Franzboas

Nomination of Weimerica for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Weimerica is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weimerica until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sock

Hi, Franzboas. Lurking at Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory, I noticed Rockypedia pointed out you're an obvious sock and you responded rather coyly by pointing to WP:SOCK#LEGIT.[1] SOCK#LEGIT lists lots of reasons for using a sock legitimately. I invite you to explain which reason you think applies to you. Also, did you see where SOCK#LEGIT says "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, except where doing so would defeat the point of the account"? Bishonen | talk 16:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: If you can't figure that one out yourself, you may be beyond help. However, if you need a hint, check the reason listed as "Privacy". Franzboas (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Avoiding scrutiny isn't a legitimate reason for socking. Is your main account under any sanctions, please? At the very least, you need to identify this as an alternative account on your userpage. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: What do you mean by "scrutiny"? Avoiding public harassment is certainly a legitimate reason for socking, as is described in the section of WP:SOCK#LEGIT I referred you to. And no, I have read all of the rules and requirements related to legitimate socking and I violate none of them. I've added an alternate account template to my user page. Franzboas (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Under "Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." In what way does your account fit that description? Because right now, it appears you're just pointing to that clause as a way to avoid ID'ing your original account(s), and again, this account made no mention of the fact that you were a sock until after I pointed it out. Plain and simple, you started a sockpuppet account, you tried to hide that fact, but it was so obvious that now you're trying to cover. Rockypedia (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: What other motive are you suggesting I have for using a separate account? I agree that it's obvious that this is an alternate account. That was intentional, specifically to avoid this kind of squabbling. My only minor mistake was that I didn't know that I had to state on the user page that it was an alternate account even if I had reason to use one.

It seems obvious to me why the contributions I've made with this account are contentious and could lead to real-world consequences if made with my other account, so I'm not sure why people question my desire to maintain my privacy. Franzboas (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit, a legitimate alternative account ID's itself as such from the start. This account is a sockpuppet, plain and simple, and you attempted to hide that fact. Now that you've admitted it's a sock, that doesn't make it any less against the rules. As Bishonen already told you, avoiding scrutiny isn't a legitimate reason for socking. You can name the other account or you can face sanctions for socking, which will most likely end in an indefinite block. Your choice. Rockypedia (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: For the third time: I did not know I had to announce the account as an alternate if I was using it for privacy reasons. That rule isn't obvious, and it reduces some of the privacy benefit. I never denied being an alternate account and, once User:Bishonen pointed out the rule to me, I announced it. Regardless, I have not been substantially active on any other accounts since starting this one, nor have I participated in topics or discussions I've participated in with previous accounts, so there isn't any reason to suggest malicious intent. I'm trying to AGF on your part, but it seems like you're just trying to harass and threaten me off the site because you don't like my contributions. Franzboas (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Iff Frankboaz has given real-life details for their main account, for instance on its userpage, which make the person possible to identify, or possible to give a good guess at, then they're not obliged to disclose the connection with this account. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

So a sockpuppeting user can just claim "oh privacy!" and not reveal anything about their previous accounts? Doesn't that strike anyone else as a huge loophole? And when a sockpuppet does invoke the "privacy" shield, which is, by the very definition of the rule, unverifiable, doesn't that affect evaluation of their edits, especially when all of their edits come from, in this case, a very anti-Jewish and pro-white-nationalist POV? It certainly affects it in my view. When this guy claims "I have not been substantially active on any other accounts since starting this one, nor have I participated in topics or discussions I've participated in with previous accounts" I see no reason to trust him as far as I can throw him. It's all BS, as far as I'm concerned. Rockypedia (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: I expect that admins have IP address and browser fingerprinting info that they can use to validate these claims, so it's verifiable. I'm also happy to share my account info with an admin on a private channel if they want me to.

If you want to propose a change to the sock policy, I'm sure there's a place to do so, but please stop harassing me on my talk page if you only have complaints about the policy and the admins' decision. Franzboas (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Franzboa, it would probably be ideal for you to disclose to WP:ARBCOM if this is the case. I had watchlisted your page after the Weimerica AfD because I was confused and thought it might be socking as well. Disclosure of accounts to arbcom, especially in what could be in controversial circumstances is probably best. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greg Johnson (white nationalist)

The article Greg Johnson (white nationalist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your attempted POV edits to Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory

