way to run things.  But, if that is how Wikipedia operates, then so be it.  So, for the record ... I do disagree with your comments -- and I do object to the fact that you affirmatively and unilaterally removed my "help me" tags.  Nonetheless, I would like to thank you for your input and your assistance.  Thank you.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Help me #3
I would like to request the assistance of an admin. Not even five minutes ago, I was made aware of an issue ... as such, I would like to address this issue as soon as possible. If my understanding is correct, an editor has accused me of violating Wikipedia policy ... or, at least, of engaging in conduct that very nearly does so. I would like to resolve this issue, and I am requesting admin assistance. The pertinent communication is the dialogue between User Netsnipe and myself ... that is found below on this page in the section header entitled "Blocked". This specific post of mine has absolutely nothing to do with any policy violations lodged against me by user Jclemens. Rather, this specific post of mine is entirely limited in scope to the accusations of policy violations (or very nearly so) lodged against me by User Netsnipe. Please advise. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC))


 * What assistance do you need, specifically? There seems to be a dialog continuing below; please feel free to continue it to clarify his concerns. Thanks.  Kuru  talk  15:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this issue has been resolved. Thank you for your help.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Blocked follow up
As I explained below, all you have to do to be unblocked is to credibly explain that you understand that you were wrong and you won't do it again. The rightness or wrongness of your actions isn't particularly under discussion--your reaction and willingness to change are what's keeping you blocked at this point. I'm not expecting you to genuflect, but rather to acknowledge that it's against Wikipedia policy to defame living people in the way that you did on the talk page. Again, blocks are to prevent harm, not to punish. The alternative, arguing your innocence, is complicated by several factors. It's always possible you'll be heard, believed, and someone will override my judgment, but there are several reasons I don't believe it likely. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your post. Also, thank you for providing me with this opportunity.  If I understand your post correctly, you have offered me the opportunity for me "to credibly explain that [I] understand that [I was] wrong and [I] won't do it again ... [and] to acknowledge that it's against Wikipedia policy to defame living people in the way that [I] did on the talk page".  I respectfully decline your offer.  Nonetheless, thank you for the opportunity.  Respectfully submitted, Joseph A. Spadaro.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC))


 * That's your right, but absent an explicit agreement to follow BLP in the future, I don't anticipate any admin unblocking you, turning an indef block (lasting until such time as you acknowledge and agree to BLP) into a de facto ban. That's a regreattably severe outcome, but BLP is non-negotiable. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to be blocked and aren't willing to accept allegations that your previous Talk page comments are a violation of BLP, then I would strongly urge you to consider following the guide for Guide to appealing blocks and appeal the block, or the Dispute resolution procedures and possibly attempt to contact  for assistance if you believe the block is unjustified, or try to work out another deal with the blocking admin. I don't like seeing Wikipedians with a long contribution history banned over one alleged offense that they don't seem to have been properly and civilly warned about prior to the offense.  Please don't take out your frustrations on the Wikipedia community by just ceasing all positive contribution. --Mysidia (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate both your comments and your support.  I also appreciate your input and feedback in the other relevant threads over at the ANI Board.  Thank you.  Also, yes, I am fully intending on pursuing this matter ... and that process is "in the works" as we speak.  Thanks again for your posts.  Much appreciated.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You are now blocked for BLP violations--specifically, for accusing Price, Ward, and Zaborsky of killing Wone. Couching such accusations as "it's my understanding that..." or placing them on the talk page are not excuses for accusing living people of homicide.

Your unblock is contingent upon your attesting that you understand Wikipedia's BLP policy and will refrain from such actions in the future.

Contra the advice you received above, BLP issues are not subject to the general cautions against involved administrator action.

Please spend more time reading WP:BLP and related than writing a rebuttal here: your denial that any problem existed is what earned you this block, since blocks are not punitive, but exist to prevent harm. By indicating that you believed you were right, you indicated an unwillingness to cease such defamatory behavior on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point out that your request to maintain the status quo of articles that you were involved in editing comes awfully close to violating our Ownership of articles policy. --  Netsnipe   ►  13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your post. Your post, in fact, has caused me some grave concern. First ... where did you see a request from me "to maintain the status quo of articles that [I was] involved in editing"? I do not recall posting such a request, and, in fact, I have never made such a request. Therefore, I would like to resolve that issue as soon as possible. Second ... you have stated that my conduct "comes awfully close to violating our Ownership of articles policy". Please clarify this statement for me, as well. I am unaware of what conduct you are referring to, and I would like to resolve this issue as soon as possible, also. If, in fact, I am engaging in conduct that violates Wikipedia policy, I would like the opportunity to be made aware of what that conduct is, so that I may be able to address and remediate such. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC))


