|
|
|
Queeran indef-blocked by NSLE and David Gerard |
|
|
NSLE |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 11
|
Interested parties can find background on this complaint at [[WP:AN/I]]. I'm just blocking this guy's IPs for block evasion, and his comments are reverted one way or another by various users. And accusing me of racism against Muslims? Three of my best friends are Muslims. You're being ridiculous. Oh, and funny you didn't mention Essjay. Is it because he's a good admin, even people here voted for him in his RFA, blocked you too?
|
|
|
|
NSLE |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 11
|
"Racism at its finest by NSLE" is more than accusing me of racism, don't you think? Previously blocked for 3RR if I remember correctly, plus POV-pushing at Islam-related articles. Officially blocked for being a sockpuppet of AMouse/Enviroknot (who's on a one-year ArbCom ban), due to heavy suspicion and behavioural consistencies with Enviro, although CheckUser has found nothing (Enviro is known for using Tor proxies, so I'm not surprised).
EDIT: Okay, so he wasn't previously blocked. However, he defended another editor on ANI who was blocked, and proceeded to make the same edits to articles (either in disruption, or he's the same guy and wants to make the edit). The other account ("I AM"), blocked by Essjay, is also now indef-blocked.
EDIT2: Should also add he was warned, both on his talk page and on IRC. Plus none of the admins present on IRC objected to a block.
|
|
|
|
Selina |
|
Cat herder
Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined:
Member No.: 1
|
" Racism at it's finest" is " more than accusing" you of racism? How much more than racism is it accusing you of? O_o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/b...ge=User:Queeran - " Possible sockpuppetry"? That's not a good enough reason to block. If you can't prove this guy is "enviroknot" you shouldn't ban them - One thing I've noticed is that the Muslim Guild of Wikipedia ( very similar to the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia) tends to classify anyone that disagrees with their POV-pushing as "an enviroknot sockpuppet" - I had slimvirgin, brandonyusuftorpov, yuber and Anonymous Editor on my back for a while because they claimed I was one too - Just because I helped another editor in reverting some very blatant POV-pushing by that little clique of vehemently Pro-Islam editors But anyway; I couldn't care less what ArbCom thinks, they're a bunch of egotistical Jimbo-cultists for the large part anyway. If it turns out he is evading one of their blocks, more power to him.
|
|
|
|
Queeran |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 70
Joined:
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE(Selina @ Wed 8th March 2006, 10:05am) " Racism at it's finest" is " more than accusing" you of racism? How much more than racism is it accusing you of? O_o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/b...ge=User:Queeran - " Possible sockpuppetry"? That's not a good enough reason to block. If you can't prove this guy is "enviroknot" you shouldn't ban them - One thing I've noticed is that the Muslim Guild of Wikipedia ( very similar to the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia) tends to classify anyone that disagrees with their POV-pushing as "an enviroknot sockpuppet" - I had slimvirgin, brandonyusuftorpov, yuber and Anonymous Editor on my back for a while because they claimed I was one too - Just because I helped another editor in reverting some very blatant POV-pushing by that little clique of vehemently Pro-Islam editors But anyway; I couldn't care less what ArbCom thinks, they're a bunch of egotistical Jimbo-cultists for the large part anyway. If it turns out he is evading one of their blocks, more power to him. You've hit it. "Enviroknot" is just their lying excuse for "we're banning them so it doesn't upset the islamists." You can follow the rules and be trying to fix those pages to NPOV but the islamist guild will keep coming at you and attacking you, and that's that. Why are they doing it? They're doing it because I'm a gay muslim who doesn't think islam ought to rule the world and I don't think all the jews should be killed. In other words, I don't agree with the islamists.
|
|
|
|
Golbez |
|
Senior Member
Group: Inactive
Posts: 406
Joined:
From: The New South
Member No.: 35
|
Queeran, I found this early edit from you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=34555997"And an islamofascist sympathizer admin has locked this article down because people were telling the truth about Islam on it. What a fucking joke this so-called "encyclopedia" is." Talk about assuming bad faith.
|
|
|
|
Queeran |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 70
Joined:
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE(Golbez @ Thu 9th March 2006, 1:38am) Weird, when I tried to look for this post last night, it couldn't find it, so I thought it had been deleted. Oh well, this makes it clearer.
yeah they were trying to hide their crimes again. Thanks to whoever restored this. My name's been cleared by checkuser but my account is still blocked, which just goes to show they dont care about the truth they'll use any excuse to get rid of someone who disagrees with the islamists.
|
|
|
|
Blu Aardvark |
|
Gone
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined:
Member No.: 2
|
Sigh. I really don't feel this should be here, for reasons I've already stated elsewhere. At best, it's batshit insane ranting - at worst, deliberate trolling and attacking of NSLE, whom I consider to be a respectable contributor to this forum.
Look at Queeran's contributions, and tell me with a straight face that a block was not justified. Perhaps an indefinate one could not be justified, granted - the evidence of sockpuppetry is exceptionally strong, but by no means final - but judging by the constant incivility, personal attacks, edit wars, and numerous other violations of Wikipedia policy, any block ranging from a week to a month would be incredibly justifiable. Also, CheckUser means NOTHING. A CheckUser match could indicate that two accounts belong to one person... but it could also indicate that two different people happen to share the same ISP. A non-match is also far from final, in the same way. Particularly if a WHOIS on the IP turned up to be a proxy (as I understand to be the case here, although I haven't confirmed it).
|
|
|
|
Queeran |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 70
Joined:
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE(Blu Aardvark @ Thu 9th March 2006, 10:46pm) Sigh. I really don't feel this should be here, for reasons I've already stated elsewhere. At best, it's batshit insane ranting - at worst, deliberate trolling and attacking of NSLE, whom I consider to be a respectable contributor to this forum.
