http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienoSitter
Step 1: Naconkantari blocks the user indefinitely, claiming it is a "vandalism only" account. A quick look through the user's contributions shows that this is absolutely not the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ScienoSitter
Step 2: The user requests an unblock. Naconkantari responds by HIMSELF removing the unblock template. Step 3: The user requests an unblock. A user who the user was involved in a content dispute with (by the username of OmicronPersei8) REMOVES THE UNBLOCK REQUEST.
Step 4: The users requests an unblock. Naconkantari AGAIN removes the unblock template himself.
Step 5: An admin by the name of "Mr. Lefty" locks the user's talk page for "template abuse". Note that up to this point, all the user has done is put back a template wrongfully removed by (a) the blocking admin who was also involved in the dispute and (b) a non-admin user who not only was ALSO involved in the dispute, but has no right to remove the template.
Result? Naconkantari's abuse of power successfully hidden, user completely deprived of their right to a fair and impartial look at the circumstances of Naconkantari's abusive indefinite block.
This isn't the first time Naconkantari's acted like this, either. User Xvidme is blocked as a "sockpuppet of NoLongerScieno" even though NoLongerScieno's block is "indefinite" because Naconkantari thinks it violates the username standards.
Isn't it great how admins get away with this all the time? You wonder why people think there's a cabal? THIS KIND OF SHIT IS WHY.
Focusing on one topic is rather suspect (in this case, Scientology), and the comments do tread close to attacks, Still, it wasn't "vandalism" in it's strictest sense, making this very difficult to place.
On 03/10/06, Gay Muslim queeran@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienoSitter
Step 1: Naconkantari blocks the user indefinitely, claiming it is a "vandalism only" account. A quick look through the user's contributions shows that this is absolutely not the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ScienoSitter
Step 2: The user requests an unblock. Naconkantari responds by HIMSELF removing the unblock template. Step 3: The user requests an unblock. A user who the user was involved in a content dispute with (by the username of OmicronPersei8) REMOVES THE UNBLOCK REQUEST.
Step 4: The users requests an unblock. Naconkantari AGAIN removes the unblock template himself.
Step 5: An admin by the name of "Mr. Lefty" locks the user's talk page for "template abuse". Note that up to this point, all the user has done is put back a template wrongfully removed by (a) the blocking admin who was also involved in the dispute and (b) a non-admin user who not only was ALSO involved in the dispute, but has no right to remove the template.
Result? Naconkantari's abuse of power successfully hidden, user completely deprived of their right to a fair and impartial look at the circumstances of Naconkantari's abusive indefinite block.
This isn't the first time Naconkantari's acted like this, either. User Xvidme is blocked as a "sockpuppet of NoLongerScieno" even though NoLongerScieno's block is "indefinite" because Naconkantari thinks it violates the username standards.
Isn't it great how admins get away with this all the time? You wonder why people think there's a cabal? THIS KIND OF SHIT IS WHY. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's probably something for WP:ANI. I haven't looked into the details, but it appears clear to me that unblock requests should be investigated by an impartial admin. Not the one that did the block in the first place.
Mgm
On 10/3/06, Gay Muslim queeran@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienoSitter
Step 1: Naconkantari blocks the user indefinitely, claiming it is a "vandalism only" account. A quick look through the user's contributions shows that this is absolutely not the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ScienoSitter
Step 2: The user requests an unblock. Naconkantari responds by HIMSELF removing the unblock template. Step 3: The user requests an unblock. A user who the user was involved in a content dispute with (by the username of OmicronPersei8) REMOVES THE UNBLOCK REQUEST.
Step 4: The users requests an unblock. Naconkantari AGAIN removes the unblock template himself.
Step 5: An admin by the name of "Mr. Lefty" locks the user's talk page for "template abuse". Note that up to this point, all the user has done is put back a template wrongfully removed by (a) the blocking admin who was also involved in the dispute and (b) a non-admin user who not only was ALSO involved in the dispute, but has no right to remove the template.
