Trendline

I've indefinitely blocked you as a puppet account of User:For great justice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

? I presume this is because I disagree with you? Great. Good luck with that POV of yours. Trendline 03:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There actually seems to be a policy to stop you from blocking people to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Please see: Wikipedia:Blocking policy: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

On top of that, it appears that even if I were a 'puppet account of For Great Justice', there would be no problem with that, since that user was not banned, and that account is no longer in use. Please un-block this account. It is the only one in use by this user, who has not been banned, and has been blocked by editors who have a content dispute ongoing. Trendline 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To request an unblock, put {{unblock|REASON}} on this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

---

{{Unblock|I have been blocked by an admin that I am engaged in a content dipute with. I have not broken any rules, and have been civil. He claims that I am a 'puppet account of 'For great justice'. Even if I were, this appears not to be an issue since that account has not been banned, and is no longer in use. Please unblock this account.|[[User:For great justice]] has been indefinitely blocked, the sockpuppet policy forbids sockpuppets used for evading blocks.}}

Wikilawyering gets you nowhere, unblock denied -- Tawker 17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I think you have misunderstood. The indefinate block of FGJ does not apply to subsequent accounts. It is NOT the same as banning a user, which prohibits that user from ever creating any other accounts. Sockpuppet rules apply to accounts that are in use at the same time. This is not a sock puppet account because FGJ is not active. Please unblock this account. This user has done nothing wrong. Trendline 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The block of FGJ was also against policy. No appeal is possible, since that page was deleted. Please see: Wikipedia:Indefinite blocks

Criteria

An IP may be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia if:

   * the IP is an open proxy

An account may be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia if:

   * the account is only used to vandalize Wikipedia
   * the name of the account violates the username policy
   * the account belongs to an indefinitely banned user
   * the account is proven or highly likely to be a sockpuppet, an alternate account used to abuse Wikipedia policies, e.g. to circumvent blocks or agree with its 'master' on talk pages to sway consensus.

---

Tawker - it's not 'wikilawyering', the problem here is one of gross injustice. You are making the case that any admin can permanently ban anyone, for any reason, without any recourse. This is NOT a sockpuppet account. It is the only account I am using. Not only was the admin who blocked me engaged in a content dispute, but also the reason that he gave was not valid. I have not done anything wrong. Trendline 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Pleast alk to your blocking admin. Also do not insert the unblock tag again or I will protect the page. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My 'blocking admin' told me to put this tag on the page. And since he seems to be going to lengths to shut down any criticism of his POV, I see no reason for him to act. He has abused policy with impunity, by blocking a user he is in a content dispute with. The last channel of communication I have is this page, so if you want to eliminate all doubt about whether you are acting in good faith, go ahead. All I have is the truth, you have the power to silence it with technological violence. Trendline 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This bullying of Trendline is unacceptable and against Wikipedia policy.Noodle boy 18:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

BBC article

• BBC-Did we land men on the moon?

Hello. Thank you for exhibiting level-headedness in readding the BBC link. The idea that this link is non-neutral is ridiculous. The continued deletion of this link is cause for great concern.Noodle boy 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - it's clear that this is a cynical attempt by Tom to shut down anyone pointing out his radical POVmongering, like claiming that the BBC is too biased against him. I appreciate your help in bringing this to people's attention. Trendline 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nexus (magazine)

The article Nexus (magazine) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deb (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)