User talk:Zeke1999/Archive 3

This is an archive covering 2015-2017. Zeke1999 had no activity in 2018.

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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)

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. [1]

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)

December 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing admin: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999. Technical evidence was inconclusive, but behaviorally they appear to be the same person as Baramop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

October 2016

withdrawn unblock request: Dear Reviewing Administrator,

I am writing to request my account be unblocked.

I was blocked twice in late 2015 for alleged sockpuppetry. These allegations were untrue and were made by the same editor, LAVABARON , due to sharply different views over two pages we were editing. My reasons asking this block be lifted are the same as those I cited above when I successfully had the first one lifted last year.

I left Wikipedia last December (I left just before I was blocked a 2nd time) because I was frustrated with this situation. Although the technical data [2] for blocking me a 2nd time was determined by a clerk to be “extremely tenuous,” I was blocked anyway for supposed “meatpuppetry.” I admit I left quite angry about this false accusation.

I apologize for this and for an intemperate comment I made to editor Floquenbeam for blocking me.

LAVABARON has written extensively about his sockpuppet charges on a sockpuppet investigations page and on other pages. Regardless of these claims, this is not a case of sockpuppetry. It is a clear case of POV railroad . Another editor, Atsme , attempted to come to my defense by making this point last December. See this [3] link.

OK, as an administrator considering whether to unblock me, you’re probably asking yourself how believable is this and why should you delve into this case. Here’s my answer.

1. I don’t want to re-litigate this. I just want my account unblocked. I don’t want to give you dozens of links and chapter and verse on this dispute beyond what I wrote in my last successful unblock appeal above. I want to move on.

2. I will avoid further conflict with LAVABARON. (This may not be necessary because it appears this user has retired.) I am asking LAVABARON to permanently stay off my talk page. I agree to permanently stay off his talk page.

3. I am asking my account be reactivated so I can edit and write on only the following issues for the next six months: nuclear proliferation, biological weapons, Middle East, Russia, China, Japan, World Bank, and spy agencies/personnel. I want to help improve Wikipedia’s coverage of these issues.

4. I am willing to consider other conditions you may propose.

One more thing. If you do unblock me, I would be grateful if you would monitor my talk page for a while, both to confirm I am living up to this agreement and to see if signs of the kinds of things referred to above reappear.

I want to work to write good articles on the topics referred to above and to move on from the above dispute. I ask for your help. Thank you. Zeke1999 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: If necessary, I can ping editors and admins who I think will weigh in on my behalf. I’d rather not do that and keep this simple. I just want to move on. Zeke1999 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)}}

Floquenbeam , I reiterate my apology to you above for an intemperate comment I made to you last December after you blocked me. I don't want to re-litigate this block or what led to it. I want to move on and resume editing to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. Would you support lifting this block with the restrictions I proposed above? Thank you for your consideration. Zeke1999 (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections if another admin wants to unblock, and don't need an apology (though I accept this one), that's not what the block was about. I'm not comfortable, myself, unblocking without "re-litigating" this first; I remain convinced Zeke1999 is the same person as Baramop, Baramop has been CU confirmed socking (most other sock reports have been inconclusive CU-wise and were behavioral), and socks have been attributed to Zeke1999 as late as May of this year (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999/Archive. I'm pinging User:Doug Weller, who I think was involved in policing the Frank Gaffney article, and I suggest a reviewing admin wait for Doug's input. But if someone else wants to consider this an WP:OFFER situation, I won't stand in the way. I'd make sure to craft restrictions that prevent a recurrence of previous problems, including a 1-way interaction ban with LavaBaron (if they come back), and indefinite topic bans of some kind. But I'll leave details up to the reviewing admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding a section heading to clarify. My own opinion is that this is Baramop. CU evidence can't prove that someone isn't a sockpuppet, so the "tenuous connection" just means that the technical data couldn't be used to confirm sock puppetry. If another Admin is considering an unblock, I would ask that this be done with conditions, specifically the one-way interaction ban (I usually don't like 1-way bans but I think it's appropriate here), and indefinite topic bans from BLPs and all pages relating to politics, race and religion, broadly construed (all pages, not just articles). Doug Weller talk 15:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Floquenbeam and Doug Weller for responding to my request. To be honest, I was hoping you'd accept my offer to limit my contributions for six months and avoid conflict. It's frustrating for me to go through this conflict again. That's why I just want to move on after a nine-month absence.

