User talk:Xiriid

Welcome!

Hello, Xiriid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Introduction and Getting started

Contributing to Wikipedia
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article
Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Rickyurs (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting a removal of the block because I strongly believe it makes a mockery of the policy which is meant to prevent damage and disruption to Wikipedia and not be used as a tool to abuse other editors. This user Wadaad thinks I am stalking him because I am an editor like the millions of editors out there, I don't know if this is a joke or something else but it makes a mockery of the policy and it needs to be dealt with appropriately. The only contention I had with the user was on this Racism in Africa page. The user had deliberately deleted an entirely valid and sourced section of the page and when I followed the Wikipedia recommendation on the page that said to bring reliable sources for verification to improve the article which I did the user still deleted the entire subsection based on his POV thus continuing his WP:OZD. Not at any moment did the user show good faith and tried to initiate a discussion in the talk page, so I took the initiative to create a talk section where racism in Kenya could be discussed. When I asked the user to provide reliable sources that racism does not exist in Kenya he instead provided POV, and so I quoted one of articles directly to him and requested again sources for his claims. At no point did the user provide any sources to support his POV instead the user chose to violate WP:TalkPageGuidelines and delete the entire section without my consent. The user is obsessed with genetics and human phenotypes judging from his interaction with others on that page, and based on his disregard for sources and fact-based content, his imagined "stalking", the many blocks, warnings and notice board his has received, the lack of evidence for damages to any articles I caused, and his constant edit wars and troll behaviour remarked by other users I strongly believe this person is not making this request for blocking in good faith but rather for nefarious reasons and so I request the block be removed, his recent changes in the Racism in Africa article/talk pages reverted and he be banned from editing the Horn of Africa and Somalia pages and he be reprimanded for abusing the system. Thank you. Xiriid (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating

WP:GAB explains how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not being blocked for

WP:SOCK, the block is based on having detected some sort of proxy, as per Wikipedia proxy

page the Rational should be focused on preventing abuse and disruption, no evidence has been put forth to show any disruption done to any article, hence the block should be lifted.

Decline reason:

The block log entry says: "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see:

WP:SOCK, is what you're blocked for. In fact, the admin who blocked you explicitly noted that you weren't using an open proxy. Huon (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2019 (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.

}}

Sock puppetry

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Middayexpress (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Wadaad (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked because the block is being used for political control and violates the CheckUser policy that states:

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position).

The fact the individual keeps vandalising my page with tags when no tags was ordered by the admin further validates this political control to apply pressure on other editors because of content dispute. I will also remind reviewers that so far the individual has not brought forth any Wikipedia articles I have vandalised which again is an indication that this block is for political control, therefore I request that I be unblocked or allowed to bring the matter to the Administrators' noticeboard. Xiriid (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. You should address this, and only this, in any future unblock request. If you believe CheckUser policy has been violated, you may call it to the attention of the Obudsman commission. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:06, 5 August 2019 (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.

You have an indefinite site ban from wikipedia due to your multi-year disruptive behavior[1], extensive

sock puppetry, and continuous ban evasion.[2][3]

You are not allowed to have any usernames whatsoever.

Following the closure of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress, Middayexpress (talk · contribs) et al are now indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. In order to effect a timely halt to Middayexpress's sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets, administrators may at their discretion take any and all measures deemed necessary and appropriate to safeguard articles from Middayexpress's edits, including (but not limited to) standard discretionary sanctions as may be warranted on a case by case basis provided that such measures are undertaken through appropriate channels or with the consensus of the community. Editors encountering suspected Middayexpress sockpuppets are required to log the suspected account(s) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress to allow for comparison of the suspect accounts to the account master and to ensure an accurate and up-to-date list of known sock accounts for future reference.[4]

* 00:36, 26 May 2018
multiple accounts. Very long running and high level ban evasion - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress. Revoking talk page access for abusing this privilege.)[5] @Nick-D
:

Editors who are confirmed by a sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active, for any reason, are effectively site banned by the Wikipedia community.[6]

Grounds for checking
CheckUser data may be used to investigate, prevent, or respond to:
#
Sock puppetry;[7]

Wadaad (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]