User talk:CltFn

MfD nomination of User:CltFn/Sudden Jihad Syndrome
User:CltFn/Sudden Jihad Syndrome, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden Jihad Syndrome and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:CltFn/Sudden Jihad Syndrome during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --User:Crotalus horridus (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008

Possible proposal
This proposal is made to you, not the community. Do you want the opportunity to be conditionally unblocked and be allowed the right to respond on ANI and/or DR and/or ArbCom? This courtesy is commonly allowed. I don't guarantee that I'll do it but denial of your request would look bad on the one who does.

If you do, consider clarifying which of the edits between 28 December and 17 January are in dispute and why you made them, why you are sorry, or what you promise to do in the future. If I were you, I would request conditional unblock to respond and wait a few days to contemplate a response as your wikipedia life depends on it. Be prepared for several people who will be opposed to giving you the right to make a statement. Don't depend on me to write your statement as I am not interested in being your advocate. Archtransit (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes of course I would accept a conditional unblock . The edits you refer to, I assume are on the Barack Obama article. I made them to present information in regards to Obama's early childhood religious background. that in my view was not adequately covered in the article , thus I took up the task. I made sure to fully cite the information to reliable, verifiable and reputable sources. This was clearly a sensitive topic for some editors, some of whom heavily contested any mention of the topic. The debate which ensued on the talk page seems to have led to some drastic measures being taken with the block and I have now been excised from the discussion.


 * This is just totally out there. CltFn, if you have responses you wish to make to the ANI discussion, you can post them here and an admin will copy and paste them over to ANI for you. What Archtransit has told you above is just not true. You're not entitled to unblock to defend yourself and it won't look bad for anyone who declines to unblock on those grounds. I'm sorry you've been hit with all this incorrect information but I'll watchlist your page and if you wish to make any comments in your own defence, post them here and I, or another admin, will move them for you. Sarah 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sarah. The whole topic of blocks and unblocks is in itself seems to be a controversial one with diverging opinions being voiced amongst administrators. --CltFn (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

--CltFn (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unblock for an ArbCom request is customary. For others forums, it is a courtesy.  Neither one is to be abused.  However, don't rush into ArbCom. Archtransit (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are mistaken about many things including the above. We have had many ban discussions with the editor blocked and there have also been many ArbCom requests made with the account under a block and the blocked user has either sent their statements to a clerk or posted them on their userpage for an admin to transfer. Same with community based sanctions. Additionally, I have never suggested arbitration for this user, I have, however, suggested arbitration for you for gross and incompetent misuse of adminship. Sarah 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)