You started a discussion on the talk page, and multiple editors, including myself, Ian.thomson, and Seraphim System have explained to you why your attempted edits are not going to fly. They're POV, they're not quoting reliable secondary sources, and yet you persist in adding them. This behavior is disruptive and if it continues, it will result in a block, although I suspect that will do little good, as you've already admitted that you're using a sockpuppet account, so I don't see what's going to stop you from just abandoning this account and starting a new sock. In any case, your edits, until you achieve consensus otherwise, will not stand. Rockypedia (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: My latest addition, which you keep removing, is a quote from a reliable journal article written by a liberal Jew on a neutral aspect of the Wikipedia article's topic. It really seems like you aren't even looking at the talk page discussions or edits and are just mindlessly obstructing me until I give up. Franzboas (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a flat-out lie. You added: "Scholars do not agree about whether the term "Zionist Occupation Government" uses the word "Zionist" in direct reference to the ideology of Zionism." Where's that in your source? You also completely changed the paragraph which explains the difference between Zionism and the ZOG conspiracy theory in order to try and link the two more closely together, and all of your changes were complete WP:OR, they didn't come from that source you provided. But by all means, go ahead and revert it again, if you feel like blowing through WP:3RR. Rockypedia (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: Are you kidding me? The quote I give says that ZOG-believers consider it based in Tel Aviv. Are you trying to argue that, because of the passing comment of an intersectional feminist, something that's called the "Zionist Occupation Government" and is said by many to be based in Tel Aviv has no linguistic or metapolitical association with the movement of Zionism? Franzboas (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You additions are WP:SYNTHESIS; you're drawing conclusions from a source that just aren't there, but are in your own head. I've said my piece. I'm done with you, because it's obvious to me what your agenda is. There's no place for your crap here, no matter how many sockpuppet accounts you register. Bye. Rockypedia (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read this carefully

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 05:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Juliet Lapidos. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Jewish American journalists

Please read WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS—the policy and guideline to which you were referred on Monday and again on Tuesday. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: "Jewish" can mean either "practicing the Jewish religion" or "being of Jewish descent", as we've discussed elsewhere: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jew

I'll go back and change the articles you had concerns about to refer to the intended definition. Franzboas (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop wiki-lawyering and just read the policy and guideline. It doesn't matter that the word "Jewish" can be ambiguous. We have very clear rules about categorizing articles on Wikipedia, and you must abide by them or you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw you saw fit to lecture Malik Shabazz, a much more experienced editor than you (here)--I think you should probably stop doing that too. Drmies (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Nope, I'm not going to stop giving justification for my edits while people justify their reversions only with ad hominem attacks. The number of edits he's made is irrelevant. Franzboas (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

OK POV warrior, whatever you say--but that Malik is more experienced than you, and a bunch more neutral to boot is a fact, no matter how rude you rudely you make your points. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Eiselen

Hello Franz,

Nice addition on the reference. For what it's worth, if you have an interest in the subject, the fr:Max_Eiselen article has a lot more detail that could be potentially translated into English. Pretty sure that & the German article were where most of the current English article come from anyway. SnowFire (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to notify all 5 people that you cited on your ArbCom case request

When you file an ArbCom case request, you are required to notify the people that you cite as parties to the dispute; in this case, that would be five people. You need to notify all five of them about the case, on their talk pages. And you need to supply the diffs of those notifications in the boxes clearly marked for that in the case request itself. Softlavender (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, there are certain places in Wikipedia where an editor is expected to comment in their own section only, and not to reply to other editors after their comments. Those include requests for arbitration. Your reply to Rockypedia in their section is likely to be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I decided that I should try other resolution methods first (I misunderstood the dispute resolution guide), so I just commented on the arbitration case page that I'm fine with it being declined.

Thanks, Franzboas (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Franzboas, to repeat: You need to notify all 5 people that you cited on your ArbCom case request. Either formally withdraw the request, or notify those five people. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I left a comment on the request about 24 hours ago asking that it be withdrawn. How do I formally withdraw it? Franzboas (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I already got notified, no need to worry.--Biografer (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No, you only said "I'm okay with this being declined." [2]. If you wanted to withdraw it, you should have made a statement there that you were withdrawing it. Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for misusing an alternative account for WP:Advocacy, to push fringe ideas and an obvious agenda.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear, this won't extend to your main account, which is unusual, but I am removing your ability to use this account (or any other you would create) for the purposes you have stated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Just to add, this means that if you try to create another account to make these same types of edits, that would unquestionably be sockpuppetry, and you would have all accounts linked publicly and all accounts blocked. I strongly suggest using only your main account, and if you can't for certain edits, then you can't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• I forgot to add, I have already asked that this block be reviewed at WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I think this is an abomination, but I'm not going to fight it. Not for now, at least.

