[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

[Parker Peters]

Given your obvious conflict of interest, I'm not interested in any quibbling
on your part.

"Former member" is just as bad in this case. Or perhaps worse, since it
shows you're trying to hide a conflict of interest.

It is my considered opinion, having looked through the edit histories of the
pages involved and your contributions, that you, Future Perfect, Itaqallah,
and others who have piled on have not behaved in good faith through this.

Slapping a denial into an unblock request, when you are the blocking admin,
is something you should NEVER do. I don't care if you think it's justified,
you just opened up a massive conflict of interest, and that shows that you
were being vindictive.

Parker

On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Take a look at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo
> ;
> the block was not lengthened for the edits on his talk page; it was over
> possible block evasion and further incivility. If the Request for
> CheckUser concludes that the IP is indeed RunedChozo, the block is most
> certainly valid. Otherwise, perhaps it will go back to the original
> forty-eight hours. However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from
> you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm
> not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
>
> -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
>
> George Herbert wrote:
> >
> >> As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page,
> >> removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus
> >> arguing with people there.
> >>
> >> As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument
> >> ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of
> >> administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
> >>
> >> RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd
> >> committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on
> >> several levels.  He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use
> >> inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info
> >> claiming it's unsourced.  There was a two-sided abusive edit war going
> >> on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been
> >> warned against that.
> >>
> >> It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive
> >> to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and
> >> collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or
> >> appropriate.  If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page
> >> while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool
> >> down.
> >>
> >> Bad day.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>