User talk:71.3.234.41

Blocked

This IP has been blocked, as it appears to be in use by a banned user to evade his block. You may contest this block by following the instructions here. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

71.3.234.41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Someone will have to explain how one can be blocked from participation in arbitration of a controversy created by other editors. Is that really the policy? Also, there is no explanation as to why the un-named user (who allegedly is evading a ban) was banned and no links to the alleged ban itself. Such a swift block and such a lack of evidence that a block is even approrpriate. What is the basis for any of this? How is participating in discussions on talk pages tendentious editing, when the information discussed in the talk pages is all based on pointing out compliance and violations of wikipedia policies and on reliable sources? The article is not even being edited. How is this edit anything but an attempt to ensure that there is a quality article that is in accord with wikipedia policies?

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Someone will have to explain how one can be blocked from participation in arbitration of a controversy created by other editors. Is that really the policy? Also, there is no explanation as to why the un-named user (who allegedly is evading a ban) was banned and no links to the alleged ban itself. Such a swift block and such a lack of evidence that a block is even approrpriate. What is the basis for any of this? How is participating in discussions on talk pages tendentious editing, when the information discussed in the talk pages is all based on pointing out compliance and violations of wikipedia policies and on reliable sources? The article is not even being edited. How is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FAbortion%2FWorkshop&action=historysubmit&diff=444467009&oldid=444419044 this] edit anything but an attempt to ensure that there is a quality article that is in accord with wikipedia policies? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone will have to explain how one can be blocked from participation in arbitration of a controversy created by other editors. Is that really the policy? Also, there is no explanation as to why the un-named user (who allegedly is evading a ban) was banned and no links to the alleged ban itself. Such a swift block and such a lack of evidence that a block is even approrpriate. What is the basis for any of this? How is participating in discussions on talk pages tendentious editing, when the information discussed in the talk pages is all based on pointing out compliance and violations of wikipedia policies and on reliable sources? The article is not even being edited. How is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FAbortion%2FWorkshop&action=historysubmit&diff=444467009&oldid=444419044 this] edit anything but an attempt to ensure that there is a quality article that is in accord with wikipedia policies? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone will have to explain how one can be blocked from participation in arbitration of a controversy created by other editors. Is that really the policy? Also, there is no explanation as to why the un-named user (who allegedly is evading a ban) was banned and no links to the alleged ban itself. Such a swift block and such a lack of evidence that a block is even approrpriate. What is the basis for any of this? How is participating in discussions on talk pages tendentious editing, when the information discussed in the talk pages is all based on pointing out compliance and violations of wikipedia policies and on reliable sources? The article is not even being edited. How is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FAbortion%2FWorkshop&action=historysubmit&diff=444467009&oldid=444419044 this] edit anything but an attempt to ensure that there is a quality article that is in accord with wikipedia policies? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}