The depth of the bias here genuinely confuses me. Are you aware that one of the people opposing my edits, an administrator, identifies themselves as a "third-gendered sex worker" on their user page and recently defended using euphemisms like "revolutionary action" for ambushing and assaulting unarmed peaceful conservative speakers? (To ice the cake, that admin can and did look at my log information to identify my main account.) Did you know that much of the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article was written by a user who identifies as an "androgynous British Marxist"? (Amusingly, this image gets passed around on right-wing social media.) Why are these people judged by their individual edits while I am harassed and deemed entirely malicious and unwelcome? Why is an androgynous British Marxist allowed to edit a contentious article about LGBTQ-friendly British Marxists? Are these people not fringe? Or are they just on a fringe that better fits most Wikipedians' tastes? Franzboas (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You weren't blocked because of your opinions--you were blocked because of your edits. I don't know, I think, the editor you're linking here, and I'm not paying much attention to your misconstructing me, but some of us are perfectly capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Not really worried about who is opposing you, didn't really pay attention. You were blocked based on your words, not theirs. To be clear: creating another account for editing these topics is not allowed, you will have all accounts exposed via Checkuser if that happens. Either use your main account or don't edit these areas. It appears that the review at WP:AN is upholding my block. To keep your identity private, it was necessary that I do the block this way. Because of the nature of the block, which is admittedly unusual, and because your real identity should be protected, you will need to appeal directly to Arb. This is the only way you can be guaranteed privacy. This is again, unusual, but I would ask Newyorkbrad pass this along to them with my thoughts on hearing any appeal. Since he is uninvolved, I trust you would agree to that. I would imagine they would review in private to protect your identity. Whatever they decide, I will of course live with and I have faith they will be impartial. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"Not really worried about who is opposing you, didn't really pay attention. You were blocked based on your words, not theirs." No, I was blocked partially based on their words, because the Antifa-sympathizing third-gender sex worker admin supported the ban on WP:AN, along with other fringe leftist editors.

I think you're missing the larger point here. Why are wacky fringe far-left advocates exempted from WP:FRINGE and WP:ADVOCACY? As another example, does this user page imply enthusiastic advocacy? Additionally, might a black Jewish Israeli pornography-enjoying Malcolm X-and-Emma Goldman-and-Alexander Berkman-admiring anarchist struggle to act impartially when reviewing my edits and contributing to the WP:AN discussion of my block?

Has any senior Wikipedia member even tried to defend these standards? Are there actual criteria for classifying editors as fringe or advocates? Franzboas (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not going to play this silly game. You have no idea what diffs I read to decide to block you, although you seem to think you do. I recommend you contact Arb and appeal. Ask for my admin bit on a platter if you like. I don't care, but I get the feeling that your casting aspersions is going to get your talk page access removed or worse. First rule of holes: Once you see you are in a hole, stop digging. Go appeal instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You know what, I have removed your talk page access. Your hateful spewing is just too much. You may appeal directly to Arb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Eh, how sad, and I was about to make friends with this editor... Whenever you get unblocked feel free to ping me, otherwise I can give you my e-mail address.--Biografer (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Claim about the Frankfurt School

I've been meaning to post this for at least a week. You wrote " Did you know that much of the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article was written by a user who identifies as an "androgynous British Marxist"? " But that is completely false. A search by contributions reveals "Found 10 edits by RGloucester on Frankfurt School (0.62% of the total edits made to the page)" Not even 1% of the edits, and if you look at them[3] most were reverting vandalism or removing material. You could have checked that yourself. Doug Weller talk 08:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Indef block on all accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing with any account, by community consensus[4] If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.  Fram (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I would normally have placed the above block notice on your main account, but since that one is unknown, it goes here. You are not allowed to edit the English Wikipedia with any account (or as an IP) until the community consensus is overturned and you are unblocked. That your main account is technically not blocked from editing doesn't change this. Fram (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It is sad that Wikipedia blocking good editors...--Biografer (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic editing is good in what universe? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It was not an anti-Semitic editing. His edit to Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory was fine. His link to it was justified. Anti-Semitism is only in your universe or your head for that matter. I don't see any anti-Semitism in his edits.--Biografer (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, I wish I can vouch for him since I believe that he was just a victim of oppression here. Who can tolerate this sock and anti-Semitic accusations?--Biografer (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I blocked him, the entire community (with very high participation) upheld the block without a single dissent, Arb got the master account to stop editing at all. I would say you are the only person who sees it differently. The only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I feel sad that I didn't voted.--Biografer (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A 2 month old account commenting on this sock's page? Suspicious... EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I know that. I just think that if I would casted my vote maybe the outcome would have been different. Like, maybe I would read the whole thing and come out with my own opinion and maybe change the rest.--Biografer (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Suspicious in what way? Just met this editor a while ago, nothing suspicious about that.--Biografer (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

As I linked, there was no vote. I blocked him. I voluntarily let the community opine on it, but normally, I wouldn't do that and just block and walk away. No one got a "vote". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Well opining is similar to voting, if I am not mistaken. Like, you put that Good block/Bad block or Keep/Delete, etc.--Biografer (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)