User talk:Ask10questions

Blocked
 You have been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet or otherwise a single-purpose account. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. --  tariq abjotu  18:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please wait as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein 05:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * this user was not involved in any abusive editing, edit war, or violations of Wikipedia policy. I am the user who was the subject of the 3RR complaint that led to the blocking action against the complainant (a blatant sock for the BenB4 et al sock family, and I confirm that ask10questions was not engaged in any improper activity. She had been, in fact, a victim of the edit cabal. If some of her edits were properly modified later, that is normal. As far as I know, the only suspicious thing about her would be single-issue. She was not a recent registrant. She should be unblocked. Abd 04:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I received the following response from the blocking administrator: "I'm personally not looking into this matter any further. If this an issue of semantics, let me clear this up: they're all either sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or single-purpose accounts. Nothing is stopping them (or him or her, depending on who we're dealing with) from creating new accounts (or a new single account, if we're dealing with one person) and contributing positively and effectively to Wikipedia as a whole, instead of just proliferating a petty edit war about voting systems. I appreciate your input, but, in short, no, I'm not unblocking any of them. If you're unsatisfied with my answer, take this to WP:ANI. -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)"

He is wrong and he is right. He is wrong, for you did not engage in any edit war. Maybe you should have! But he is right, you can just create a new account. Technically, this would be a sock for your old account, but there are legitimate reasons for socks, and if it ever came to be an issue, it would be justified in this case. After all, an administrator suggested it, and above is the source, from my Talk page. I am with this affirming that you did not violate Wikipedia policy in any way. (It is not a violation of policy to make a POV edit, people do that all the time!, so the allegations made by Richie -- this is going on, you know -- that you did are irrelevant. You didn't revert anyone, you didn't do anything but try to edit the article so that it was better from your point of view.) Please do create a new account and follow his advice. He's right even though he was wrong. He doesn't want to have to dig into the details....

Basically, creating a new account will take you less time than it took to complain!

I have asked User:Scott Richie to help clean up the article, and I'm hoping that we have wider participation, from people in favor of IRV and those opposed and those who just care about having a good article. Abd 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have referred this situation to WP:ANI for further administrator input. Newyorkbrad 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)