Queeran indef-blocked by NSLE and David Gerard Options

[Queeran]

I'm Queeran. [[User:Queeran]] to be precise, a gay reformist muslim.

Yes, I know, a rarity. Most of what we have is hate-filled islamists.

So they are doing their best to drive me out. Came up with bullshit excuses. Falsely accused me and another user I have no connection to of being sockpuppets, permabanned the one, then permabanned me under false allegations I'm another user too.

Now they hound me, deleting and removing my complaints. They even locked my talk page out so I could not file for legitimate removal of the block.

Josef Stalin hated when people exposed his abuses of power too.

[NSLE]

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?

[Selina]

NLSE, I'm not going to delete this topic and I would request that Blu doesn't either for this reason: He's not accusing you of racism, at least by what is written here on this board (I haven't seen the debate(s?) on Wikipedia) - Islam is a religion, not a skin color. It looks like he's implying you're hounding him because he doesn't stick to standard Muslim viewpoints.

That said, I don't necessarily support Queeran because I don't know the full story - For example what exactly have you been doing Queeran and what were the "excuses"? Why were you blocked in the first place?

Or NLSE can answer, either way.

Edit: Doh, I came here by a link. Didn't notice the topic title, just read the post. I see the "racism" allegation now - However it's plain to see you're not exhibiting any racism against him and I think Queeran knows that too, probably just got a bit angry.

[NSLE]

"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]

"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]

"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]

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.

[Golbez]

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.

[Queeran]

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.

[Selina]

'T'wos me. I don't agree with some of the things you've said, for example Essjay isn't by a long shot a racist/anti-semitic, but yes, BrandonYusufToropov's little clique definitely is. Which is odd, because SlimVirgin supports that group too (not just that link, she supports them in revert wars too, adding to my doubt that she is Jewish like she claims..)

[Blu Aardvark]

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]

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.

[Blu Aardvark]

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.

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.

[Queeran]

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.

[Lir]

The beauty of wiki-justice is anyone can edit the evidence; so they can convict on one issue, and then when its demonstrated that you aren't guilty, they can turn around and say that you were banned for some other reason. And, of course, you can't argue about it; because you are banned.

[blissyu2]

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.

[Queeran]

well what a surprise.

Plenty of time, Jimbo Wales refuses to answer his email, won't answer his phone, and won't respond on his userpage.

Every attempt to file for a real RFAR to get it out into the open is deleted by David Gerard's dick-toadies as "harassment of an admin."

What a big fucking joke that place is.

[blissyu2]

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]

The sockcheck through CU proved enough.

[Queeran]

Bullshit, the sockcheck consistently proved you false, but you made up "oh but we think he just got different IP addresses" anyways.