User talk:ZXVZ

Greetings...

Hello, ZXVZ, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.

Hello ZXVZ,

I know you think that you are doing a service to Wikipedia, and you seem to personally dislike what I am doing, but I assure you are not. In good faith, I am attempting to follow Wikipedia policies, which is not the case for a number of editors. You completely reverted an article that was meticulously sourced and filled with relevant information of encyclopedic value. With no explanation or justification whatsoever, you reverted it to a form that is factually inaccurate.

It is important that you understand that you will make the work of volunteer, non-paid Wikipedians more difficult with this type of action by making it much more difficult to track paid edits. I am willing, on a non-paid basis, to work with you to clean up anything that is unnecessarily promotional or not in line with Wikipedia policy, and I expressed my openness to listen, learn, and make changes accordingly when you addressed me on my talk page. I am trying my best to be neutral, and I see this as a collaborative rather than adversarial process. I hope you feel the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machetazic (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You placed your edits back at Henry J. Hendrix even when you admitted you are personally connected to the subject. I pinged an administrator for attention on that, but clearly he wasn't available enough to respond. Editors who are connected or paid to edit a subject should not edit the article directly. Instead, they should propose the edits on its talk page and independent editors can evaluate their contributions and decide what gets to be implemented and what not. That is not clearly what you have done and you did that again now. Also, for articles that you are paid to create, they will have to go through AfC and not the way you did. You didn't declare all your paid contributions until I asked you about it even when you knew the policy and disguised some of them in the middle of your talk page. I see you also hired @BeeTheBestThatYouCanBEE: to vote a keep in the deletion discussion for Autocerfa. Your claim of good faith doesn't seem as you may think. Leaving trails of willingness to implement the policy while not really implementing it is not good faith. ZXVZ (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Today, I was blocked for sockpuppeting by Bbb23. I'd like to point out that I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH this user named bradgd. I don't have anything to do with him/her and I'm ready to provide all and every evidence that may help clear this. But again, I'm not connected to him/her in any way. ZXVZ (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account. -- Deep fried okra 22:55, 29 December 2019 (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.

@Deepfriedokra: This is my ONLY account. I don't use any other accounts to edit. I'm not connected in any way with the block and have nothing to do with the master. ZXVZ (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This user has a history of denial, although the flavor varies. See, e.g., the Talk pages of Kirolos Isaac, Justletters, Geradh, and GavinMul. In addition, this account is clearly not a new user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: You are making a VERY BIG MISTAKE! That is all IN YOUR HEAD! I'd like to ask for an unbiased admin who will investigate this independently and see what led you to this conclusion. I'm not bradgd or any of its socks. Again, I'm not bradgd or any of its socks. And I'm ready to provide all and every evidence to stop this fallacy. Some of the accounts you mention make evident grammatical error in their block appeal which I don't and will never do. ZXVZ (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: yeah-- Deep fried okra 00:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZXVZ: I'm but a humble admin. I cannot unblock checkuser/sock puppetry blocks. Please read the pertinent sections of the WP:GAB. Cheers, and a belated Happy Holidays.-- Deep fried okra 00:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try to step out of that bubble and think for yourself. You can't agree with him given you are not checkuser and haven't seen what he saw. This guy is making a big mistake. Now I'm not sure if the right response is to ping other admins to review this. ZXVZ (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is less than a week old but you're lecturing admins about the CheckUser user right? Well, if you think this block is wrong, your best bet is to appeal to Arbcom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Henry J. Hendrix, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi D12000, sorry for not caring enough to give an edit summary. That was one of a series of edits by paid editor Machetazic (blocked by now). For context, please check my talk page and my correspondence on theirs. I'm happy to send you the evidence if you ever need it and if you have email enabled. That was one year ago, so hopefully I still have a copy of if.ZXVZ (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - now understand the situation better. Have reapplied your cleanup, and did some other tidying, but will allow for improved sourcing/NPOV. Dl2000 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]