User talk:Z554: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:49, 10 February 2013 editDennis Bratland (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dan Savage. (TW)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:39, 28 April 2020 edit undoCLCStudent (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers315,516 editsm Reverted edits by 65.128.141.234 (talk) to last version by Boing! said ZebedeeTag: Rollback
(125 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{unblock reviewed \| 1=The block was apparently due to an alleged exchange of insults between myself and other editors or admins. AFAIK the other parties to this disagreement were not sanctioned and my block was retaliatory. An indefinite block was clearly excessive. It is now ancient history and 5 years is certainly enough time to declare it over and lift the block. Respectfully submitted, Z554 \| decline = Until you recognize your own behavior that led to your block, it is unlikely you will be unblocked. What others did or what happened to others is not relevant. After 5 years a second chance may be possible, but you have to take some ownership here. I am declining this request. ] (]) 00:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)}}

			{{unblock reviewed \| 1=It appears whoever it was that reviewed my request has denied it, regardless of my comportment, which has been respectful. Concerning the original incident, refer to this It will provide context - which was missing in the consideration of both my block and unblock. In the future, I will approach the matter differently: it is of no use to edit war against admins and editors in numbers greater than a sole challenger to their narrative. It is also of no use to issue a statement - however factual - if it will be taken as ad hominem. One must choose their words carefully. ] (]) 01:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC) \| decline = This reads as though you're basically doubling-down on the original reason for your block. Normally after five years an unblock would be a shoe-in, but since it's clear that you still think your behaviour was perfectly acceptable, and still continue to promote a narrative where the only reason you were blocked is that the odds were stacked against you, I see no value to Misplaced Pages in lifting the block at this time. ] ]] 07:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)}}
	''"This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs — to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date."''
			{{unblock reviewed\|reason= I hereby state that I will follow ] ] (]) 03:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)\|decline=I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
			*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, <u>or</u>
			*the block is no longer necessary because you
			*#understand what you have been blocked for,
			*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
			*#will make useful contributions instead.

			Please read the ] for more information. ] (]) 13:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)}}
	== Zionism ==
			*Unless you are specific and actually address the behaviour that got you blocked, I really can't see anyone accepting an unblock request. ] (]) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

			{{unblock reviewed\| reason=I hereby state that I will follow ] and specifically: not engage in ad hominem. ] (]) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)\|decline=You have spent too much time insulting other editors. I would expect to see a considerable amount of contrition and remorse before I can even contemplate unblocking. I'm afraid I've got no confidence of that happening. ] ] ] 11:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)}}
	As I pointed out in my edit summary, there is no evidence of any ongoing dispute or discussion of the POV of this section. As I requested, should anyone re-add the tag, could you please explain on talk with reference to Misplaced Pages policy and evidence what the current issues are regarding the NPOV of this section. See ]: ''"The editor placing this template in an article should promptly provide a reason on the article's talk page. '''In the absence of a reason and it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, this tag may be removed by any editor.'''"''

	I am going to remove the tag pending any relevant discussion on the talk page. ] (]) 06:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
	==Welcome!==

			== appealing block ==
	]]] ], Z554! Thank you for ]. I am ] and I have been editing Misplaced Pages for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on ]. You can also check out ] or type {{tlx\|helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	Also, when you post on ] you should ] using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! ] (])/] 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

			At this point, I think you'd need to appeal at ]. If you post said appeal here, someone should be able to copy it there. Please reread the ]. Looks like I restored TPA. Please choose your words carefully as it is possible to deepen the hole one is in.. I'll continue to watch this page, but I'm busy in real life. Here's a thought. I'll look at the UTRS tickets and see if there's anything useful.-- ] (]) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
	== January 2013 ==
	<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for a violation of ] at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] (]) 01:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->

			::''¡ay caramba!''-- {{green\|"This should have been enough to unblock me if the latest admin had assumed good faith." and "- different reviewing admins have reviewed my case and have levied increasing requirements for an unblock"}} --from UTRS. '''Look. These are the sort of blaming-others personal attacks that result in declines. For goodness sake, stop doing that. '''
	== February 2013 ==
	] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

			::You must own your behvior, clearly and succinctly. You must describe how it was not appropriate. You must state, clearly and succinctly, what you would do in similar circumstances instead of blaming others and making personal attacks. It does not matter to the reviewer if you think someone else was wrong or worse too. All that matters is that you convince us your behavior will not again become disruptive.
	To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 23:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

			::Please do as I have said in your next unblock appeal. Your current tack will lead you to loss of talk page access and loss of UTRS.-- ] (]) 14:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
			:::In reviewing your block log and talk, I see that you've omitted a couple of issues. You were blocked for violation of ] on ] pages and there is mention of block evasion/socking. Please do also address these issues in your next unblock request. Given all the material removed from your talk page, there may be other issues I don't know about. -- ] (]) 14:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

			.'''-- ] (]) 14:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

			WP:GOODFAITH, being a fundamental belief of Misplaced Pages, should have been enough for any administrator to accept my statement that I would henceforth follow the rules of Misplaced Pages. It has not. It appears I am to present myself to my own Auto-da-fe where I alone am to atone for my sins - and all other editors and admins who obviously gamed the system - are not to be held to amount or accept responsibility for their violation of rules as I am required, years later. To reiterate, I have stated that I will obey the Rules of the Misplaced Pages platform. That should be enough for any administrator. If it is not, then I will accept a ban and be done with it. ] (]) 21:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

