User talk:Ex-Homey

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Felonious should read AN/I. The restriction on editing only in ArbComm cases has been lifted. As for retagging "sockpuppets" as "alternate accounts" see User:Lastexit. If Fred agrees with Jay that the sockpuppet tags should remain I will respect that but it is not Jay's decision as he is in a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, I will leave them be until and unless Fred says otherwise.

Decline reason:

Both Fred and Simon, who supported the unblock, support this block, and the edits were not non-controversial, which goes against Fred's condition of “to edit with quietly.” --Avi 13:41, 14 August 2006 (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.

ACJC

• Perhaps, but I don't see why it should have a place on the articles which you've put it in. Assuming that the organization actually is notable (which I disagree with), I'm sure even you'll agree that it has not (yet) played a role in "Canadian Jewish History". Perhaps an argument could be made for its inclusion in the CJC article (though even that's a stretch since they're not affiliated), but I think you'd be hardpressed to legitimate including it as an important part of Canadian Jewish Community. -- pm_shef 22:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet are sockpuppets

Your harassment of Mantanmoreland is irrelevant to how they are tagged. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What Mantanmoreland does is not relevant to your sockpuppeting. Mantanmoreland does not set Wikipedia precedent or policy, nor do his actions give you "rights". I've tagged your sockpuppets, and don't revert those tags. Also, don't dissemble by pretending that Sonofzion is a suspected sockpupppet of Dervish Tsaddik, rather than an identified sockpuppet of you. Is this the kind of disruptive "editing" you intend to do now that you have been released to wreak further havoc in all areas of Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland set no precedents. Do not abuse the editing latitude that has been provisionally returned to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop editing disruptively; if you have something positive to contribute, then do so. Tagging your sockpuppets as sockpuppets is not a "content dispute", nor are we in any other "content disputes", except the ones you will no doubt try to stir up over the next few days. I await your various reverts on the articles I've been editing. And don't bother spreading your FUD on my Talk: page any more, it has stopped fooling people. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, again

Fred Bauder unblocked you so you could participate in arbitration, not rv notices on your sockpuppets. I've reinstated your block. FeloniousMonk 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And that restriction has ended, Felonious, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ex-Homey. Ex-Homey 04:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a blank check for you to go out and disrupt the project. Fred Bauder said that part of the reason he was willing to let you edit was that you intended to edit quietly with another account. Instead, you immediately chose to revert notices on your sockpuppets,[1] harass Jayjg on his talk page, [2] and edit the articles that your prior content diputes lead to the arbitration you were unblocked to participate in. [3] I'm certain Fred Bauder did not have your activities in mind when he tentatively lifted the terms of your unblocking. FeloniousMonk 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

(i) It's not proven that the alternate accounts were sockpuppets. (ii) It's not clear to me that Ex-Homey's dialogue with JayJG was "harrassment" (why exactly is JayJG listing Sonofzion as an HotR sock, when this has never been confirmed?). (iii) Ex-Homey is not restricted from editing the articles that led to the current disputes.

Procedurally, I believe Ex-Homey should be unblocked (perhaps with a caution, perhaps not). CJCurrie 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Um, whether the alternate accounts were sockpuppets or even Homey's is hardly the issue. We can't have suspected sockpuppet masters (or confirmed in this case) removing notices from their suspected sockpuppet accounts now can we? Homey already knows this, it having been an issue we discussed previously. Yet he chose to do so as soon as he was free to edit. Sorry, but no, that will not pass muster for not being disruptive.

2) CheckUser established Sonofzion was Homey.

3) Ex-Homey was not unblocked from editing only arbitration matters so he could rekindle long simmering content disputes; based on Fred Bauder's statement I simply refuse to believe that this is what he had in mind in loosening the terms of Homey's unblocking. FeloniousMonk 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(i) Ex-Homey has already said that he's willing to stand by a community decision as regards the alternate accounts. The most that he's guilty of is "jumping the gun" on group discussions, and this isn't sufficient grounds for a block (especially given that the pages in question have already been reverted).

(ii) My understanding is that the result was "likely", not "confirmed". Ex-Homey has, in any case, specifically denied being Sonofzion.

(iii) Bauder may not have had this in mind, but Ex-Homey was not restricted from editing the pages in question. Procedurally, I do not believe that the current block holds water. CJCurrie 05:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the current block. Fred Bauder 09:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As do I. It is only 48 hours, and after that he is free to return. One of my preconditions to his being unblocked was that Homey edit quietly. Even if some of the prosecution is unfair, he needs to realize that he is on very thin ice and anything even mildly controversial should be avoided. If the WP:AN/I discussion proves anything, it is that many users still do respect Homey. If he does want to do something that may generate controversy, such as changing tags or filling a 3RR report, the best course would be to ask someone else to do it. - SimonP 11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Homeontherange there is a big check () which according to WP:RFCU stands for a confirmed sockpuppet, not likley which is a green circle with a plus (). --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Pinchas, scroll down further on Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Homeontherange, you'll see that in fact the checkuser result on Sonofzion originally posted by Jayjg and reviewed by User:UninvitedCompany was  Likely[4] not "confirmed". Jayjg erroneously, our fraudulantly, elevated this to confirmed a few weeks later. Given that Jay has been involved in content disputes with me the fact that he played any role in running a Checkuser on me despite being in a conflict of interest is not acceptable. UnivitedCompany's analysis of the CheckUser results was a conclusion of "likely" and not "confirmed". Ex-Homey 14:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, in fact I didn't 1) harass Jayjg, I disputed his reversion of my tag changes 2) the articles you list are *not* articles that "led to the arbitration", in fact neither CUPE, Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians nor Canadian Jewish Congress were mentioned in the Arbitration Case 3) as for the notices on my alleged sockpuppets I simply implemented the identical change that User:Mantanmoreland implemented on his sockpuppet User:Lastexit.

Anyway, immediately prior to the block I told Jay that if Fred Bauder thought the tags should remain as sockpuppet tags, I'd accept that so the dispute was actually at an end when you stepped in. Ex-Homey 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I had erroenously thought the block was indefinite - I can accept 48 hours but I will be asking the "community" via AN/I to have the sockpuppet tags changed to "alternate account" tags and to at least have the Sonofzion tag downgraded to "suspected sockpuppet". Ex-Homey 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As an added note, I arbitrarily retagged everything listed as my "sockpuppet" without paying too close attention. I see now that User:Schroedinger the Cat was originally tagged as a sockpuppet of Wordbomb[5] and that Wordbomb now claims it as his account [6]. Looking at its history that could well be the case since my computer was compromised at one point via some sort of program possibly sent by email. Ex-Homey 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)