I appreciate your points of view, but the sock and meat puppetry charges are untrue. This is a case of POV railroad. Please read Atsme 's comments on this above and the debate over this issue between LAVABARON and Atsme on the sockpuppet investigation page on December 9 and 10. See especially the "hatted" discussion. [[4]]

LAVABARON has constantly falsely accused me of sock puppetry and continued to accuse me of this after I left Wikipedia last December. I note that charges accusing Ocdgrammarian and 130.157.201.59 of being my socks by LAVABARON last summer were rejected as groundless. [[5]] This supports my argument that all of these charges have been part of a POV Railroad campaign to shut down editors who disagreed with the accuser. Ocdgrammarian's comments disputing these false charges on his talk page perfectly explain why these charges are false. [[6]] Regrettably, although Ocdgrammarian was cleared of these charges, he apparently dropped off Wikipedia due to this dispute. (Strangely enough, although 130.157.201.59 was cleared of being my sock, he was later blocked for being someone else's.)

I'm prepared to limit my editing to the issues I listed above for six months and accept other reasonable six-month-limited restrictions as a good faith gesture. A one-way interaction ban and permanent topics bans make no sense in my case since I have tried to follow Wikipedia rules and was the victim of a POV railroad campaign. And with all due respect, Doug Weller, "indefinite topic bans from BLPs and all pages relating to politics, race and religion, broadly construed (all pages, not just articles)" are completely unjustified. Such a ban would prevent me from writing on all of the topics of interest to me that I listed above. I also suspect such topic bans would be extraordinary for a case like this.

I pledge to only edit the topics I listed above for the next six months and to avoid conflict so I can contribute quality content to WP. Whatever happened here, I want to move on. Zeke1999 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Jps~enwiki, 50.196.177.155 , User:Salvidrim! , Spike Wilbury, Atsme and Location : you may not remember the debate over the Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy pages of a year ago and the related conflict between LAVABARON and myself. I was blocked a 2nd time last year due to sock puppet charges by LAVABARON. I strongly dispute this charge as I explain above. If you are willing to weigh in on my behalf, I would be very grateful. This is a case of POV Railroad and I don't have many people to ask for help. Thank you. Zeke1999 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: Ocdgrammarian , it appears you dropped off Wikipedia last summer after you were cleared of false sock charges by LAVABARON, but if you're monitoring your account and can weigh in, I would be very grateful.Zeke1999 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 who I think is the former user "jps" per above.

LavaBaron's behavior was very aggressive and made me feel uncomfortable enough to decide to "drop off." He put in a TBAN request because I disagreed with him. When that failed, he quickly escalated that to a sockpuppet investigation for being "a Zeke1999 reincarnation" based on the premise that because Zeke1999) and others disagreed with him on the same topic, we must all be the same person working at Frank Gaffney's office. After all that, I lost interest in contributing further. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian

While I am retired from any and all content contribution due to a campaign of personal harassment, I assume the perogative to comment when my reputation is impugned and requests not to post on a specific user's talk page are trumped by an editor's right to respond to accusations made against him when they're used to do so. To clarify, you decided to "drop off" after it became clear you were about to be TBAN'ed for a pattern of typically aberrant behavior, including claiming the concoction of a "dastardly conspiracy" [sic] by Barack Obama and claiming you are personally a "refugee from the Soviet Union" [sic]. And, I note, the TBAN proposal has not yet been closed [7]. If you would like the proposal closed (or, "failed", as you say) you should contact an admin such as Doug Weller or Floquenbeam and ask they do so. Also, as I have an off-Wiki/IRL understanding and non-COI intimacy with the CSP, I'm not going to diplomatically pretend you are a separate and unique personality from the typhoon of socks, sleeper accounts, and IP addresses "Dean" is running out of Atlanta, even though I have engaged in the legal fiction of addressing you as separate entities in the past for purposes of wiki-protocol. So consider this a comment to your unified persona (that is, the human operating the keyboard, not the cornucopia of userids). LavaBaron (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Deryck_Chan, Gatoclass , Mail66 cwmhiraeth , PFHLai BlueMoonset , EEng#s , Graeme_Bartett and DHeyward I stumbled upon an ANI discussion today about restoring LAVABARON 's editing restrictions. I noted the discussion said LAVABARON has retired. I am writing to let you know he resurfaced yesterday to post the above wild and inexplicable comment on my talk page concerning my unblock request.

