Clearsight

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).

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

---

Request reason:

First off, I am not a sock puppet, this was and hopefully still will be my first and only Wikipedia Account. I have a university education and I can follow instructions, which is why it may appear that my non amaturish use of wikipedia is in fact proof that I've had an account before (I didn't know someone could be banned for reading instruction and policy first). I believe I was banned because I kicking up a fuss with some people who like to use their admin powers for other goals than to maintain the integrity of this community.

Again, this account is not a sockpuppet (reason given for ban), and I have not signed up another account to circumvent this ban because that would be highly ironic in my eyes. If I was using this account as a "sockpuppet" then I really wouldn't have put more than 10 hours of my life into trying to clear my name. Please review this ban and unblock me so that I can continue to honestly contribute to the Wikipedia Community.

Thank you,

Clearsight

Decline reason:

Obvious single-purpose account. I'm protecting this page. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:57, 26 April 2008 (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.

Previous Unblock Request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

possible administrative abuse from user Moreshci, libellous accusation of being a "neo-Nazi sock puppet" based on civil discussion regarding NPOV which can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holocaust_denial I am deeply offended by such baseless accusations and can't help but feel that this block is political in nature

Decline reason:

I've reviewed the contributions. It's clear that this is a single purpose account here only to make a point. It is also obvious that this is not a first account, but a new account of a reasonably experienced user. — Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I strongly feel that this block is inappropriate and results from a questionable use of administrative powers. In order to avoid going to arbitration I have laid out my case below, please take the time to review it and respond in kind when you post your review decision, thank you.

Decline reason:

Block endorsed per Stephan Schulz below. — Sandstein (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2008 (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.

-User Stephan Schulz knows Moreschi, was actively participating in the same talk page and article as I was, and for all I know contacted this admin in order to get me silenced for kicking up a fuss. Block reviews are supposed to be independant, this just goes to show that this block is not kosher.

* Abuse of Administrative Powers *

Inspite of all Wikipedia policy regarding the use of an indefinite block, I was banned by Administrator User:Moreschi without any warning or chance to respond. The reason given is offensive, untrue and inspite of a complete lack of evidence supporting this claim. This admin's explaination for my ban is a cheap and easy way to slander someone who isn't towing some sort of line.

I strongly feel this claim is a pretense for a political use of admin powers focused on preventing discourse on a charged subject that is chacterized by controversy. I was attacking no person or group of people, nor was I disputing the facts of an event, I was disputing the Neutrality of an article on highly charged and political article regarding Holocaust Revision/Denial. Inspite of the tendency for flaming and hot-headedness, I did my best to maintain civility. The discourse can be viewed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holocaust_denial Concerning NPOV tag

User:Moreschi says I am "sockpuppet" pushing a "purely neo-Nazi point of view", but as well as being a patently false and libellous claim, the record does not support it either. User:Moreschi also cites "3 edit wars" as evidence, but in all those "edit wars" I have explained myself on the talk pages and provided citations when asked to do so. None of these "wars" passsed the 3 revert threshold and as a result, those disputes were seemingly settled. These are controversial political topics that I am not ignorant of and they are of interest to me precisely because they are controversial, this hardly warrants an arbitray indefinite ban.

I had never interacted with user:Moreschi until I was summarily banned by him for unsupported and possibly prejudical reasons, and I believe this amounts to an abuse of administrative powers. Stephan Schulz immediately "reviewed" and denied my application for unblocking, though this same user has been active on the same controversial talk page and watching from a differing point of view. I also believe his review was prejudiced and should not be considered legitimate.

From Wikipedia:Blocking Policy: "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion."

IMHO, I have not edited disruptively and I have not threatened to either. I have not breached any of Wikipedia's major policies, at least if I did it was unknowingly because I am not yet familiar with all Wikipedia policy. Attempts to contact user User:Moreschi to discuss his descion have been futile, his response is below.Clearsight (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User Moreschi's e-mail response to request for evidence supporting his decision

"Look. Your familiarity with Wikipedia and its processes makes it very obvious that this is not your first account. I can't think whose sockpuppet you might be: the one possibility I could think of was stale. The fact that I cannot identify the puppeteer does not detract from the fact that sockpuppet you are.

Go to arbitration if you want. I think they are unlikely to listen. Your call. As regards your point of view on the world - you can't libel a non-real person, and I'm quite capable of working that out from your edits. Denying the obvious will get you nowhere.

Regards,

CM"

Aside from being unwilling to discuss his reasons, the user admits that he doesn't have any concrete reason for such a severe action. Familiarizing myself by reading the howto pages and not being completely ignorant of issues before editing them is being responsible as opposed to proceeding in ignorance. This is what I have done, not created a "sockpuppet" account. I should not be penalized for having a short learning curve. My account could be checked to see if it is a duplicate.

