User talk:Z554

Zionism

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 Wikipedia policy and evidence what the current issues are regarding the NPOV of this section. See Template:POV: "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. Dlv999 (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Z554! Thank you for your contributions. I am Shrike and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for a violation of WP:1RR at Judea. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, 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 WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. 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."

February 2013

Your recent editing history at Dan Savage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

nableezy - 17:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nableezy posted an obvious attempt at intimidation on my talk page, and is another editor infamous for his close watch and POV editing of articles involving the Jewish state. He is also quite a comedian, stating on the Jerusalem talk page that he has "no conflict of interest with this topic". This is blatant dishonesty, in other words, a lie. It appears sean.hoyland and nableezy are working in tandem. It is against protocol to make threats against an editor who makes legitimate, good faith edits. Intellectual dishonesty has no place here. Z554 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to think whatever you like. You are not however free to violate core Wikipedia policies in articles on this site. If you continue doing so I will request that you be banned from editing in this topic area. nableezy - 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever threaten me or another editor again. Ever. Z554 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mondoweiss

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Removing relevant neutral material and replacing it with hostile, unsourced information is usually considered WP:Vandalism. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was correct. You are another editor who has a history of POV edits. Do not threaten me. Z554 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JarlaxleArtemis tag

Your page has been tagged in connection with a Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis case since you ~~quoted him in your first personal attack on me above (and~~ reverted an Admins revert) [added later as correction: of an attack on me by a sock of JarlaxleArtemis, thereby showing your agreement with the attack.] CarolMooreDC🗽 14:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just corrected the above. Obviously it was easy to assume User:Z554 was a sock of JarlaxleArtemis given similar behavior on similar articles, but admins did not find so. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Mondoweiss. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:58, 22 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Since Carolmooredc was the other party involved in the "edit warring", she should be blocked as well. Why hasn't she?

Decline reason:

Editor says below no unblock is being requested. By the way, your next block for edit warring will be a week, since successive blocks of 24, 48, and 72 hours have not successfully protected Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:20, 22 March 2013 (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.

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Z554. Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked me unilaterally without giving me a change to respond. How can I defend myself on the noticeboard, when I am blocked from editing? Carolmooredc acting in retaliation, as other anti-Israel editors level threats against those they wish to silence. They are clearly acting like thugs. You should investigate Carolmooredc for her behavior. You have not specified the criteria used to determine the length of the block, it appears to be arbitrary. Z554 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Z, if you leave your response here it will be copied to the discussion. This is fairly standard. The length of blocks is pretty arbitrary, I would not let that worry you unduly. Edit-warring is not generally accepted by the community even if you are right. If you want an unblock, don't ask for even handed treatment, simply speak to not edit-warring again. The Israel-Palestine situation is complex and nuanced, doubtless our coverage can be improved in neutrality, this will not be achieved by treating Wikipedia as a battlefield, but by careful discussion if anything. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Post this to the noticeboard. Thanks.

1. Carolmooredc acted in retaliation by leveling an unfounded assertion that I am a sock puppet for some other user. This is misuse of process. She must be sanctioned for this.
2. Because Carolmooredc is the other party in the edit war, she too must be blocked from editing for an amount of time equal to my block.
3. The administrator who blocked me, ItsZippy, did so without warning and without any due process. This must be investigated.
4. Since I actually have a life, I'll let it go and wait for the block to expire.

Z554 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done (by someone else) Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

April 2013

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me. Thank you for your cooperation. Z554 (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a threat, it was a warning. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This is your only warning" is a threat. Z554 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z8

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:

user Malik Shabazz is well known as an anti-Jewish POV pushing editor. This is just another attempt to silence those who call him and his circle of editors out on their blatant POV control of the Israel and Jewish narratives. Don't really care much about the block, except it should be reversed due to the admin's lack of credibility. Z554 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I see blatant POV-pushing and multiple personal attacks - neither of which are acceptable here. The block looks sounds to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2013 (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 haven't looked into in the blatant POV and editing history of Malik Shabazz? Is it that you are not interested, agree with his POV pushing, or do you just fear him? Z554 (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen dude, this approach is not going to get you unblocked - you know that, don't you? In fact, it's more likely to get your block extended. So I'd advise you to calm down, stop the attacks, and rethink *your* behaviour. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should investigate the actions of Malik Shabazz. You know the reputation that Wikipedia and specific biased admins have concerning Israel and the Jews. There's no need to be intimidated by them. Z554 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel

Maybe I wasn't clear last week. Making personal attacks—or restoring them—will not be tolerated. Next time, you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear: legitimate criticism of a POV administrator is valid. Don't vandalize my edits and don't threaten me. Z554 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z8

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:

Malik Shabazz is well known as an anti-Jewish POV pushing editor. This is just another attempt to silence those who call him and his circle of editors out on their blatant POV control of the Israel and Jewish narratives. He consistently vandalizes entries, and abuses his power as an administrator to control a political narrative. Z554 (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:07, 15 April 2013 (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.

I doubt that you even reviewed the block. If you did not investigate the events leading up to the block and the POV admining of Malik_Shabazz, you failed to carry out your responsibilities as an Administrator. Z554 (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I didn't review it. As I said, unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. Is that somehow ambiguous? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, an admin with an agenda, using a block for "Personal attacks or harassment" can unilaterally block an opponent at will and not have his decision subject to review or investigation, regardless if the reason was due to legitimate criticism by the editor subject to the block. You still have failed in your responsibilities as an Administrator as Malik_Shabazz has violated his. Z554 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except admins don't really have responsibilities, at least not in the sense of being expected to do any duties. We're all volunteers, and I don't see any reason volunteer time ought to be spent on unblock requests that just lambast another person, either. If you want to form an unblock request that's actually going to get consideration, you're going to have to explain why this admin action is against policy, not give vague allegations of misbehaviour as you've done above. Don't say that Malik Shabazz is being abusive. That doesn't do anything to help me know how he is abusive or how his abuse has any bearing on your block. Show me how this block is abusive and there might be somewhere to go with this, if indeed there is such a case to be made. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit alone, which E554 edit warred over, where he accuses several editors of being liars, being anti-Israel, and collaborating in their edits is enough to block E554 for far more than 2 weeks. If E554 continues to attack anyone during their block, I will revoke talk page access. Some heat after a block is permissible, but there are boundaries. Finally, if E554 continues this pattern of attacks after the block expires, the next block will be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was vandalized by sean.hoyland, a user infamous for his close watch and POV editing of articles involving the Jewish state. nableezy posted an obvious attempt at intimidation on my talk page, and is another editor infamous for his close watch and POV editing of articles involving the Jewish state. He is also quite a comedian, stating on the Jerusalem talk page that he has "no conflict of interest with this topic". This is blatant dishonesty, in other words, a lie.

I stand by my statement. Would you like the evidence? Z554 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is proof of the petty fascism and intellectual dishonesty at Wikipedia. Hiding behind their keyboards, admins wield just enough power to control information with out any recourse by dissenters. Malik_Shabazz and the other Jew hating and anti-Semitic editors on Wikipedia have free reign. A cursory examination of their history will bear out proof of my complaint. Administrators have a responsibility to be fair and equitable in their decisions, using fact, circumstances and context as their guides. Malik_Shabazz (among others) is agenda driven. You duty is to the truth, not to some glorified on line game called "wikipedia". Bbb23 displays a typical authoritarian impulse among "Administrators". Wielding power, Bbb23 does so not in pursuit of truth, but to protect Wikipedia and the authority of the Administrator. It is obvious that Admins can act unilaterally and get quite defensive when their authority is questioned. If you're taking flak, you're over the target. Z554 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]