Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zeke1999 (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 10 December 2015 (Inactive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3

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 Misplaced Pages discussion board begun by this other editor is the best explanation of this matter and the conduct by the parties in this this dispute: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages as a battleground", as continuation of that could lead to being blocked again. Misplaced Pages 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)

Thank you, JamesBWatson for lifting this unjust block. Zeke1999 (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Frank Gaffney/CSP

Not sure if you are still active and/or care to get involved again but the same user (LavaBaron) who vandalized the CSP and Frank Gaffney pages is at it again. Given his past attempts to manufacture a 'consensus' for his behavior, I'd appreciate it if you weighed in again. *He of course provides no explanation for his ridiculous edits. Baramop (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm in again, Baramop Hard to believe LAVABARON has filed yet another false sockpuppet charge against me. Let's hope an admin hits him hard for this obvious bullying of other editors to close down debate. See my comments on the ANI noticeboard (#39.1) Zeke1999 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation

Hi, you are the subject of a sockpuppet investigation here. LavaBaron (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

More abuse by you to bully editors and shut down debate. I haven't been on these pages since Oct 3. Let's hope an admin shuts you down for your abusive behavior. Zeke1999 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Forced to ride the train?

Passenger on the POV railroad Award

All kinds of indiscriminate labels have been attached to BLP NPOV pushers, especially if the BLP in question hints of conservatism, or an editor expresses concern over potential liability. I've ridden that same train for some of the same reasons you've been escorted aboard, with the exception of sockpuppetry. I've worn the "aspersion cast" for several months now, and it can get itchy from time to time, but I take comfort knowing several GF editors have signed it in a show of support. We also tend to develop a nose for when it's happening to other GF editors who insist on compliance with NPOV in BLPs. Unfortunately, that core content policy is occasionally overruled by the WP:IAR policy. That's when it becomes a numbers game and the odds can quickly turn against you. On the bright side, I hear some trains have casinos. Atsme 19:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Disclaimer: Intended as humor.

Thanks! This made my day. And I like trains! Best wishes. Zeke1999 (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

THIS USER IS INACTIVE INDEFINITELY AS OF 12/10/15. Zeke1999 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)