User talk:The Original Wildbear/Archives/2009/April

1 month block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing on articles covered by the Wikipedia:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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).

The Original Wildbear/Archives/2009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

On 23 February 2009, I made two edits to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The edits were well intentioned and referenced with reliable source, but I was advised by Hut 8.5 that because they were not specifically about conspiracy theory, they did not belong in that article. I concede my mistake and I have not made that mistake again. On 18 March 2009, I corrected a dead link in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. On 19 March 2009, I corrected a dead link in the 9/11 opinion polls article and I corrected a spelling error in the Responsibility for the September 11 attacks article. ‎ These 5 edits constitute the entirety of edits that I have made to 9/11 articles on Wikipedia in the more than two years that I have had my account here. The reason for the ban reads, "disruptive editing on articles covered by the Wikipedia:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions." Because the first two edits were an honest mistake, and the remaining three edits were only to correct minor existing errors, I feel that the ban is unjustified. False allegations were also made against me, claiming that mine is a new account (it is not, I have had the account for more than two years), and a single purpose account (it is not - I have only touched the 9/11 stuff for less than a month and a half out of the two years, and it is not my sole focus here.)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. This sanction may not be appealed by unblock request, but only by the means outlined at Wikipedia:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions, subsection "Appeals". See WP:ARBCOM for contacting the Arbitration Committee while blocked.  Sandstein  21:01, 8 April 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.

Sandstein, with the block in place I am unable to edit in any venue on Wikipedia other than this talk page. It appears to be physically impossible for me to appeal the block in any manner other than by discussing it here. Given that the block appears to have been put in place in a very hasty manner with little consideration given to the circumstances, this does not appear to be just. I would like to conform to the procedures, but I have to at least be allowed the capability to do so. The Original Wildbear (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why there are e-mail addresses on the page, you can e-mail one of them. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Review needed of Requests for arbitration/September_11_conspiracy theories?

You are listed as having negative sanctions filed against you.

See: Proportion of 9/11 defenders restricted compared to 9/11 conspiracy theorists

Although I do not support the views of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and will not lead a review of this arbitration, I think that a review maybe warranted, and I am floating the idea, with all parties who may have been unfairly censored.

A review can be created simply by adding a section:

==Request to review: September 11 conspiracy theories==

On Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories.

Ikip (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ikip. This is much appreciated. If the circumstances of my case are examined closely, I think it will be seen that it was based largely on false allegations, and went far beyond the recognized need to maintain order and proper behavior on Wikipedia. I am always polite and reasonable when engaging in communications. I have been prohibited from responding anywhere on Wikipedia other than this talk page, so I am unable to add anything in my defense, or the defense of others who may have had a similar experience, at any other location on Wikipedia. This means that I can not add a request for review, if that is what is needed. The Original Wildbear (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi The Original Wildbear, I've reduced the block to a week, so it ends in just over 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Hi Wildbear — I think it would be best if you write "Keep and rename" because of the possibility that this TfD involves people who are only looking at the bold words in the list of comments. Regards —  Cs32en  08:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cs32en - You're quite correct, the way I've entered it is ambiguous; especially to someone who is only looking at the bold words. I'm pondering changing my entry as you have described; although I have some reservations. I'm sure that the viewpoints vary from person to person, but I know that I wouldn't want my name listed under a heading of "Notable supporters of 9/11 conspiracy theories"; although I am one who feels that most of the official investigation to date has been inadequate, if not outright fraudulent. I question whether it is proper to label such a viewpoint with a term like "conspiracy theorist," given the charged nature of the term. I would almost rather see the template deleted than to have it applied to persons who might prefer not to fall under that label, and thus I've left my statement ambiguous for now. It's time for me to get to sleep; I'll think about it overnight, and if it remains an option, I might consider changing it. It is a convenient template for looking up names of those who question the official account, so I would like to see it remain for that reason, but only if it's titled in an acceptable fashion. Wildbear (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)