Hello, ReggieU! Welcome to Wikipedia! We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Unblocked to participate in ANI thread. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request handled by:Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
I've reopened the discussion at WP:ANI; I disagree that Steve Smith has a bias, just a negative opinion of what you've been doing. Your point about free speech in the US was off-point: yes, probably WMF has the right to publish the person's name, at least in the US, but that's not the issue: the issue is whether we should. Some people take this free speech argument to extremes and become real pains in the butt ... but you only made two comments, I really don't see how that was disruptive. Mangojuicetalk 21:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the discussion at WP:ANI doesn't clearly show consensus that you shouldn't be blocked; most administrators would hesitate to unblock in this situation, because we try not to act against consensus. I'm leaving your request active, though, so that other admins who are participating in that discussion will see what you've written here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is not whether the killer's name should be published but whether I was violating any Wikipedia policies. WP:SOCK is limited to "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." Creating a secondary account to get around a government's censorship laws does not violate WP:SOCK. It is extremely frustrating (and unfair, IMO) not to be able to defend myself in the WP:ANI discussion. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll unblock you myself if you'll agree to confine your editing to that ANI thread. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much about not being able to defend yourself- most people who are participating in the ANI thread will look at this talk page, too, so they'll see what you've written here. Personally, I'm not sure- I think you're wrong about publishing the names of minors, considering that Wikipedia coverage is very likely to haunt them in their adult lives- but this is about the appropriate uses of second accounts, not about the naming of minors. My personal opinion is that, if naming a minor is illegal where you live, the correct thing for you to do would be to obey the law, rather than creating a second account to avoid the law, but I'm not very familiar with Canadian law. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's still an autoblock on my IP address, and if I tell you what my IP address is, I'll give away my privacy. How about you just copy the following to WP:ANI and say, "This is what the user says...":
I'd like the opportunity to speak on my own behalf. The question here is not whether the killer's name should be mentioned, or what the limits are to free speech. (For the record, I know free speech is not absolute, and that Wikipedia policy may differ from what's allowed in the outside world.) The question is whether I was being disruptive or violating any Wikipedia policies. WP:SOCK only bans secondary accounts used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." In fact, WP:SOCK also says it is acceptable to use a secondary account to avoid "real-world consequences from their involvement" in a controversial topic. In order to determine whether the block is appropriate, you have to divorce yourself from all of your thoughts and opinions about the Richardson family murders article and look at it strictly as a matter of Wikipedia policy. If you have a strong opinion about whether or not to mention the killer's name, you should address that on Talk:Richardson family murders, not in a blocking discussion.
As regards WP:POINT, the policy is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." I did not disrupt Wikipedia; I merely posted two comments on the talk page. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I found the autoblock, so you should be able to participate at ANI now. Mangojuicetalk 22:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, apologies, I thought Mangojuice had gotten the autoblock earlier; I didn't realize that you were still under it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
You are now unblocked. Feel free to rejoin the discussion.
