User talk:SpreaderOfTruth
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
SpreaderOfTruth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You blocked me because I have different views than you. This is clear abuse of power. I gave factual statements and voiced my opinion in the talk section, for that I was blocked. I contributed to the encyclopedia with views that you don't like, and that's why you blocked me. If contributing to the encyclopedia means criticizing the 'conspiracy theories' and backing the official story, then I will stop posting completely and there would be no need for me to be blocked.
Decline reason:
No, you were blocked because you are peddling discredited conspiracy theories and being disruptive. Go troll someplace else. Yamla (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I warned you! I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless discretionary sanction, isn't it? Wikipedia, as a community, officially rejects the "truther" conspiracy theories. If you can't or won't understand that, you have no place here.
- And if you won't post here, there's no reason to unblock you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
'Wikipedia, as a community, officially rejects the "truther" conspiracy theories.´ I did not know this, souce?
'And if you won't post here, there's no reason to unblock you.' That's just malicious.
If you see that the 9/11 'truthers' are actually the ones with science on-board, you'll see whose more competent. SpreaderOfTruth (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Source? The discretionary sanctions at the top of the page!
- As for the supposed maliciousness of leaving you blocked, if you have no plans of posting, why would you need to be unblocked? If you really don't plan on posting again, why are you still arguing? It's obvious to us (and should be to you by now) that your chosen goals and rhetoric are incompatible with the community's ideals, and it's less hassle for more people just to leave you blocked than to trust you to never use this account after unblocking it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)