User talk:Rofseb

Blocked for an indefinite period

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent violations of WP:BLP driven by what appears to be your personal beliefs, and despite warnings from myself and reversions by other editors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm WP:INVOLVED given that I've been involved in reverting your previous BLP violations and have worked on various of your other edits, and this block is made per the provisions for involved admins set out at WP:BLPREMOVE. You may, of course, appeal it using the process above if you would like another admin to review the block.

I have implemented this block as you are persistently violating WP:BLP under each of your successive accounts (Sam56mas (talk · contribs) (which I suspect is you; the following accounts are definitely the same person), BruceSpider (talk · contribs), ‎Karpes (talk · contribs), Karpes (talk · contribs) Rofseb (talk · contribs) and some IP editing such as 1.152.96.65 (talk · contribs)), despite warnings about this and reversions by other editors.

This is most clear in the Waleed Aly article where you are using the different accounts to edit war material attacking him or placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on his religious beliefs which is sourced to opinion articles and blogs (diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7])
It has also recently occurred in other articles - for instance, [8] (the source says that Omran was originally enthusiastic about taking Australian citizenship, but now wishes that he hadn't done so due to a perception that he and his family are unwelcome due to increasing hostility to Muslims, so your statement that he simply "regrets" becoming a citizen is a gross over-simplification)
I warned you about previous BLP violations such as these in January [9] and again in March [10]
From your pattern of editing, these changes to articles concerning living people appear to be driven by your personal beliefs - it's notable that virtually all the edits from your various accounts have been to add material which casts a negative light on the Australian Islamic community.
As this is a long-running pattern and appears to be driven by an agenda, I have set the block duration to indefinite. This because I believe that you are very likely to continue to use Wikipedia to slander individual Australian Muslims when a time-limited block expires.
While I've made this block on the grounds of WP:BLP, I'd also note that I warned you to be careful about starting new accounts in March [11]. Given that you have now abandoned one account and moved to another several times while continuing the exact same problematic editing pattern (and especially the same edit wars and BLP violations), without declaring that you are the same person in any of the accounts, I think that you are now also in violation of WP:SOCKPUPPET. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not asking for an unblock. For every point raised above, there is a very strong WP:PG rebuttal. Rather, I offer some wider observations.

Islamic issues are significant. Other than the contested edits, during the last five months, there has been very limited content-adding to the many Wikipedia topics spanning Australian Islam. (Perplexing) With almost all of that new content being Islam-empathetic. (Perplexing)
I have two requests. That you read and consider:

1 the editing to which the Complainant-Administrator refers. I am aware of strong and divergent POVs related to the subject-matter, as well as personal risks.

2 the Complainant-Administrator's own editing of Wikipedia's Islam in Australia. With [12] being his only addition, over the last five months, which is a dubious contribution both in its veracity and in that it is underpinned by a tenuous reference to Hizb ut-Tahrir in Uzbekistan.[13]

Rather than the Complainant- Administrator abiding by WP:DR, he "resolved" the issue with a sledgehammered-indefinite-block. From the sayings of bin Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say and I will attack to the death your right to say it.
All of this devalues Wikipedia. Vale Wikipedia.

I am not asking for an unblock. Rofseb (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock not requested.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:50, 24 May 2015 (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.