User talk:Soulslearn
Soulslearn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am sorry, I missed the discussion on this matter. I am not that active on the Wikipedia now. Please see below
Decline reason:
Checkusers got a direct IP hit. Declined. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 05:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
Could I note that this entire issue relates directly back to a long term and concerted effort by the BKWSU IT PR team, to gain control of their new religious movement's topic page Brahma Kumaris (BK) in much the same way ... and for almost as long as ... the Scientologists have done.
Bksimonb, i.e. "BK Simon" is the leader of their IT team, its primary agent. [1] and was himself directly involved in aggressive legal actions, off the Wikipedia, attempting to close down support forums for friends and family of BK members.
Much of Simon's attentions has directed at piling up allegations about myself as a way of "neutralizing" what they see as their "problem". If you look back to the beginning of this issue, it is clear how ungrounded this was, their NPOV ... and over time the cultic religion's modus operandi on the Wikipedia has been clear.
- I think the word for it on the Wikipedia is "railroading" ... if you cant argue against the references and citations, shoot the messenger.
The BKWSU team, and BKSimonb in particular, having achieved one rather spurious block years ago has been able to snowball further allegations upon it, safe in the knowledge that most admins picking up on this will;
- know nothing of the background
- know nothing of their involvement with the cultic Brahma Kumari religion
- won't care to investigate it below surface appearances.
Their approach has then been to canvas others, or compounded sneaky unsigned edits to other users involved in the ongoing cultic religion issue on the Wikipedia, in order to engage them one presumes ... and so on (There are many, many examples of this. I am happy to detail it all but, frankly, I cant be bothered rooting out the diffs until some admin finally accepts to look at this matter seriously rather than kneejerk over it).
Souls learn? Some don't ...
--Soulslearn (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
OK I know it's not normally wise to respond to trolling but today I thought I'd make an exception.
- If there was really some "long term and concerted effort by the BKWSU IT PR team" then don't you think there would be more activity on the article than there is and don't you think it would be less disparaging than it currently is? The fact is that your various incarnations have enforced your POV on the article for most of it's lifetime and thus its current sorry state.
- You didn't get indefinitely blocked just because of me. You got blocked because several editors on different topics, and eventually admins, found your biased editing, stonewalling, trolling and edit warring behavior to be unacceptable and disruptive. I see that you troll about them too both on Wikipedia and on Wikipedia Review. It's actually quite bad form to bad-mouth editors you disagree with by naming and shaming them, with their full names and photos, on various forums like you did with me. I see you also did this to User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise on Wikipedia Review. We don't need this crap.
- The complaints you make about the admins lack of attention are spurious. You may be able to fool people into thinking there is some kind of conspiracy with one article subject but when you start making the same sort of claims against unrelated editors in unrelated topics then, frankly, your stories start to wear a bit thin.
- Anyone who knows what a domain name dispute is would know that it is not "aggressive legal actions" and that it is not an attempt to close down a website. It's purpose, in this case, is simply to stop a website using that name because it was misleading. I'm not even aware of anyone even wanting to shut down your website. Name change != shutting down. Anyway, you won the domain name dispute so what are you complaining about?
- There is nothing "sneaky" about reporting a disruptive editor while logged out when one of the characteristics of said disruptive editor is that they harass anyone who challenges them by bad-mouthing them on Wikipedia and on forums. Unfortunately, for me, I didn't realise how long my work place had kept the same IP. So I guess you could say it backfired. With hindsight I should have just filed an SSP report straight away.
The reason I reported you was because I don't want you editing Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia daily as a reference for all kinds of information both for work and leisure and find that it is generally right on the mark. The problem I have with you editing Wikipedia, and especially the way you edit the BKWSU related articles, is that you seem to deliberately mislead the reader by biasing and controlling the article. And then you accuse the other editors of everything you yourself are doing! In the SSP I caught you completely misusing references to synthesise what you wanted to say. You've been indefinitely blocked for good reason. Please respect that block and leave the project in peace.
Thanks