User talk:Z554

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)[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.

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:

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia in lifting the block at this time. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:02, 15 October 2018 (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.

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:

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

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 Wikipedia, 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)[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.

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)[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:

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

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 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 23 November 2018 (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.

appealing block[edit]

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)[reply]

¡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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

WP:GOODFAITH, being a fundamental belief of Wikipedia, should have been enough for any administrator to accept my statement that I would henceforth follow the rules of Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia is a cesspool of anti-Semitism. I accept a ban. Z554 (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]