			:No. Never is. Never has been. You must demonstrate understanding of the "rules" or else we cannot expect you to adhere to them. Your persistence in not 1) identifying where you went astray and 2) not identifying what you will do differently indicates you are either unwilling or unable to understand and adhere to the "rules". So accept that as an either/or prerequisite. I, for one, am quite willing to have done with you.-- ] (]) 08:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

			*You are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests while still blocked, so I have reinstated them for you, above. ] (]) 07:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

			My cleanup is your removal - got it. Another violation of WP:GOODFAITH. You fail to obey to the rules that you demand I follow. I'm done with you and your dissimulation. Misplaced Pages is a cesspool of anti-Semitism. I accept a ban. ] (]) 14:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
			:As you have resorted once again to making accusations of anti-Semitism, which was largely the reason behind your block in the first place, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. ] (]) 14:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:39, 28 April 2020

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).

Z554 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block was apparently due to an alleged exchange of insults between myself and other editors or admins. AFAIK the other parties to this disagreement were not sanctioned and my block was retaliatory. An indefinite block was clearly excessive. It is now ancient history and 5 years is certainly enough time to declare it over and lift the block. Respectfully submitted, Z554

Decline reason:

Until you recognize your own behavior that led to your block, it is unlikely you will be unblocked. What others did or what happened to others is not relevant. After 5 years a second chance may be possible, but you have to take some ownership here. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2018 (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.

Z554 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It appears whoever it was that reviewed my request has denied it, regardless of my comportment, which has been respectful. Concerning the original incident, refer to this op-ed concerning anti-Semitism on Misplaced Pages. It will provide context - which was missing in the consideration of both my block and unblock. In the future, I will approach the matter differently: it is of no use to edit war against admins and editors in numbers greater than a sole challenger to their narrative. It is also of no use to issue a statement - however factual - if it will be taken as ad hominem. One must choose their words carefully. Z554 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This reads as though you're basically doubling-down on the original reason for your block. Normally after five years an unblock would be a shoe-in, but since it's clear that you still think your behaviour was perfectly acceptable, and still continue to promote a narrative where the only reason you were blocked is that the odds were stacked against you, I see no value to Misplaced Pages in lifting the block at this time. Yunshui _水 07:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Z554 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I hereby state that I will follow Misplaced Pages's Policies and guidelines. Z554 (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless you are specific and actually address the behaviour that got you blocked, I really can't see anyone accepting an unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Z554 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I hereby state that I will follow Misplaced Pages's Policies and guidelines and specifically: not engage in ad hominem. Z554 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have spent too much time insulting other editors. I would expect to see a considerable amount of contrition and remorse before I can even contemplate unblocking. I'm afraid I've got no confidence of that happening. Ritchie333 11:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

appealing block

At this point, I think you'd need to appeal at WP:AN. If you post said appeal here, someone should be able to copy it there. Please reread the WP:GAB. Looks like I restored TPA. Please choose your words carefully as it is possible to deepen the hole one is in.. I'll continue to watch this page, but I'm busy in real life. Here's a thought. I'll look at the UTRS tickets and see if there's anything useful.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

¡ay caramba!-- "This should have been enough to unblock me if the latest admin had assumed good faith." and "- different reviewing admins have reviewed my case and have levied increasing requirements for an unblock" --from UTRS. Look. These are the sort of blaming-others personal attacks that result in declines. For goodness sake, stop doing that.

You must own your behvior, clearly and succinctly. You must describe how it was not appropriate. You must state, clearly and succinctly, what you would do in similar circumstances instead of blaming others and making personal attacks. It does not matter to the reviewer if you think someone else was wrong or worse too. All that matters is that you convince us your behavior will not again become disruptive.

Please do as I have said in your next unblock appeal. Your current tack will lead you to loss of talk page access and loss of UTRS.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In reviewing your block log and talk, I see that you've omitted a couple of issues. You were blocked for violation of WP:1RR on WP:ARBPIA pages and there is mention of block evasion/socking. Please do also address these issues in your next unblock request. Given all the material removed from your talk page, there may be other issues I don't know about. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admins. Permalink to that which went before.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH, being a fundamental belief of Misplaced Pages, should have been enough for any administrator to accept my statement that I would henceforth follow the rules of Misplaced Pages. It has not. It appears I am to present myself to my own Auto-da-fe where I alone am to atone for my sins - and all other editors and admins who obviously gamed the system - are not to be held to amount or accept responsibility for their violation of rules as I am required, years later. To reiterate, I have stated that I will obey the Rules of the Misplaced Pages platform. That should be enough for any administrator. If it is not, then I will accept a ban and be done with it. Z554 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No. Never is. Never has been. You must demonstrate understanding of the "rules" or else we cannot expect you to adhere to them. Your persistence in not 1) identifying where you went astray and 2) not identifying what you will do differently indicates you are either unwilling or unable to understand and adhere to the "rules". So accept that as an either/or prerequisite. I, for one, am quite willing to have done with you.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests while still blocked, so I have reinstated them for you, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

My cleanup is your removal - got it. Another violation of WP:GOODFAITH. You fail to obey to the rules that you demand I follow. I'm done with you and your dissimulation. Misplaced Pages is a cesspool of anti-Semitism. I accept a ban. Z554 (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

As you have resorted once again to making accusations of anti-Semitism, which was largely the reason behind your block in the first place, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)