User talk:Nestera

Blocked
__NOINDEX__

Elockid  ( Talk ) 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proving the DIFFERENCE of editing style before I go to Wiki-Arbitration Committee
Primary Indicators
 * The difference of my edting style is even accepted by the blocking admin, but he attributes the difference to I HAVE LEARNT TO EDIT BETTER OVER TIME rather than me being a different wiki-user.
 * uploaded images to Wikipedia, but did not upload image to Wikipedia.
 * has made edits in the article of cities, but has no edits in cities.
 * The Justice Forever (and its alleged sockpuppets) produces socks. The socks immediately request to be unblocked upon being banned, but I clearly read the guidelines and try to find misunderstandings. I do not request to be unblocked immediately if compared with the alleged socks. This is another difference in editing style. Nestera (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Justice Forever (and its alleged sockpuppets) signs seldomly their comments when compared me. Nestera (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 73 Millions of Turks in Turkey, 550 000 Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus. We both speak Turkish. Turkish Cypriots have a different accent than the Turks of mainland Turkey. So, We, 550 000, "we 550 000 look like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but we 550 000 are not the same duck"). Wiki-admins, please, once more look at my editing style about the WP:DUCK issue!

Supplemantary Indicators
 * EVEN THE FIRST OPINION ABOUT SOCK PUPPETRY CLAIM ABOUT ME IS STALE; THERE IS NO VOTE OF WIKI-ADMINS FOR EITHER PRO OR CON SOCK-PUPPETRY:

In Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever/Archive#Suspected_sockpuppets_3 :

I know you haven't requested actual checkusering, but just a note that the socks in the archive appear Stale, so behavior will have to be the deciding factor here. TNXMan 21:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee Phase
Michelle Kinney (one of the members in Arbitration Committee) wrote to me that "Thank you for your message. Appeals to the Arbitration Committee are a last resort. The committee will normally only intervene in community processes if (a) the process was seriously flawed or (b) new evidence comes to light that casts serious doubt on the community's original decision. As neither of these situations appears to apply in this instance, the committee can see no reason to reverse the block. If you wish to discuss a return to editing, you must do so with your original account.".

After Michelle Kinney's response, I searched and found new evidences:

I searhed the IPs of Justice Forever and her/his sockpuppets (GercekKaynarca, VivaNorthCyprus, etc. ). S/he uses IP=83.66.22.10. I have nothing to do with that IP as is easily seen if one wiki-admin looks at my logs; I have no relation with that IP! (Reference: http://www.science24.org/show/User_talk:Akradecki) Nestera (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * New Evidences Requested by Michelle Kinney:

Since it appears that you have escalated your case to ArbCom, there is really no point in echoing your arguments on your talk page in this way. You should offer any further information directly and exclusively to ArbCom via e-mail. If they decide to believe you and reinstate your account, you can share the news here with the rest of us at that time.

Also, previously, I offered you some very concrete suggestions for establishing who you are (as opposed to making claims of who you are not). If you are not in fact "Justice Forever" and are serious about wanting to convince ArbCom of this fact, I would strongly recommend you follow those suggestions ASAP. Your latest piece of "new evidence" is really about the same as trying to clear your name via a checkuser request — something which, as you should already understand, is almost never accepted as a way of disproving sockpuppet allegations, and which in fact is more often taken as evidence that you are a sock trying to blow smoke in people's faces. Unless you present your most convincing information to ArbCom right now, you are likely to find them unwilling to listen to anything further you might have to say, regardless of its merits.

I'm going to stop watching your talk page at this point. If you are a sock of "Justice Forever", you're wasting my time — and if you are not "Justice Forever", I may be wasting your time by making you feel there is a reason to continue arguing your case here (and in this particular way) rather than talking only to ArbCom and trying to make the kind of case with them that has a chance (though I don't know how much of a chance) of actually working. Further posting of your arguments here, on your talk page, is very likely to make some admin decide to block you from being able to edit your talk page (and also to semi-protect your talk page to keep you from editing via IP addresses without logging in first).

Good luck, or good riddance, depending on who you really are. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)