User talk:Zeke1999/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frank Gaffney may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- muslim-charges|accessdate=26 July 2015|work=[[Talking Points Memo]]|date=15 February 2011}}</ref> (It is unclear how serious the 2014 CPAC-Gaffney spat was since according to an article posted in
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. LavaBaron (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This was a unwarranted complaint by another editor engaged in an edit war with me. A Wikipedia administrator declined to open this investigation. Zeke1999 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Zeke1999, and welcome to Wikipedia!
It appears that you may have a conflict of interest with the topic you wish to edit. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or my talk page, or . Again, welcome!
Edit warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.
Keep up the good work
I appreciate your hard effort. It is becoming very difficult to edit any articles on counter-terrorism subjects without being met by threats. Bachcell (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
|
Canvassing Warning
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Frank Gaffney. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
Blocked
OK, enough. I am persuaded that the repeated accusations of sockpuppetry have merit, and that you are indeed abusing multiple accounts; this combines with tendentious editing and other problematic behaviour from this account and a general impression of using Wikipedia as a battleground. I have blocked you. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Zeke1999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sock puppetry claim is untrue. These sock allegations were lodged by an editor who disagreed with me in editing the Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy pages. Its ironic I've been blocked because I believe this other editor was the one engaged in tendentious editing and complained about my edits by lodging multiple unfounded complaints. This discussion on a Wikipedia discussion board begun by this other editor is the best explanation of this matter and the conduct by the parties in this this dispute: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_47#Center for Security Policy (sanitizing of article about Islamophobic hate group Center for Security Policy) . Note that the admin who closed this discussion recommended it be moved to the NPOVN discussion board. I made a mistake in not doing this immediately. I'm the one who backed off arguing over these pages and let the other editor's edits stand. Why block me now? I've tried to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I wrote a long essay on my differences on the Gaffney TALK page, asked for a 3rd opinion, and consulted with an admin instead of engaging in an edit war. You are welcome to check my IP address to confirm I have never run socks. I should add that since the pages I was editing involve a controversial person, a charge of conspiracy theorizing and BLP, it is understandable that some of the editors involved had strong opinions. I believe these strong opinions led not just to two pages with serious POV problems, they also caused one or more of these editors to take improper steps to block the accounts of other editors with whom they disagreed. One of these other editors, an IP editor, was falsely accused of being my sock puppet and had his or her account blocked when mine was blocked. For some reason this other editor's account was unblocked over a week ago but mine is still blocked. Yes, there were two newly-created SPAs that tried to make large changes to the Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy pages as their only edits. I'm never going to use a sock and would not be so stupid to do this, especially since a false charge about this had already been made and I thought closed. There are other possible explanations for where these socks came from. This block is unfair and I ask that it be lifted.
Accept reason:
There seems to be a consensus to give you another chance. Two administrators, User:Salvidrim! and User:Spike Wilbury, have both posted to the blocking administrator's talk page suggesting that you be unblocked, but the blocking administrator has not been active recently, so I have made a decision. However, you would be well advised to stay away from Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy, and to avoid any doubts and suspicions you should avoid any logged-out editing. Also, please take note of the blocking administrator's comment about "a general impression of using Wikipedia as a battleground", as continuation of that could lead to being blocked again. Wikipedia works by cooperation, and discussion aimed at trying to reach agreement, not by each editor fighting for his or her corner. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Zeke1999 (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- As the editor to whom Zeke1999 is referring, above, I can, first, confirm that the issue that led to this situation was essentially limited to two articles (Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy), and, second, is unlikely to be repeated as both articles have since generated a high degree of editor scrutiny. I can also confirm that no one has made any allegations of tendentious behavior by the user account Zeke1999 and that he has accurately summarized the various procedural steps he took to identify an interlocutor to support his edits. As far as the sockpuppet charge that was the reason for his block, while three editors (myself included) believed there was strong behavioral similarity between Zeke1999 and one of the many IP editors that flock to these articles, a checkuser returned a negative finding. While I don't know if a block can be lifted, I can say that if it is lifted, it is probably not likely to create any real disruption. LavaBaron (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |