Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (5th)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Bear and Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yossiea (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:Bear and Dragon is editting the same pages as user Daniel575. In addition, both live in Jerusalem, both are orginally from Zutphen in the Netherlands and both speak the same languages. Furthermore, both use the same style in editting and getting their point across. Here is the link the Daniel575's userpage with the relevant information: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel575&direction=next&oldid=64251914 In addition, on B&D's userpage he states "I have previously edited on Wikipedia" that is an open admission of violating one-username policy.
- Comments
Daniel575 has been banned several times already, this is the 5th case submitted. Yossiea (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not made a single edit anywhere which was in any way disruptive to Wikipedia. I have done an awful lot of work (just check what I did yesterday on List of hospitals in Netherlands, for example), reverted vandalism, participated in some useful discussions, and have only had a positive role on Wikipedia. A careful look at my contributions will show this. I also refer to my user page. I am here to have a positive role on Wikipedia. I do not care about 'blocks'. I will remain on Wikipedia, not to disturb it but to improve it. And nobody will prevent me from removing incorrect information from Wikipedia.
- I wish that other users, such as Yossiea, would also focus on improving Wikipedia rather than launching witch-hunts against other users. Even other editors have used the term 'witch-hunt' to refer to Yossiea's behavior against me.
- None of my edits under this name, nor under my previous username, nor under the username before that and nor under the username before that, warranted even a warning, let alone a block. It is merely Yossiea's witch-hunt which keeps me from getting blocked. I am currently - again - on Wikipedia with the silent approval of multiple unnamed administrators, who are aware of who I am, aware of the fact that my main username -Daniel575- has been blocked in the past. I intend to use this account to show that I am in no way disruptive to Wikipedia and merely wish to have a positive influence here, making useful contributions. I maintain all guidelines of WP:ATT, have not ever disturbed another user, and am monitoring several frequently vandalized pages to revert vandalism and maintain NPOV there (mainly Israel, in which I was also involved in the past under my main account).
- Yossiea's reason for hating me and launching continuous witch-hunts against me is my involvement with fiercely anti-Zionist Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish groups such as Dushinsky and Satmar. Yossiea himself identifies with Kach, a fanatical Zionist group. He intends to punish me for not being Zionist. Regarding this, I must mention that despite the fact that I myself am anti-Zionist, I do maintain NPOV and continuously defend the Israel article from anti-Israel bias, as other users involved with that page - mainly User:Amoruso and User:Okedem - will readily confirm. Yossiea is launching a personal witch-hunt against me, merely because I am not a fanatical Zionist.
- Since there is no place where I can complain (after all, I cannot even contact the ArbCom), I will probably end up getting banned into eternity. However, this does not bother me in any way. I am not looking for fame, just for ways to improve Wikipedia. After writing the largest part of the above, I edited the Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) article to remove tens of typos and small mistakes there.
- Next, I would like to refer to some highly insulting comments Yossiea made about me before my main account was blocked. See [1] where he accuses me of 'Jerusalem syndrome'. Basically he is calling me a psycho, there.
- I refer also to this: [2],
- When I previously complained about this (at a point where, due to Yossiea, I was intending to forever abandon Wikipedia since I got sick of his stalking me): [3].
- In this case, Yossiea intentionally inserted plainly incorrect information (which constitutes vandalism) merely because *I* had correct the previously incorrect verson: [4] (moreover, Hasidim are *by definition* Haredim, since Hasidism is a subgroup of Haredim, just like Georgians are a subgroup of Americans and just like Parisians are a subgroup of the French).
- I request that this case be transferred to the ArbCom before I get blocked again. The reason why I got blocked had nothing to do with the fight between me and Yossiea. I was blocked because I had written a very untactical and impolite comment - and had written and confirmed it multiple times - about Messianic 'Jews' being subject to the death penalty. (Even though this is a merely theoretical thing, since the Jewish death penalty has not existed for about 2000 years, people mistook me for calling for actual violence against them here.) I regret that comment and the entire situation and would not repeat that mistake. My comment was not intended to incite to violence and I regret the fact that it caused such a severe misunderstanding. I apologize for that, and point to the fact that with all of my subsequent accounts - 5 by now - I have only made normal, regular, positive contributions to Wikipedia - and I also refer to the fact that each time, it was Yossiea who 'found' me and came pressing for me to be blocked again.
- That is all I have to say. --Bear and Dragon 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, he admits that he is the same user, and that he obviously doesn't care about Wikipedia policies. What is also disturbing is that he has confirmed that there are some administrators that also don't care about policies. I haven't read the rest of his manifesto because I see no reason to. He is a sockpuppet, he admitted as such and anything short of banning him will just show that his bullying tactics is a way to get around Wiki policies. In addition, the person who called this a witch hunt is a rogue administrator, secondly, I don't identify myself with Kach. Thirdly, over the past couple of weeks I have made over a hundred edits reverting vandalism, so his claim that all I'm here for is to witch-hunt him is laughable, but again, regardless of claims or defenses, he admitted to being a banned user. That is against the rules. Yossiea (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yossiea, both you and Meshulam attacked me and Daniel for not being zionists, (see Talk:Haredim and Zionism). Your bugging Doniel for personal attacks, and while that may be true, you and meshulam are doing the same thing to me and Doniel, so stop being hypocritical, Assume Good Faith and please stop your attacking. --Shuli 13:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I attack anyone for not being a Zionist? Secondly, I don't need to Assume Good Faith with a sockpuppet account. Yossiea (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have anything to do with this conversation, and yet I've been dragged in by some editor with a taste for POV, and a bone to pick. I'm only responding because I have been attacked.
