User talk:Athoughtforyou

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 don't think my posts were disruptive. They compared the page that was nominated for deletion with another Wikipedia page that generated controversy and which was resolved. I thought that this added to the discussion of whether this entry should be deleted. My second post asked for further information about whether the press releases could be good secondary sources, and, while one editor said no, another pointed out that press releases from attendees' employers could be good secondary sources. In other words, far from disrupting this discussion, I think I added to it."

---

Decline reason: "It's obvious you created this account to be a single purpose account. — Jmlk17 00:36, 11 February 2008 (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.

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 certainly did create the account in reference to this article. But is that bad? I thought there was a distinction between an SPA and a disruptive SPA. In looking at the SPA policy, I see this:

   *
         o If you are a newcomer or editing as a single purpose account
         o Good policy-based editing will gain rapid respect. Ask others for help as you learn. The same policies apply to you as to everyone else, although your reputation as well as your evidence will inevitably be taken into account in discussions by some experienced editors.
         o The community's main concern will be that edits by single purpose accounts are often a neutrality or advocacy concern or (in some cases) there may be problems with conflict of interest. Care in these areas will be seen as a sign of good editorship.

We are all new at some point, and I think that my comments contributed to the discussion (by pointing to an analogous Wikipedia entry, and asked for further clarification on policies. If you look at the SPA discussion, it seems to me that the response from more experienced editors is supposed to be patience and guidance, not a rush to ban. Again, I think the policy does not forbid SPAs (because we are all one at the beginning), but to ban disruptive ones who don't contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia.

One last thought, for any administrator who might look at this--with a company like ORT that seems to sue its critics, I believe it is possible that some of the SPAs (particularly the ones who, despite being new, seem to know what they are doing) have created those accounts so that they can express views but not risk having their true identity known by reference to their established Wikipedia account. I don't know if this possibility has any concrete value. I do know that anonymous speech has noble roots in the Federalist papers, and has value today when people try to add some truth to a debate but risk having to defend against a lawsuit as a result."

---

Decline reason: "If I'm understanding you correctly, instead of arguing that you're a SPA, you're instead saying you're a sockpuppet. Keep in mind, sockpuppets are fine (frowned upon, but fine), so long as they aren't created with the goal of doing something nefarious. We usually assume good faith except when there is evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind— that particular article is a hotbed of SPA editing and/or sockpuppetry, as is the concern of the AfD. — slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 11 February 2008 (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.