User talk:Bill Ayer

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am Bill Ayer. I have been blocked on the claim that I have a single purpose account. This is not true. I created my account BEFORE the RFA was even started. I correctly some wrong information about the Bill Ayer article as my first edit. I also edited some other articles. I was blocked for expressing a valid concern in an RFA. The vote has been deleted. Please unblock me ~~so that I can ask ArbCom for an emergency hold on the RFA because deletion of oppose comments is serious vote fraud~~ struck out to comply with someone's comments. Note: The administrator blocking me not only supported the RFA but said "strongest support" This is proof that supporters are trying to kill all who express concern. Why does WP have such a lack of transparency or ethics? I am merely trying to express my opinion and after that, I intend to leave the RFA and edit articles that interest me. Does Wikipedia want to be on record as blocking Bill Ayer? If you do not unblock me, you should tell Jimbo Wales what damage you have done. He is trying to create a world class product just as I try to do on a daily basis

Decline reason:

Normal users do not vote in RFAs on their 10th edit, especially oppose. They also do not know about blocking, "vote fraud" and the admin incident board. You must be either a sockpuppet or SPA. We do not allow them to disrupt Wikipedia as you have. You've caused enough drama tonight. Goodbye. – Aillema 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bill, can I ask you a few things - DON'T SHOUT, it isn't constructive, and don't go to the arbcom; this isn't how wikipedia works. The day Arbcom does something like that for an RfA based on false assumptions will be the day hell freezes over. Have a nice day, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please stop shouting and remain civil even if you find the current circumstances stressful. With regard to the unblock request, I will request input here from the blocking administrator. With respect to who you are, under our username policy, please note that users who claim to be notable public figures may be requested to provide documentation of their identity to avoid impersonation situations. Newyorkbrad 20:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the username you have selected, we need to be certain that you are who you say you are. At the moment, it would appear that you are claiming to be the director of a small North American airline. If this is not the case, I strongly urge you to confess that you are impersonating this person and accept the account will remain blocked. There are serious security implications relating to impersonating airline employees. If you are indeed Bill Ayer, we can accept proof of identity via e-mail at info-en@wikimedia.org or via Fax to the number at Wikipedia:Contact us. Ideally, we would like photographic proof of identity such as a drivers licence and preferably something linking you to your airline. You can, of course, blank out or cover sensitive details on your identity before sending it to us. Nick 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange. Confess that I am not Bill and I get unblocked? Ok, I am not Bill. In fact, I would like to change user names to an anonymous one. I suppose I could re-register. Is this ok or will I be banned again for block evasion? In fact, I'm very sorry that I was dumb enought to use my real name. Bill Ayer 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I inadvertantly suggested that if you said you weren't Bill you would be unblocked when I should have said the account would remain blocked. Nick 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, you should do the ethical thing and restore my RFA comments and delete those comments which try to discredit them (like calling me a SPA). Whether you choose to unblock me is up to you. I do not need WP. Blocking me only stains WP, not me. I do not claim to be director of an airline; that is your assumption (albeit a very astute observation). In fact, I prefer to edit with a nondescript username, if any. Good bye. I do not anticipate coming back to WP for a while due to other commitments but I encourage you to do the ethical thing and fulfill the requests in this paragraph. Bill Ayer 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicts) Those are some reasonable questions. Let me answer them:
(1) Ailemma is not an administrator and so that unblock declination is not binding on anyone. We certainly agree that these requests need to be reviewed by uninvolved administrators. That is why I, among others, am posting here.
(2) Our concern about usernames is to prevent impersonation. We have no way of knowing whether you are, in fact, the well-known Bill Ayer or not. Even assuming that you are, do you think that the policy should be that anyone can sign up claiming to be you, or that we should make some effort to double-check first?
(3) If you still want this account to be unblocked, my review on the original block would tentatively lead me to conclude that an indefinite block without a warning was too harsh under the circumstances, although I would want to wait for input from the blocking administrator and possibly others before making a final decision.
(4) I think there was a typo in Nick's comment just above, which should say "remain blocked," not "remain unblocked."
(5) If you wish to register a new account, as far as I am concerned you are free to do so. Please make sure, however, that your future editing complies with our policies and guidelines. Newyorkbrad 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I need to go now. I might not check back in weeks, if ever. Requests are: allow me to change my username to a nondescript one. If you are blocking me for my name, allow my request for name change, 2) My RFA comments are valid, not disruptive, and certainly not worthy of permanent ban. If they are, why have an RFA. Just declare the bot "Supreme Dictator of Wikipedia" and not have a vote. Note that my request has been taken off the unblock request list by Aillema.Bill Ayer 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The process of renaming an account is complicated and is not worth it for an account with relatively few edits. Please register a new account if/when you decide to return, and edit in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Newyorkbrad 21:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite willing to go on record as an uninvolved administrator declining your unblock on the grounds of your username. I've discussed your comment to the RfA with a number of other administrators and we're not happy to reinstate comments made by a user who was refused an unblock for having a username which explicitly or implicitly implies you are senior company director we hold an article about on the project. Nick 21:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Rationale

The account was registered recently, the only edit to Wikipedia namespace (and indeed, to WP:RFA), and the user displays a very interesting knowledge of ArbCom, ANI, and our policies in general. In conclusion: single purpose account. If others decide to unblock, that's their decision, I'm not doing it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above. The user indicates he is not going to continue editing now and will do so under a new name later, so the present unblock request is probably moot. (Theoretically, unblocking would be required before the user could properly edit under a new account, but deeming the user to be forever banned because of today's activity from this account would probably go beyond what is necessary.) Newyorkbrad 21:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's clearly already editing under another name. - auburnpilot talk 22:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]