- With respect to the sock-puppet claim, Daniel575 has admitted what anyone who was paying attention could have figured out: that he and "Bear_and_Dragon" ("Bear") are one and the same. That's a violation of Wikipedia policy that immediately results in a permanant ban. Nothing else needs to be said regarding that issue. Daniel has made what he imagines is a good case for reinstatement. Of course, he should know that he can be reinstated after a year of his original ban if the admins deem it appropriate. He also should know that the fact that he has now made four or five sockpuppets demonstrates that he has no desire to follow Wikipedia policy, though he does seem intent on "improving" Wikipedia according to his definition of the word. This lack of regard for policy should be taken into consideration when the time comes. That time is not now. He is still within the year, and should be banned in accordance Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, why have rules?
- The main reason why I'm responding here is because "Shuli" has attacked me. I mention Daniel only because he is the subject of this page. I looked at the page that Shuli pointed to (Haredim and Zionism). There is nothing there that I wrote that could even remotely qualify as an attack. In fact, on several instances, I was the sole defender, or one of very few defenders, of the Satmar position, and the Neturei Karta position. My qualms with Daniel and with Shaul Avrom (Shuli) were with their pushing of a narrow POV, to the exclusion of everything else. In numerous places throughout the talk-page in question, I stated emphatically that my opinion (and theirs) was irrelevant, and that only verifiability and NPOV was relevant. They responded by asserting that (despite the lack of evidence) their position was True (with Big-T). I took exception with that position because it is against Wikipedia's policy. I ask Shuli to point out a single instance where I attacked him. I assure the one or two people reading this fun little page that he will not be able to do so. I'll further comment that I have shown what I believe to be incredible restraint given that Daniel575 on a few occasions said I should perish for me deeds and that I'm "worse than [basically every bad thing in Daniel's world]." Rather than attack me without cause, perhaps Shuli should give credit where it is due.
- If it helps, I think Daniel was pretty corrosive to Wikipedia's atmosphere. And I frankly believe that it is beyond his ability to change that fact, even if he wanted to (which he clearly doesn't). I hope that Admins terminate this new incarnation quickly.--Meshulam 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is nothing being done about this? If you check out his userpage, he is openly mocking Wikipedia policies. This CANNOT continue. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a bully pulpit. His defenses are irrelevant, he is a sockpuppet, he admits to such and he needs to be banned. He will never learn his lesson. There is a reason why we're up to report #5. According to WikiPolicy: "The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended." Yossiea (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Report submission by
Historian2 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
It is obvious that Bear and Dragon is the same as Daniel575. He claims as much and is proud of it. The worse part is that he is continuing in his previous editing practices: He does not seem concerned with improving the quality of the page, but rather that through brute force editing to force his particular agenda is the pages.
- For example he added this POV wording to a wikipage about Rabbi Yoel Schwartz
- Another example is insisting that in introducing his own WP:OR and POV in this article about the re-established Sanhedrin
- Additional comments
Regarding the original report, there is no such thing as a "one username policy". Individuals are allowed to have multiple accounts as long as they are not using them abusively. I'd say that per Bear and Dragon's own statements here, it is fairly obvious this is the same individual who previously edited as Daniel575, which would make this account an sockpuppet evading an indefinite block. Because of this I've blocked [[User:Bear and Dragon for the time being. What is less clear is if this individual is actually banned. There is a ban template on Daniel575's userpage, but I can't find evidence of a ban discussion. I'm following up on this because if the individual is indef blocked, I am open to hearing from the individual to determine what should be done next. If banned, this situation is resolved with the indef block.--Isotope23 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that would be on Daniel's deleted talk page. He most certainly was banned, IIRC, he was threatening other users, and ElC put the indef block on him.Yossiea (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was Daniel banned originally? looking at the last argument he was getting into, he didn't seem so irrational... --Yodamace1 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He expressed an unpopular religious position that involved the death penalty. This case does not belong at RFCU. There's nothing to check. He's being open and obvious. -- Y not? 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where can I find the records of conversations relating to his ban records and, if need be, dispute the ban? --Yodamace1 07:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He expressed an unpopular religious position that involved the death penalty. This case does not belong at RFCU. There's nothing to check. He's being open and obvious. -- Y not? 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was Daniel banned originally? looking at the last argument he was getting into, he didn't seem so irrational... --Yodamace1 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Bear and Dragon has already been blocked for block evasion. In the future, if another SSP report is filed, please keep the report short. There is no need to get involved in long discussions with a sockpuppet. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]