I cant respond on the ANI page since I've been blocked twice due to false sockpuppet charges lodged by LAVABARON to suppress points of view that differed from his. Although this editor has repeatedly made these claims and compiled a long sock puppet investigations page on this, all of these charges are false. They are an example of POV railroad. I note above that two of these charges were dropped last summer as groundless. They all should have been dropped. I have no idea what many of the things he said in his comment above means.

I don't expect my unblock appeal will succeed. Although two other users on this page seem to agree with me, two admins strongly side with LAVABARON. These admins keep insisting I cant raise concerns about others when appealing a block and have faulted me for pinging other users to weigh in on my behalf. So how does one challenge a block that is completely unjustified due to a serious of false accusations by a single editor? I'm not going to apologize or take responsibility for something I didn't do.

I'm writing to you because (1) the above comment by LAVABARON demonstrates the kind of behavior by editors that Wikipedia should not be tolerating (2) I believe LAVABARON's behavior abusing Wikipedia rules to shut down other editors is a far more serious violation than the incidents that led to his recent editing restrictions and (3) the remote possibility that one of you might look into my case. Thank you.Zeke1999 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Just looked up POV Railroad, and that describes my experience perfectly. He used almost every trick in that article. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian

One of the most common reasons to deny an appeal is when the appellant blames others. Or recruits editors to do the same. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller , yes, I'm aware that you're not supposed to blame others in appealing blocks, accept what you did, and pledge to do move on and make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Therefore, instead of just complaining that the block was unwarranted, I tried to keep this in mind by offering to agree to restrictions for six months as a good faith measure, try not to not re-litigate this and pledge to move on to help Wikipedia in certain areas I named. After you and Floquenbeam appeared to reject my arguments, I thought it was appropriate to ping others who weighed in on this dispute before. As I said, I prefer to put this behind me and move on. Zeke1999 (talk)

Doug Weller, I'm not blaming others for blocking Zeke1999, I'm describing my own experience of having to fight back a false narrative that I'm "a Zeke1999 reincarnation." That experience leads me to the opinion that Zeke1999's sockpuppet ban was likely based on a false narrative as well. Blaming Zeke1999 for the opinions of others is a bit unfair. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian

Doug Weller I vaguely recall the aforementioned interaction I had regarding Zeke1999. My initial recall is that some of the accusations made against Zeke1999 were unfounded. I'm currently residing on a small island in the Dutch Caribbean hoping to capture some bird images for WP articles, and will be out-of-pocket for a few weeks, otherwise I'd be happy to research the links that supported my initial summary. All I can do right now is hope that my opinion will hold some weight in this discussion because I think it's only fair to AGF in Zeke's case as the evidence actually does speak more in his favor than not. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Response

I initially deleted the above post by LAVABARON and asked him to stay off my talk page. However, I restored it because it explains what this block is really about. I've been repeatedly blocked because a single user keeps making such false and over the top allegations. I don't know what most of these things mean. Who is Dean? He says he has an "an off-Wiki/IRL understanding and non-COI intimacy with the CSP" (The Center for Security Policy). What does that mean? What is an IRL? Why would someone come out of wikipedia "retirement" to write such a post on the talk page of a blocked user? Floquenbeam , this is the main reason I didn't want to "re-litigate" this. I figured this user would return and resume this type of behavior. These kinds of attacks are why I dropped off Wikipedia last December. Its frustrating to have to read and respond to this kind of stuff.

To repeat, I ask my account be unblocked so I can write on the narrow set of issues I listed above for six months. I agree to stay off LAVABARON's talk page. LAVABARON, please stay off mine. I'd like to add quality content to Wikipedia, avoid conflict and move on. I hope there is an admin who will look past the last post and give me this opportunity.Zeke1999 (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You copied LavaBaron's longer post twice, I've deleted the one you added in the wrong place. He also pointed to the ANI discussion[8] but you deleted that post. I agree with him that any Admins considering unblocking you should read that. IRL means "in real life". I'll also link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999/Archive. By the way, LavaBaron explains why he came out of retirement to respond here. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I re-posted LAVABARON's reply to the wrong place. I also didn't mean to delete the ANI link. I stand by what I wrote in this ANI discussion and strongly disagree with some of Baramop's statements. I call for reviewing admins to read all of this discussion. I don't know who Baramop is and have never had anything to do with him or her. My hope is that reviewing admins will realize this after reading the ANI link. Zeke1999 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Final comments from me (Floq):

To be clear: I did not block Zeke1999 because LavaBaron told me to. Zeke is not blocked because someone railroaded him; Zeke is blocked because 10 months ago I was convinced he was using a sock puppet. Not harmlessly, but to further a dispute.

People coming here to chime in that they don't like LavaBaron aren't helpful, because it doesn't matter if LavaBaron is a good editor or a bad editor. Zeke isn't blocked because LavaBaron is difficult to deal with, he's blocked because he used a sock puppet in a dispute.

Now, if some admin had decide to unblock per WP:OFFER, even if it was 5 months since the last incidence of socking instead of 6, I wouldn't have objected. I would have thought it a little bit of a mistake to allow someone who had clearly been socking to return without admitting it ("relitigating it", in Zeke's terminology), but it would not have been a big deal. But the conduct I see here, particularly the constant attempts to focus blame for the original block on LavaBaron instead of Zeke, shows me that there will be no change in the battleground behavior, so I more strongly recommend the reviewing admin simply decline this. If the reviewing admin disagrees, however, and wants to try a topic ban/interaction ban instead, I'll specifically say here I don't mind if they unblock without talking to me further first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. I repeat that I ask my account be unblocked so I can write on the narrow set of issues I listed above for six months. I promise there will be no battlefield behavior. I want to avoid further conflict. I want to move on and make positive and productive contributions to Wikipedia. If I was this mad, super puppetmaster, why would I bother trying to have this account unblocked? Zeke1999 (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Counter-proposal to unblock request

Floquenbeam and Doug Weller - In light of the decision of a blocked editor to use its Talk page as a forum to engage in lobbying against me [9], I counter-propose that, pending a final decision on the unblock request, the block against Zeke1999 be modified to a hardblock, that an autoblock be added, that Zeke1999 have its ability to edit its own talk page restricted indefinitely, and that its account settings be modified to prevent it from sending email. This counter-proposal offers relatively light and reasonable restrictions as they should only slightly impede the ability of the master operator to continue to use its multitude of other accounts [10] to campaign against me, as it has in the past and will undoubtedly continue to do so, and will be neutralized should a subsequent admin decide to grant the unblock request in any case. LavaBaron (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If Unblocked

I know I've argued hard here to get unblocked. I therefore think I need to answer the question on what will I do if I am unblocked.

I don't plan to do a lot of writing on Wikipedia. As stated earlier, I agree to only write on these topics for the next six months: nuclear proliferation, biological weapons, Middle East, Russia, China, Japan, World Bank, and spy agencies/personnel. I will avoid conflict. No ANIs. No talk page arguments. No criticism of other editors and no interaction with LAVABARON.

I made a limited number edits last fall before I was blocked a 2nd time last December that are representative of what I want to do on the Hugh Montgomery [[11]] , Charles Lichenstein [[12]] and Mark Dubowitz pages [[13]] . In each case I added non-controversial and sourced content to improve and correct these pages. This is the kind of content I will produce if unblocked.

Thank you for your consideration.Zeke1999 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Oct 24, 2016

I have withdrawn my unblock request. I may file a new request in a few months. Thank you Ocdgrammarian and Atsme for weighing in on my behalf. Zeke1999 (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

Zeke1999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I respectfully request the block that was placed on my account 12 months ago be lifted. I understand the reasons for this block and pledge that my account will not be used for such activity in the future. If unblocked, I plan to use my account to add value to Wikipedia on arms control and national security issues. Thank you.Zeke1999 (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm fairly convinced that you weren't socking. Whether it was meatpuppetry or not is probably not possible to determine, but whether intended or not, you were parroting the POV views of other editors in a disruptive manner. Based on the disruption caused by the POV editing, I'm declining this unblock request. I believe a continued block prevents likely damage to the encyclopedia from continued POV editing, and you would need to convince another administrator otherwise before you're likely to be unblocked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

• @Floquenbeam: Do you have any comments on unblocking at this point? I'm inclined to do so, possibly with certain conditions. I don't find the evidence particularly convincing given the lack of compelling technical evidence and the prevalence of POV editors in the topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see some expansion on "my account will not be used for such activity in the future", particularly regarding the passive voice and regarding what activity, specifically, the account will not be used for. Huon (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. My account has been accused of abusing multiple accounts. I pledge that my account will never engage in such activity. I would like to add value to Wikipedia and will try do so if unblocked. Thanks Again. Zeke1999 (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I already commented about this in October 2016, in depth, but that was removed by Zeke1999 and not restored. You should read the removed section, BU Rob. This new request is just Zeke1999 parroting what a couple of people recommended he say. I think unblocking Zeke1999 - ever - would be a mistake, but Wikipedia has a habit of eventually caving in to POV pushers and sockpuppeteers if they just keep saying please long enough, so I imagine he'll be successful sooner or later. I am not going to waste my time saying the same thing over and over, have it removed from the page, and then having the same question asked again in a few months. Do whatever you think best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I withdrew my last unblock request when it was not acted upon by admins. You can view this request [here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zeke1999&diff=745953588&oldid=745953377] My current unblock request was submitted in response to criticism about my previous unblock request and per the WP Standard Offer. I respectfully ask my account be unblocked so I can contribute value to Wikipedia. Zeke1999 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I know it will be tough for you to unblock me in light of Floquenbeam's comments. I also realize that the [Unblocks are Cheap] and [Standard Offer] concepts are unpopular with many admins and that blocked users are not entitled to be unblocked. If you agree that the reasons for this block are legitimate and warrant a permanent ban, then there is nothing more I can say. What I can say is that I give my word that my account will never be used for sockpuppetry and I am asking that it be unblocked to contribute value to Wikipedia. I recognize the reason for the block. I'm not blaming others or criticizing anyone over it. Thank you for your consideration.Zeke1999 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This whole "My account will not be used for such activity in the future" bit is more than a tad confusing. Are you now stating that you did engage in sockpuppetry? If so, please provide a complete list of past accounts. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: , I tried to write my current unblock request in response to negative feedback on my last unblock request and the Standard Offer provisions. I thought that meant not arguing over the past, recognizing the reason for the block (regardless of whether I agreed with it), not blaming others, and committing to not engaging in the future in the activity cited by the admin who imposed the block. I also committed to adding value to Wikipedia. But since you asked, I have never engaged in sock puppetry or meat puppetry. Never. I explained this in depth in my last unblock request. While I am not withdrawing the arguments I made in my last unblock request, I have come to the conclusion that arguing over this is counterproductive. Thanks again for your consideration. I hope this explanation is acceptable.Zeke1999 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Outside observer viewpoint (I have no connection to the topic or the parties, other than I responded through WP:FRS to a recent RfC at Talk:Frank Gaffney and got curious about the drama evident higher up the page). I agree with the comment toward the end of Zeke1999's sock investigation archive that it looks more like similar people with the same viewpoint. I would bet it's the result of political commentary on social networking. For example, if I were to go on Facebook and write "Man, I can't believe how bad the Wikipedia article on [insert politician or pundit here] is, because [details]", you would probably see a spike in similar edits at the article by anon and new or barely-active account edits all from in and around Oakland, radiating out to San Francisco and other nearby areas. I think the WP:TIGER/WP:ROPE principle could apply here. The key would be the directive from the original unblocking admin JamesBWatson (see present top of talk page): '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.'

All that said, it is clear to me as a centrist that there is in fact a considerable leftist PoV wave being pushed on those and similar articles, including a desire to brand Gaffney as professionally just "a conspiracy theorist" and deny that he's a writer/podcaster by profession whose views have been labeled conspiracy theory (including by conservatives, the point that Zeke1999, Baramop, and Baramop's socks had been getting wrong, and why their input at those articles have been unhelpful). Because of their march-step nature, any far-right pushback at such articles is liable to sound similar regardless who says it, and lead individualistic leftists to file false sockpuppetry reports about what amounts to editing by different people with the same ideology and same approach to it. I see this same dynamic play out daily on my Facebook feed, with most of the conservative comments being cookie-cutter propaganda, while many of the far-left ones are wildly divergent from each other, besides their censorious political correction. (This difference playing out on larger scales is why Brexit and Trump happened; the left factionalizes, the right condenses.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: , Thanks again for considering my unblock request. While I'm sorry you didn't unblock me, I’m grateful that you are fairly convinced that I wasn’t socking. In response to your comments and @SMcCandlish: ‘s , I would like to point out that I did abide by the advice of JamesBWatson -- when he lifted my 1ast block on 11/19/15 -- “to stay away from Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy” pages. I have not made any edits to these pages since he lifted the first block. I did make a few edits to other pages between the first block and the current block, imposed on 12/11/15. I don't think you would find any of them controversial or "POV-pushing." Here are some examples: Hugh Montgomery [[14]] , Charles Lichenstein [[15]] and Mark Dubowitz [[16]]

I did, however, allow myself to get dragged back into the disputes @SMcCandlish: discussed above concerning the Gaffney and CSP pages. I made edits to my talk page (see above) concerning the Gaffney and CSP pages on December 9, 2015 in response to a request by Baramop and a notification of another unwarranted sock investigation on December 8, 2015. I also joined an ANI complaint concerning the Gaffney page begun by Baramop. (See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907 ) In retrospect, joining this ANI discussion was a serious mistake, although I suspect I would have been blocked anyway in response to the false sock charges.

I plan to file another appeal of this block and may eventually ask to go to ANI or arbitration. While I have my faults as a WP editor, I am willing to address them. I also remain concerned, echoing @SMcCandlish: above , that false sockpuppetry charges are being used by editors to silence viewpoints with which they disagree.

Given that I've been blocked for a year, I am hoping an admin will simply unblock me and allow me to try add value to Wikipedia as I promised on lower profile, non-controversial topics. I would be willing to agree to conditions for an unblock. @BU Rob13: and @SMcCandlish: , I welcome your advice.Zeke1999 (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

My honest advice would be to stay way from politics articles and bios of politicized figures, and pick something radically different instead, like 1940s movies, species of crustaceans, the geography of New Jersey, indigenous peoples of Brazil, cowboys, or whatever. WP is like an arcade with a million games; you don't have to play Galaga and only Galaga every time you come in. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, @SMcCandlish: restricting my account to crustacean-only pieces might be acceptable. However, the American Crustacean Society is a tough audience. :-) Zeke1999 (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, those damned exoskeletons.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Atsme and Ocdgrammarian : FYI. Foiled again! Best regards, Zeke1999 (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

Zeke1999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I respectfully request a Standard Offer to have the block placed on my account 12 months ago be lifted. The reason for this block was sockpuppetry. An administrator who reviewed and recently declined my unblock request also cited POV editing. I understand these reasons for blocking my account and ask for an opportunity to prove that I want to be a productive Wikipedia editor. I pledge that my account will not engage in such activity in the future. The reviewing editor also said above: "I'm fairly convinced that you weren't socking. Whether it was meat puppetry or not is probably not possible to determine, but whether intended or not, you were parroting the POV views of other editors in a disruptive manner." I also want to state upfront that the blocking editor opposes this block be lifted. See these diffs from above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zeke1999&diff=755148872&oldid=755083617 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zeke1999&diff=744467559&oldid=744466696 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zeke1999&diff=744004023&oldid=743888370 I acknowledge that I could have handled my prior unblock request better. I'm not questioning anyone's good faith or blaming others. I'm just asking for a chance to make a positive contribution per the Standard Offer. If unblocked, I plan to use my account to add value to Wikipedia on arms control and national security issues. I'd be willing to consider conditions for this unblock. Thank you for your consideration.Zeke1999 (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining this unblock request solely on the grounds that it has sat open since 2016-12-28 and no administrator has seen fit to lift the block. That is, you have failed to convince any administrator to lift the block and there's no longer any reasonable hope that this particular unblock request will lead to an unblock. This is without prejudice. You are welcome to make another request with a more compelling justification. Yamla (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

@Floquenbeam:@Rob:@JamesBWatson:@Huon: I have read through this thread, and note the opinions of the editors I am now pinging. I am minded to allow an unblock here, with tight interaction and editing restrictions as suggested above; but as some editors whose opinions I respect are not in favour of this I would appreciate more direct feedback before taking action. The view of any other uninvolved (or involved) admin would be welcome, please. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've commented as much as I want to (helpfully linked in unblock request); whatever you decide is OK with me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It might be beneficial, given the past issues, to make sure that "arms control and national security issues" don't turn out to be "Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy". Other than that, no objections. Huon (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I can agree to that.Zeke1999 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: I am willing to go along with an unblock, on the understanding that the comments above apply. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note I won't comment on this request, other than to note that, during the previous requests that have been made there was a general consensus that any unblock should be accompanied by an indefinite, one-way IBAN on any contact, however slight, with me due to the absolutely horrendous manner in which I was treated - over an extended period of time - by the socks linked to Zeke1999, including repeated accusations of Anti-Semitism [17] and (much) worse. Whether or not they were socks, or it was all a rolling series of errors by a lot of blocking admins, I can't say, however, I strongly plead that any consideration of an unblock be accompanied by a TBAN on all topics related to Frank Gaffney, the Center for Security Policy, and all current and former staff of the CSP, as well as an IBAN on any interaction with me. I spent a year of my WikiLife being pounded on all sides from a dozen different accounts (all of which are now blocked as socks) with no respite or relief. I've found new joy editing Wikipedia without being constantly run-up to ANI by the account-du-jour as an Anti-Semitic child pornographer and would very much treasure the opportunity to keep it that way. LavaBaron (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"The best apology against false accusers is silence and sufferance, and honest deeds set against dishonest words." --John Milton. Zeke1999 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:I attempted to get an opinion from you regarding an unblock here, but entered you name incorrectly. I would be grateful for your response to my earlier post. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: I remain opposed to an unblock. The quote above by John Milton is not a collaborative attitude, and I see the unblock request as extremely vague. It says all the things we want to hear without demonstrating any understanding of what exactly the problem was. "I understand these reasons for blocking my account and ask for an opportunity to prove that I want to be a productive Wikipedia editor. I pledge that my account will not engage in such activity in the future" isn't objectionable due to its content but due to its lack of content. How do we know Zeke understands what aspects of his editing were at issue? I seriously doubt he does.

If Zeke is unblocked over the objections of multiple administrators, I would encourage a topic ban from "conspiracy theories and theorists" as well as "Islamic extremism or terrorism", both broadly construed. This covers Frank Gaffney and the CSP, but it also covers other similar groups and individuals. I don't see a narrow topic ban as sufficient. I oppose an interaction ban here because I oppose all interaction bans, but there should be an understanding that any harassment or hounding will result in a swift indefinite block. I especially oppose one-sided interaction bans, as they can be easily gamed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Having sought and received opinions I do not propose to ignore them. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"any edits related to" might be a good idea also, just to make it a bit more specific. If he won't agree to that... Doug Weller talk 15:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

2017

@Anthony Bradbury: There appears to be no movement here. What were your final thoughts? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: and @Yamla: -- @Anthony Bradbury: says on his talk page that he is on a "short wikibreak." I'm content to wait until he returns. Zeke1999 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I do not oppose Zeke1999 being unblocked and, assuming there is a single TBAN on Frank Gaffney and organizations with which he's involved, would in fact support such unblocking. LavaBaron (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I could be damned if I do or damned if I don't here. My last comment here was intended to indicate that, having received more than one negative response to my query re unblocking, I did not propose to ignore these comments; I thought that this was a clear statement of my intention not to unblock. It was not, however, a categorical refusal; in essence, it was a rare example of me passing the buck. Having done so I feel it inappropriate to re-assume the position of decision maker. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)