Moetzes

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 17:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have no relation at all to the moetzes of agudat Israel that issued the ruling in question. The word "moetzes" is the transliteration of a common Hebrew term meaning "council". I was never paid by the rabbinical council that issued the ruling. Thus there is no conflict of interest at all. I could have provided this information had it been requested by the administrator who instituted the block. It would be helpful if this misguided block could be removed from my record.

Decline reason:

It's not misguided; your username in combination with your contributions gives the impression, whether correct or incorrect, that you are representing the council you are citing. That's contrary to our policy, which is perhaps overly strict in this regard, but it is our policy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:51, 5 November 2015 (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.

Moetzes, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Moetzes! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

He's back

This blocked user has returned as Council2 (talk · contribs). Look at the two users' contributions. As he wrote above, moetzes is the Hebrew word meaning "council". 107.10.236.42 (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe try reporting to WP:SPI. Datbubblegumdoe^talk_contribs 15:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

See the first post at the top of this page. It was recommended to this user to chose new username. There is nothing disruptive in him registering new account. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Yes, it was recommended that he "create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy" (emphasis added). He failed to do so. He is still editing (as Council2) on behalf of the Moetzes (i.e., Council) of Agudath Israel of America. But please, let's turn a blind eye to what he is doing. 63.116.31.198 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, this single-purpose account did not comply with the username policy. As Council2, he is continuing to spam Wikipedia articles, primarily BLPs, with his organization's POV, often in violation of NOR (because the sources don't mention the subject of the biography). Please take action. Thank you. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for calling attention to this. I shall block the new account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Change of block conditions

The blocking administrator gave you the opportunity to "to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy". You chose instead to create a new account with a username which violated the same policy, in the same way, and used it to edit in ways which made it abundantly clear that you are here for the purpose of promoting a point of view on behalf of the organisation which this account represents. You have also been edit-warring, which is to say repeatedly editing articles to the version you prefer, in an attempt to impose your view of what the articles should say, in the face of clear consensus against you from other editors who have reverted your edits. Wikipedia works by collaboration and discussion, not by individual editors persistently repeating their preferred edits no matter what other editors think, presumably in the hope that eventually the other editors will give up, so that the most stubborn editor gets his or her way. For those reasons, the option of creating a new account which complies with policy has been withdrawn. However, if you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your organisation, and to avoid editing to promote, publicise, or advertise a point of view, you may still request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of this page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

---

Requested username:

brandnewname99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I originally posted the unblock request at the council2 page because I thought that the name "moetzes" was found to be too uncommon by several administrators, and therefore possibly representing an organization. At any rate I hereby place a request for an unblock. The allegations of edit-warring have no basis and on the contrary the edits by two additional editors were in the same direction as mine. Furthermore the material deleted by the blocking adiministrator was actually contributed by a different editor at a closely related page. The IP's accusations simply were not checked properly. I see now that providing this information at AN/I was a mistake, sorry. At any rate the links are here. If necessary I can reproduce them in this space.

Decline reason:

I do not feel that the full reasons for the block have been addressed. It seems like you intend to edit exactly as you did prior to the block. Between that and the multiple sockpuppet accounts after the block, I do not believe an unblock is justified. only (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• You was advised (here) to post an unblock request and ask for a NEW username. You cannot request the "council2" name, as you was already using that username and it was blocked. You have to request a completely new username that would not suggest any connection to Moetzes/Council. You was also told that in the unblock request you have to "convince us that you understand the reason for your block". You did not even try to convince us. I'm afraid this unblock request is not going to pass, but since I'm involved, I'm leaving this to other admins to review. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Any administrator reviewing this unblock request may find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring by User talk:107.10.236.42. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

... now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Edit-warring by User_talk:107.10.236.42. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)