 * When you wrote "I respectfully request – and fully expect – that the status quo be maintained.", I assumed that you were referring to the Robert Eric Wone editing dispute that you're currently involved in and asking that the article not be edited by anyone else until you were unblocked. So to clarify, it's strongly frowned upon within the Wikipedia community for anyone to claim their viewpoint is the ONLY valid one and to ignore all attempts to reach a consensus. However, I do now see that the "status quo" you were referring to could instead have been in relation to your current state of being unable to edit Wikipedia -- if so, consider my pointer to WP:OWN to be friendly advice (rather than a direct warning). --  Netsnipe  ►  14:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your post. Yes, your first interpretation was incorrect ... and your second was indeed correct.  Thanks again for the friendly advice.  Much appreciated.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Help me #4
I would like to know whether or not the following information is available somewhere within Wikipedia and, if so, where exactly I would find it: Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
 * (A) the date on which I became a Wikipedia editor;
 * (B) the total number of my edits and the total number of different articles edited by me;
 * (C) a summarized list of my contributions (e.g., how many edits to which specific articles); and
 * (D) given the name of a specific User, whether or not that particular User is an Admin and, if so, for how long has that User been an Admin.
 * A, B and C are available here.
 * D is here. The actual data of RfA closure and promotion is at Requests_for_adminship/username Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you can look at User Rights such as at to give the date that they acquired admin rights (replace X with the user of your choice). --Stephen 04:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock invitation
Per discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive593, you are welcome to request an unblock of this account. The technical violation of WP:SOCK has been judged to not require additional blocking action; you are welcome to resume working from this username, while being cautioned to follow SOCK and BLP in future edits. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

 * That was my understanding at the time ... and, in fact, I was ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION of my understanding on the Talk Page. These hyper-sensitive editors are starting off with the presumption that I was trying to defame people and simply couching the defamation in words such as "it is my understanding". When, in fact, it was indeed my understanding of the situation, and I was attempting (on a Talk Page) to get that understanding clarified.  The editor's are pre-supposing my intentions and ascribing nefarious and defamatory intention to a completely innocent and innocuous situation.  It's akin to saying "It's my understanding that water freezes at 50 degrees, not 32 degrees" ... it's a simple statement of how one understands a certain situation.  They may be right; they may be wrong.  Their understanding may be right; it may be wrong.  This has nothing to do with defamation.  The only defamatory motive is that being injected into this otherwise innocent and innocuous situation by hypersensitive, litigious-conscious editors.  Can someone with an open mind please review this issue?  Thanks.   (64.252.1.135 (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC))


 * Furthermore, this is an issue about which several editors and administrators have differing opinions. So, it's not like it's a "well established" and a "crystal clear" issue.  This seems like more of a gray area.  If administrators themselves can differ in their opinion on this issue, how is some lowly editor like me supposed to know the final "rule" on the policy?  And why would editor JClemen's interpretation and opinion "trump" that of some other editor / administrator who happens to disagree with his interpretation?  On an issue such as this (gray area; open to interpretation; reasonable minds may differ) ... it seems a bit heavy-handed at the least, and unreasonable, to invoke a permanent block or ban.  Please advise.  Thanks.   (64.252.1.135 (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC))
 * The block has never been "permanent"--its lifting is contingent on you agreeing not to engage in such behavior in the future. A couple of different administrators have now touched this in the past day, and neither has seen the gray area that you believe exists.  I'm waiting to unblock you, since the only duration on this block is essentially "until the user agrees to not do that again".  Even when you were socking to avoid this block, you didn't repeat the behavior, so any assertion on your part that you won't do it again has good credibility. Note that you're expected to put the reason for unblock within the unblock itself, so it appears that your latest request has been removed without action.  I'm watching this page, so if you need any help in formulating an unblock request, post here and I'll respond as soon as I see it. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I won't do it again!  (64.252.1.135 (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks! You have now been unblocked. Jclemens (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant Links:


 * User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
 * Title of this article
 * User:Joseph_A._Spadaro
 * User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
 * User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
 * User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
 * User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
 * Additionally, there's the issue at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive593, which was linked above when it was fresh. You don't have to agree with me to be unblocked, you just have to agree never to do anything similar again.  Your intransigence on this point is what's kept you blocked this entire time, and led to your secondary account being blocked for socking. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note further that your block does not prohibit you from editing your own talk page, such as to put this unblock request together. I would encourage you to log in and verify that you are able to still access this account; the IP edit unblock request might confuse other administrators reviewing the unblock request.  While I will respond promptly if I see an appropriate request, I'd hate for you to have to wait around additionally because I was offline. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)