User talk:Secretary-whbtc

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

See below note from Roger Davies.

Request handled by: TN X Man 21:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Admins, see related ANI threads at [1] [2], as well as OTRS ticket 2009102310050555.

Secretary-whbtc, if unblocked, what edits do you intend to make? Sandstein 18:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would contribute material that is soundly based, citing sources and references wherever possible. I have never and would never publish under any other conditions. Secretary-whbtc (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, do you intend to continue writing about Irish postcode systems and Garydubh's company? Sandstein 21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a scientist. This month I contributed to an article on postcodes; last year I contributed to an article on Wexford Harbour. In each case it was because I felt that there were errors and/or omissions in the articles. I have no interest in writing about garydubh's company; I merely cited it because I felt that their approach to address coding was worthwhile and had been neglected in the article. I know something about the subject; in 1999 I wrote an scientific article about procedures for geocoding of farm postal addresses in which I bemoaned the lack of zip codes in Irish addresses.

Whether I will contribute on the subject again, I cannot say, but if I do I will be mindful of the guidelines and aspirations of Wikipedia as expressed in the notes below. In short, I am critically interested in clearing my good name but notwithstanding that, I am not prepared to write anything on any subject if I have to do so under overt or hidden censorship - self imposed or otherwise. 93.107.145.181 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of your representations above, and the private evidence submitted to ArbCom by email, it appears that no meatpuppetry took place and that any apparent collusion was coincidental. As you mention above, you are now aware of the applicable guidelines and policies, and will bear them carefully in mind in future when contributing. For these reasons, you will be unblocked with immediate effect. Roger Davies ^talk 19:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Roger Davies for accepting that the evidence I presented showed that I was innocent of the charge and was a fit person to contribute to Wikipedia.

Could I respectfully point Wikipedia administration to the lesson learnt from this episode: indefinite blocks should be used sparingly, particularly for suspected crimes. There are more than enough tools in the Wikipedia armoury without having to drown people in case they are witches. Secretary-whbtc (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]