User talk:Toby at Cyberlawpractice

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify reason for block
,

At 00:50 May 15 2016 I am suggesting they be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE and WP:NLT. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

At 00:51 May 15 2016 a notice was received that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

At 00:56 May 15 2016 Mike V (talk | contribs) blocked Toby at Cyberlawpractice (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite

At 00:59 May 15 2016 CU blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In response

Firstly, all 3 accounts involved are independently associated with WWW.CYBERLAWPRACTICE.COM and may possibly use common webhost(s) to access the interwebs. The 3 accounts were used to comply with Wikipedia policy and not to skirt /evade it.

Secondly, it is not clear if Wikimedia Inc's blocks (applied through their designated website administrators) are for the reason that my account has been used abusively, or may be used abusively. This should be explicitly stated, so that I can respond.

Wikimedia Check User Policy :

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute.

Thirdly, this dispute relates to a legitimate content dispute concerning the Wikipedia article for "Ashley van Haeften" a notable internet personality and an elected former Chair of the Wikimedia UK charity. It is common knowledge that the aforesaid Ashley van Haften has publicly called for the ejectment of the present Life Trustee of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and for Mr.Wales' replacement through election by the Wikimedia Community. My block is therefore also clearly made for "political control" by some WMF Inc incumbents and their grantees. It is noteworthy that a blocking Administrator "Anne Clin" (User:Risker) is a member of the WMF's Grants committee which disburses these community funds and is well placed to organise on-wiki hostility to myself.

Fourthly, there appears to be no immediate / imminent cause of action for the blocks to be applied. Users "Mohsin Pathania" and "Lurid Axiom" had effectively stopped editing the "Ashley van Haeften" draft article once it was nominated for community review under the AfC process. Their edits were only minor formatting and style edits to improve the article. It is apparent to me that once it became clear that the draft article prepared by Luridaxiom (admittedly based on Mohsinpathania 's foundations) was certain to pass AfC, these dubious and manipulated CU blocks were maliciously and deliberately applied to prevent the "Ashley van Haeften" article from entering the main space and to create a chilling effect for censorship.

Fifthly, I wish to be provided the deleted records of the Ashley van Haeften article, including the edit history record, the discussion records, and all intermediate edit records to contest the outrageously false statement by your User that the Pathania's article is an unsourced attack piece on Mr. van Haeften.

Sixthly, User:Risker has actual knowledge that I am aware she initially approached the article subject seeking his permission to delete the Pathania's article on him, which incidentally was refused. Causing me to request to know if it is now the policy that biographical articles on living persons need subject approval to be hosted here,and so that it can be equally applied to articles like, say, Yassin Kadi ?

Seventhly, my usage here is based on the community advice and response to Dom at Carter-Ruck. Because, I strictly respected User:Risker's note not to contact her again, it needs to be clarified why my declared WP:COI account was blocked when the other editor's was not. Toby at Cyberlawpractice (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)