Look at Queeran's contributions, and tell me with a straight face that a block was not justified. Perhaps an indefinate one could not be justified, granted - the evidence of sockpuppetry is exceptionally strong, but by no means final - but judging by the constant incivility, personal attacks, edit wars, and numerous other violations of Wikipedia policy, any block ranging from a week to a month would be incredibly justifiable. Also, CheckUser means NOTHING. A CheckUser match could indicate that two accounts belong to one person... but it could also indicate that two different people happen to share the same ISP. A non-match is also far from final, in the same way. Particularly if a WHOIS on the IP turned up to be a proxy (as I understand to be the case here, although I haven't confirmed it).
If someone says my machine is a proxy, they're lying, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least, because they lie all the time and get away with it because anyone who calls them a liar is "obviously" a troll and they block them and delete the comments.
|
|
|
|
Queeran |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 70
Joined:
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE(Blu Aardvark @ Fri 10th March 2006, 2:08am) From what I am aware, nobody has explictly said you were editting from a proxy. I think that it was considered a possibility, but I'm not sure if anything was ever confirmed or denied.
It doesn't seem to matter. They blocked me and the other user under false suspicions, the checkuser came back negative, and they're refusing to unblock and clear our names anyways. Typical liars covering up their crimes.
|
|
|
|
blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
I don't have a problem with this post as such. However, my issue is a lack of links. I think that Queeran should have started off with some links to at least his user page, but perhaps Arb Com, block logs and so forth, and then we could check things out from an informed point of view. Taking sides before reviewing evidence is wrong. Yes, NSLE has contributed well here, but that is not the issue. People make mistakes, and its quite possible that NSLE did too. I mean even the users/admins that we may perceive to be the worst do a lot of things right as well. Snowspinner wrote wonderful things on this forum, and he has also said many things in support of Wikipedia Reform, including some things that Lir quoted. However, that doesn't stop Snowspinner from being corrupt and abusive.
I think that we should look at the case rather than anything else.
And while we have only 1 sub forum for "Wikipedia discussion" there is really nowhere else to move this to. Perhaps if we were to make a sub forum for "Wikipedia editor discussion" then we could move it there, as opposed to "Wikipedia article discussion" and "Wikipedia broad criticisms" and perhaps also "Wikipedia in the news".
As for the accusations of racism on Wikipedia, it seems that these have little merit. Racism on the internet is significantly less potent due to one important factor - we don't know what race anyone is because we can't see them! Racism is based around the colour of people's skin, and this is in fact one of the big praises for the internet - that racism is basically stopped on its head. Racism of course still exists, but it is not made worse by the internet - that racism must pre-exist in some physical form first. The internet can muddy the waters.
So I would just like to caution everyone about allegations of racism. They aren't really appropriate in discussing criticisms of Wikipedia. It has next to nothing to do with racism.
|
|
|
|
blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
QUOTE(Selina @ Wed 8th March 2006, 7:35pm) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/b...ge=User:Queeran - " Possible sockpuppetry"? That's not a good enough reason to block. If you can't prove this guy is "enviroknot" you shouldn't ban them - One thing I've noticed is that the Muslim Guild of Wikipedia ( very similar to the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia) tends to classify anyone that disagrees with their POV-pushing as "an enviroknot sockpuppet" - I had slimvirgin, brandonyusuftorpov, yuber and Anonymous Editor on my back for a while because they claimed I was one too - Just because I helped another editor in reverting some very blatant POV-pushing by that little clique of vehemently Pro-Islam editors Yep. So if you are Enviroknot, and Queeran is Enviroknot, then therefore Queeran is also Selina. I am not too keen on all of this religious talk though, as I believe that all religions should aim to get along, and that it doesn't matter what religion you are, or even if you are an extremist. We have different viewpoints, but every single person on the planet does really. Whether we ally ourselves with one organised religion or another, or don't ally ourselves with any, the reality is that we are all unique individuals. This is why I am against the concept of an organised religion. I believe that religion is a very personal experience, and should be experienced on an individual level without restrictions. We shouldn't be told what to believe, or what not to believe. And one sad thing is that because we ally ourselves with one religion, therefore some people assume extra beliefs that we might have. But we are still individuals. There are gay christians, even though christianity opposes homosexuality. There are even christian wiccans, even though christianity regards witchcraft as evil. This is all because we are all individuals. The only time when I get upset about someone being in a religion is when that religion is, by its very nature, aiming to hurt others or else has no aim to be nice. I vehemently oppose anyone who regards themselves as a satanist or a demonologist or a black witch or anything along those lines. I oppose anyone who regards themselves as immoral or amoral. I think that we should at least be trying to do the right thing. Even if we get it wrong a lot, as long as we are trying. I'd still like to see more evidence on this case though.
|
|
|
|
NSLE |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 11
|
The sockcheck through CU proved enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |