User talk:Zwiq

Welcome

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

Welcome!

Hello, Zwiq, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hi Zwiq! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Andre🚐 01:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was a truthful version of events and I already filled an edit warring complaint against the user who kept undoing my edits despite providing numerous sources of info. Zwiq (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Jews for Racial and Economic Justice. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

It was wrong to block me because I was trying to correct someone else's edit warring. I provide plenty of sources for my edit and provided an explanation on the talk page, and proof that the other editor kept reverting my changes despite his reasoning being false. I also did not engage in socking. Which is a strange accusation, as I have only edited under this user name. I believe the other editor has a conflict of interest as well. My IP is not 172.85.41.84 as mentioned by admin

Decline reason:

Edit warring to stop edit warring is not an acceptable justification, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2023 (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.

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not create multiple accounts. I only have this account. Zwiq (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The other account was created after this one was blocked and edited the same topic that you had edit warred in. Pretty clear to me. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2023 (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.

UTRS appeal #81289 is closed.

This needs discussion on user talk page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Attempt

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).

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

Request reason:

I'd like a review of my blocking by a different admin, it doesn't seem just that they can simply assume (wrongly and without evidence) that I have made multiple accounts to edit. The page I edited is about a group that is in the crosshairs of many other people and organizations . Particularly because they have platformed pedophiles and of their stance on the Israel/Palestine War. Also the user who was originally reverting my changes also seemed to have a conflict of interest with that page. Everything I wrote was factual.

Decline reason:

Well, there is evidence, and I know even though I cannot access it myself that both the admin who blocked you and the one who declined your last unblock request do have access to that evidence. They are just not allowed to share it publicly, not even with those they block (and, really, why should they? We should not have an effective anti-sockpuppetry policy were we to casually share that evidence with every single user we block for sockpuppetry).

The rest of your request, and what you wrote below, is irrelevant to why you were blocked, regardless of the efforts you may have gone to to convince yourself that it isn't. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2023 (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.

Zwiq (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also there was an influencer at the time making many people aware of the events surrounding the group's controversial event. Zwiq (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am writing to appeal my block on the grounds of sockpuppetry and edit warring. I understand the seriousness of these issues and want to address them clearly:

Sockpuppetry: I acknowledge that there was another account involved in the same editing disputes. However, I genuinely only operate this account. I understand that multiple accounts involved in similar disputes can be concerning, but I assure you that I did not create or use any additional accounts to edit the disputed content.

Edit Warring: I regret that my actions led to edit warring. My intention was to correct factual inaccuracies, but I recognize that engaging in edit warring is against Wikipedia’s guidelines. I will refrain from engaging in such disputes in the future and seek mediation or other dispute resolution mechanisms instead. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s editing policies and would greatly appreciate the opportunity to contribute constructively to the project.

I am open to any conditions or guidance you may provide to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Thank you for considering my appeal.

Decline reason:

4/4 AI-detectors consulted agree that this request was produced by an LLM. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 16 October 2024 (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.

Zwiq (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]