User talk:AdvocatusD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent AdvocatusD (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Jewish admin blocking for alleged anti-jewish views

He even openly admits it [1]. What's next muslims blocking for what they percieve as anti-muslim, americans for anti-american, italians for anti-italian, gays for anti-gay, views the list goes on... Since when is "I don't take too well to" (a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is grounds for blocking by any administrator? The given rationale for this block is outrageous in itself and this issue should be discussed openly. I see absolutely nothing in WP:BP that could constitute any basis for this block, so I think this needs an explanation. AdvocatusD 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

blocked after I posted the above to WP:ANI


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I am not the sockpuppet of Nazrac, just a concerned wikipedian who wanted to get some answers about the rationale behind a block not even the block itself."

Decline reason: "You're clearly either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet -- it's highly unlikely that any brand new user would simply stumble into the dispute and display such an awareness of Wikipedia practice. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

cite from WP:SOCK:

Legitimate uses of multiple accounts

"Keeping heated issues in one small area

Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."

Since the reviewer of the first unblock template is in clear conflict with wikipedia policy, which explicitly allows uses of sockpuppets (as evidenced by the explanation provided by him/her), and claimed that being a sockpuppet is in itself a indef blockable offense, I would ask the second reviewer to provide a reasoning not directly contradicting Wikipedia policy. Reviewing an unblock request should be based on policy.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I am not the sockpuppet of Nazrac, just a concerned wikipedian who wanted to get some answers about the rationale behind a block not even the block itself.Posting to WP:ANI should be allowed to be able to openly discuss "hot" or "controversial subjects" exactly as provided by the letter of the above cited wikipedia policy"

Decline reason: "See straw man fallacy. If you wish to contest the block of your main account, do so at User talk:Nazrac. There is a reason why administrators respond negatively to fraudulent single-purpose accounts. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

If you are not Nazrac and have an account in good standing, then offer some proof. Send me an e-mail identifying your main account, I will respond by sending an e-mail to the address assigned to your account, one more e-mail from you should confirm your on-wiki identity. I have no interest in Nazrac's block and I do not intend to participate in any discussion regarding it. This block was aimed at flushing out potential sockpuppets and SPAs. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)