Result? Naconkantari's abuse of power successfully hidden, user completely deprived of their right to a fair and impartial look at the circumstances of Naconkantari's abusive indefinite block.
This isn't the first time Naconkantari's acted like this, either. User Xvidme is blocked as a "sockpuppet of NoLongerScieno" even though NoLongerScieno's block is "indefinite" because Naconkantari thinks it violates the username standards.
Isn't it great how admins get away with this all the time? You wonder why people think there's a cabal? THIS KIND OF SHIT IS WHY. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/10/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's probably something for WP:ANI. I haven't looked into the details, but it appears clear to me that unblock requests should be investigated by an impartial admin. Not the one that did the block in the first place.
That's Enviroknot, on whom consensus is that he can just feck off.
- d.
On 10/4/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/10/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's probably something for WP:ANI. I haven't looked into the details, but it appears clear to me that unblock requests should be investigated by an impartial admin. Not the one that did the block in the first place.
That's Enviroknot, on whom consensus is that he can just feck off.
Figured it was something like that ;) Can we kick him from the list then, please?
--Oskar
On 04/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Figured it was something like that ;) Can we kick him from the list then, please?
In fact, his morphing email addresses were the reason new subscribers started moderated ...
- d.
On 10/4/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Figured it was something like that ;) Can we kick him from the list then, please?
In fact, his morphing email addresses were the reason new subscribers started moderated ...
I remember those days fondly :)
It's not my fault that the person can't figure out that when you come on IRC THREE TIMES in TWO WEEKS with the SAME IP, you're a sockpuppet. The original block was an IP block for violating NPA in edit summaries. The second block was on NoLongerScieno for being an obvious sockpuppet of the IP addresses to violate 3RR. The third block was on ScienoSitter, an obvious sock, when he came on IRC and I matched the IP address to NoLongerScieno. The fourth block was a repeat of the third one with Xvidme. Anything else?
naconkantari
On 10/2/06, Gay Muslim queeran@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienoSitter
Step 1: Naconkantari blocks the user indefinitely, claiming it is a "vandalism only" account. A quick look through the user's contributions shows that this is absolutely not the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ScienoSitter
Step 2: The user requests an unblock. Naconkantari responds by HIMSELF removing the unblock template. Step 3: The user requests an unblock. A user who the user was involved in a content dispute with (by the username of OmicronPersei8) REMOVES THE UNBLOCK REQUEST.
Step 4: The users requests an unblock. Naconkantari AGAIN removes the unblock template himself.
Step 5: An admin by the name of "Mr. Lefty" locks the user's talk page for "template abuse". Note that up to this point, all the user has done is put back a template wrongfully removed by (a) the blocking admin who was also involved in the dispute and (b) a non-admin user who not only was ALSO involved in the dispute, but has no right to remove the template.
Result? Naconkantari's abuse of power successfully hidden, user completely deprived of their right to a fair and impartial look at the circumstances of Naconkantari's abusive indefinite block.
This isn't the first time Naconkantari's acted like this, either. User Xvidme is blocked as a "sockpuppet of NoLongerScieno" even though NoLongerScieno's block is "indefinite" because Naconkantari thinks it violates the username standards.
Isn't it great how admins get away with this all the time? You wonder why people think there's a cabal? THIS KIND OF SHIT IS WHY. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/10/06, Nacon Kantari naconk@gmail.com wrote:
It's not my fault that the person can't figure out that when you come on IRC THREE TIMES in TWO WEEKS with the SAME IP, you're a sockpuppet. The original block was an IP block for violating NPA in edit summaries. The second block was on NoLongerScieno for being an obvious sockpuppet of the IP addresses to violate 3RR. The third block was on ScienoSitter, an obvious sock, when he came on IRC and I matched the IP address to NoLongerScieno. The fourth block was a repeat of the third one with Xvidme. Anything else?
*cough*
- d.