User talk:KarmaChameleon

KarmaChameleon, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi KarmaChameleon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I am sorry but you have no understanding of Wikipedia:Attack page. From your own link section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion - Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced

The list created is none of these. I would sincerely request you to please get a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies. KarmaChameleon (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom

Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom (March 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MPS1992 was:

As a minimum, all potentially controversial and apparently unsourced statements in the lede need inline citations. I would also suggest that the "convicted cases" listed are clearly no longer operating -- since the fellows involved are hopefully in prison -- and therefore "were organized gangs" is better than "are organized gangs", unless some other structuring of the article is intended. Whether this list is appropriate for a separate article also remains unclear.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MPS1992 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear ...

The "article" is going to be deleted anyway, but if you pull a stunt like that again I will just block you indefintely. Read the article - Champion referred to a possible total of a million victims of CSE in total in the UK (that's every possible form of CSE in every area of the country, from rape to human trafficking to far more minor issues such as sexting, not from these few sex rings). Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant to be some kind of threat? Because "let's be clear" that would be abuse of your powers. I do not appreciate such high-handedness. Good luck! — KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since my edits are being questioned and this particular edit is now deleted, I would like to paste the source for the figure "one million" here. The way the article worded it gives an impression Sarah is referring to the child exploitation by Muslim gangs. Another source that I could find which eludes to this. --KarmaChameleon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The block would be arguably proper and thus this talk page comment would be better described as a "warning" than a "threat". Please see my comments at the deletion discussion. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand you write about "Muhammad's ... sexual relationship with Aisha," but in the edit summary that submits this edit, you also write "(pbuh)"—are you here as a provocation? El_C 20:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common practice by Muslims to add PBUH when taking the Prophet's name. Please let me know how is it provocative. --KarmaChameleon (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the combination of the two —the edit plus the honorific—and you know it. El_C 01:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you I was not well-acquainted with the Wikipedia policy on honorifics. I will avoid them going forward. —KarmaChameleon (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is KarmaChameleon. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to participate in the discussion because of a block. Thank you for the notice. --KarmaChameleon (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Reviewing your activity on Wikipedia, it's evident that you're WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia in a neutral manner. Whatever your goal is, that's not appropriate here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. I would like to understand what you think my goals are. --KarmaChameleon (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I notice I have been blocked indefinitely. Based on what? Your decision to block me seems rather hasty. My first article User:KarmaChameleon/sandbox that I had created in my sandbox gets pushed by an admin to Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom (without any consent whether I was ready with the article). Once moved to Draft stage it is then is then put through MFD and deleted by admins. I also not allowed to save it in my sandbox because that version has been deleted as well. I have two requests: ::* Please restore the last version of Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom to my sandbox so I get an opportunity to fix it. ::* Please point out edits that made you indefinitely block me. ::Please let me know how I can get my block reviewed. Thanks! - KarmaChameleon (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block review is right here. Here, you explain what you will do differently. How will you contribute to a neutral encyclopedia? El_C 22:16, 29 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would request the blocking admins to point out exactly what ticked them off to block me indefinitely. I am ready to make changes only if I know where I have gone wrong. I am here to contribute to Wikipedia by contributing information backed by reliable sources.

Decline reason:

It isn't that you ticked off the admins, it is that you have a fairly transparent agenda and were engaging in what we refer to as point-of-view pushing as opposed to the neutral point-of-view expected from an encyclopedia. For reference, recall basically every single edit you have made. I'll grant that most of those have now been deleted but I'm sure you recall sufficiently what they were. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2017 (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.

KarmaChameleon, maybe I can help a little here. I don't know about the other admins who've commented here, but it seems to me like you're using Wikipedia as a soapbox to post criticism of Islam. You can't write Wikipedia articles in the style of tabloid journalism. Wikipedia is different than a lot of other websites. On many sites, you can broadcast your opinions to whomever will listen, and you certainly don't have to be very polite or neutral about it. In fact, people would probably consider it strange if you gave equal time to opposing viewpoints and pointed people to places where they could learn more about them. Well, on Wikipedia, you're expected to do stuff like that. You might want to look over our core content policies to see what's expected here. Once you've done that, you could probably write a much better unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. Going forward, I will avoid articles that criticise Islam. Also, I will use sources that support all points of views. I have read through the core content policies that you linked. It was a good read. I will try my best to adhere to them. —KarmaChameleon (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom, I am seeing nothing but defiance, a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and an unwillingness to listen to what others are trying to tell you. Now you say that your attitude has changed. Could you please describe, in detail, what you see as being wrong about your previous approach and give us a reason to believe that you will do things differently going forward? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

As explained by NinjaRobotPirate my edits make it seem that I am using Wikipedia as a soapbox to criticise Islam. Going forward, I am willing to avoid editing articles that criticise Islam and its aspects. Also, I will cite sources that support all points of views on a subject. I have also read through core content policies to understand what's expected here. Request you to please unblock me. — KarmaChameleon (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you can't explain your edits, I can't unblock you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:40, 30 March 2017 (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.

Can you explain the reasons for your previous edits? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coffee, please let me know which edits you speak of and I will give you reasons. —KarmaChameleon (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking again on the above request. I believe none of the administrators have any actual edits of mine to show. All I see is virtue signalling with no concrete evidence to have me blocked indefinitely. "I did not like your edits because they were against my sentiments but I actually can't pinpoint anything concrete." — KarmaChameleon (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will need to agree to not make any edits that criticize Islam, as most (all?) of your edits to date seem to have done.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you actually read my unblock request above. —KarmaChameleon (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and you wrote you would "avoid editing articles that criticise Islam and its aspects". not thatg you would make no edits that criticise Islam. Maybe It is what you intended to say, was it?Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that this user innocently made those edits and wasn't deliberately trying to make a point. I didn't explicitly say "you were making it sound like all Muslim men want to have sex with children and it is ingrained in their religion" because they already know that is exactly what they were doing. Turning around and acting like they need that explained to them now stretches WP:AGF to the breaking point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man fallacy —KarmaChameleon (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make claims of a straw man fallacy in cases where there clearly is no such thing. It's annoying, and will not lead to you being allowed to edit Wikipedia. I would also point out the three separate uninvolved administrators have reviewed your repeated appeals and declined your requests for an unblock. Yet you refuse to address the reasons they gave for blocking you.

Again I ask; please describe, in detail, what you see as being wrong about your previous approach and give us a reason to believe that you will do things differently going forward. If you do anything else the inevitable end result will be you having your talk page access revoked. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to accept an indefinite topic ban from all Islam related articles and discussions, broadly construed? Doug Weller talk 18:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]