Calling me a "neo-Nazi" with the only reason cited being "I'm quite capable of working that out from your edits",is a deeply offensive charge and I feel like it is informed by prejudice. Furthermore, is it within policy to ban users for their political orientation, whatever it may be?

User Stephan Schulz's so-called neutrality when reviewing my ban

I am new to Wikipedia, but not new thinking. There is no evidence for claims made against me. User Stephan Shulz has been active on the same talk page from a differing point of view and has also reverted my one edit. I believe this user is maliciously abusing my account with his administrative priviliges.

I've last edited the talk page 5 month ago. That is about 30 times longer ago than the claimed start of your presence on Wikipedia. You are, of course, free to ask for a second opinion on your block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my edit right before I was blocked, which indicates your were watching. The point is that you have a vested opinion that differs greatly from mine on the subject and as such your review can not be considered neutral. I am new here and I am not out to push either point of view on that subject. It is highly controversial and subjected to propoganda, but I am not a neo-Nazi or a "sock puppet". I can't help but feel that I have been blocked due to political reasons, not for any infractions. I have not reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, and if there was a "war" I started a talk page to explain my reasoning.

Arbitrator JpGorden's Opinion on the block

"...The block worries me a bit, but mostly only procedurally; needless to say, I'm biased. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)"g

From the Administratotrs Noticeboard/incidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive361

I was engaged in direct discourse with arbitrator user:Jpgordon, needless to say it was adversarial.

Other arbitrators have favourably responded to me, but I will consider their responses private. This issue shouldn't need to go to arbitration.

Other Comments

Third admin here and one you can't claim is involved in any way: Looking over your contributions, it doesn't appear that you are here to contribute to the project but to advance your viewpoint. You've managed 3 edit wars in under a week and have been a net drain on the project and other editors. Since your protestations to being blocked have included accusing a respected admin of racism and calling these actions malicious, its unlikely that you're willing to take ownership of the problems you've caused and correct them. I would also decline to unblock. Shell ^babelfish 23:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am here to contribute to the project. The articles I have contributed to have expanded and I am honestly trying to maintain representational faithfulness. On almost every edit I have performed, excepting a few syntax correction, has had a summmary. If a citation was requested, one was provided and if it looked like a war was brewing, I started a section on the talk page. The charge is not whether you consider my edits to your liking, the charge is that this is a fake account and it is not. If you review my edits, they are not vandalism and they are not illogical, in my honest opinion. My discourse has always remained civil and I have not engaged in sockpuppetry in any way shape or form. Without warning I was blocked indefinatley based on unsubstantiated allegations from a user I have never heard from before. Considering I am engaged in a debate with other admins and an arbitrator who are known to the user who blocked me, I consider this malicious abuse of powers. I have done nothing to warrant such arbitrary treatment.

(Crossposted at AN/I) He seems to be rather upset about being blocked and is expressing true desire to continue editing in earnest. Perhaps the block can be for a specific time (two weeks? one month?) and also require him to be adopted with probation? I believe we have an opportunity here to build a bridge. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no warning, and I haven't breached any policy unless it was unintentionally. When I got the automatic warning about edit warring I stopped reverting. On any of the other 3 "edit wars" I've started, no-one defined them as such other than the anonymous user who blocked me furthermore they were settled. On the charge of sockpuppetry, how am I to defend myself? On the charge of neo-Nazism, it is libel and I am offended to be labelled as such.Clearsight (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

e-mail response

In regards to your e-mail to me just now, I have to respectfully disagree, and that the block based on your actions unfortunately appears sound. Suddenly showing up and wading full power into contentious issues like that, with such controversial stances, is going to draw ire and problems.

Thank you for replying, even though you're not an admin. When does drawing ire and creating problems amount to being summarily labelled a sock puppet? Because I am not ignorant of these issues does not equal sockpuppetry. IMHO, disputing the neutrality of an article based on grounds of logical reasoning and reputable sources is not disruptive in any negative way. Again, I believe that this is a political banning as no evidence of sockpuppetry has been produced. This is my only account that I have ever used and I have not knowingly or intentionally violated any policy.Clearsight (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can't libel an anonymous handle that I know of, and your saying Wikipedia libeled you is a legal threat which is in itself enough to get you indefinitely blocked. You'd better withdraw that. Lawrence § t/e 00:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User Moreschi arbitrarily labelling me a "neo-Nazi" amounts to libel as it is extremely defamatory and I am deeply offended by it. For the record, I do not perscribe to any form of extremist ideology, especially neo-Nazism.

In reply to your e-mail about my block review, I have no additional comments to make. Sandstein (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• In response to your E-mail, there's nothing I can really do here. The block of you has been supported by consensus, and there has been no abuse of the admin tools on Moreschi's part. Acalamari 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)