Pfagerburg~enwiki (talk | contribs) →A request: That's me |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
1ac57b5f9230797a12d8695fdb79228e1a6943c7070df01d64ccdfcd40aadd57 [[Special:Contributions/174.29.175.144|174.29.175.144]] ([[User talk:174.29.175.144|talk]]) 05:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
1ac57b5f9230797a12d8695fdb79228e1a6943c7070df01d64ccdfcd40aadd57 [[Special:Contributions/174.29.175.144|174.29.175.144]] ([[User talk:174.29.175.144|talk]]) 05:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
:[http://www.fileformat.info/tool/hash.htm?text=1-2-3+not+me] [[User:Pfagerburg|Pfagerburg]] ([[User talk:Pfagerburg#top|talk]]) 05:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
:[http://www.fileformat.info/tool/hash.htm?text=1-2-3+not+me] [[User:Pfagerburg|Pfagerburg]] ([[User talk:Pfagerburg#top|talk]]) 05:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
::PF, I asked you on July 7 to stop making any edits about Merkey, broadly construed, and I thought you had agreed to that. I'm sorry to see that the situation continues, and I'm afraid I'm going to consider blocking this account indefinitely if you continue to post about him. We can't have a situation where one account is almost dedicated to pursuing one person. I hope you'll give this careful consideration and start using the account for other purposes. <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 06:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:59, 10 July 2010
Dude, are you really using and ordering ATMELs or are you here just for propaganda ?
- Your question is irrelevant to the fact that the observations in the article about supply and willingness to sell small quantities badly violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; that is why they were removed.
- Still, I will respond to your question: yes, I have been using and ordering AVR's for about 10 years now. I used to have an STK200 and STK300, way back when you you needed a different kit for the Mega103 and Mega603, which were the only mega's at the time. I also remember when you could sell AT90S2313's for $20 on ebay because they were in very short supply and someone had designed it into a satellite card hacking device circa 2000/2001.
- More recently, I just finished designing a Mega324P into a piece of automated test equipment for a customer. Pfagerburg (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Af89003a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.253.113.194 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Still here
Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page, but it's better to use e-mail to contact me, or to alert me to something that must be discussed here or other places on-wiki. The e-mail address in my account is active; the "Email this user" link will work. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
rm edits of banned user
After doing two reverts, it dawned on me that maybe I should put the explanation here, instead of duplicating it all over the place. Official WP policy is that "anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." ([1], emphasis mine)
I am slowly removing the edits of various sockpuppets of a banned user. In some edit summaries, I refer to "old edits," which might lead some editors to think that I am reverting everything this user every edited. These "old edits" were still made when the user was blocked (since Aug 2007) or banned (since Sept 2008). I am not reverting any edits made while this user was not under a block or ban. The latest sockpuppet investigation can be found here.
Linuxmdb (talk · contribs)already done before I got to itAmaTsisqa (talk · contribs)already done before I got to it71.219.59.226 (talk · contribs)done (just one article that hadn't been cleaned up yet by another editor)
This one was not part of the SPI, but it is obvious from the articles edited and the content inserted that it is the same sockmaster.
71.219.51.124 (talk · contribs)done
Other sockpuppets are listed in an earlier archived sockpuppet and checkuser requests, and will be dealt with eventually, including
Jvmphoto (talk · contribs)only edits were to talk pages, responses to WP policy actions, and many edits to a now-deleted page. Nothing to do for this sockpuppet.166.70.238.43 (talk · contribs)done, some were already edited out since the original edit in defiance of the ban- 166.70.238.44 (talk · contribs), holy crap that was one profilic sock
ActaeadoneActaea pachypodadoneActaea spicatadoneAlderdoneAlnus rubradoneApocynumdoneAquilegiadoneArnicadoneArnica montanadoneArtemisia tridentatadoneBalsamorhizadoneBetulindoneCastillejadoneCeanothusdoneChicorydoneCicutadoneCicutoxindoneClaytoniadoneClematisdoneClematis ligusticifoliaedited out in the intervening timeConiumdoneCoumarindoneCymarindoneCystolithalready got it earlier while cleaning up another IP sockDarl McBrideedits are too tangled to cleanly revert, and piecemeal reversion opens me to WP:COI claims. Have to leave this one aloneDevil's ClubdoneEpilobium angustifoliumdoneEric E. Schmidtoh yeah, I took care of that one right after it happened.Erodium cicutariumdoneGalium aparinehas been substantially re-edited since thenGalium borealedoneGeranium viscosissimumdoneHydrophyllumdoneJuniperdoneJuniperus communisdoneLarrea tridentatahas been substantially re-edited since thenLithospermumdone- Maianthemum racemosum [2]
- Methyl salicylate [3]
- Mimulus [4]
- Monarda [5]
- Monarda didyma [6]
- Monarda fistulosa [7]
- Montia [8]
Mulleinalready has been edited out- Oplopanax [9]
- Osha [10]
- Osmorhiza [11] only the ref to Mountain Sweetroot remains
Packet capturesomeone else took care of it around the time it happened.- Pasque flower [12]
- Perideridia [13]
Polygonumalready edited outPolygonum bistortoidesalready edited out- Radicchio [14]
Red baneberryalready edited outReikiother editors took care of it at the time- Ribes [15]
Rotenonealready edited out- Rumex crispus [16]
SCO-Linux controversiesanother editor took care of it at the time- Salvia dorrii [17]
Solera networkshe self-reverted 7 minutes later. Odd.- Spiraea [18]
- Stellaria [19]
- Stellaria media [20]
- Stinging nettle [21]
- Streptopus amplexifolius [22]
Talk:Network monitoringleave alone, part of a larger dialogue, correct conclusion was reachedTalk:Packet captureleave alone, part of a larger dialogue, correct conclusion was reachedTalk:Reikisection started by the sockpuppet has been moved into archives, notice at the top of archive pages says not to edit.- Tansy [23]
- Thymol [24]
- Usnea [25]
- Veratrum [26]
- Veronica americana [27]
166.70.238.45 (talk · contribs)done, not many edits from this IP, and some were already reverted166.70.238.46 (talk · contribs)done, some were already reverted or had been edited out69.2.248.210 (talk · contribs)only edits were to talk pages, responses to WP policy actions, and many edits to a now-deleted page. Nothing to do for this sockpuppet.
I've noticed that a few other editors have already taken care of some of the articles. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at user Gbelknap while you're at it. Hasn't edited since 2008, but a fairly obvious sock when you dig into the contribs. 64.139.4.129 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that account is a sockpuppet.
- Searching for the account name and the name of the company in the account's edit history yields a real-world identity which makes perfect sense given the editing pattern - two articles about a technology marketed by his employer, and one article created about said employer.
- Checkuser would be worthless, because the edits are too old for WP to still have the IP addresses. Though I would bet dollars to donuts the edits came from that company's IP address(es).
- The account has behaved itself remarkably well. After creating a page for his employer, he responded properly to the AfD, and has not edited on any other subjects since then. His mission accomplished, he retired from editing.
- Approximately one month after Gbelknap's edits, a certain well-known IP address was all over the company's article, posting claims about litigation in a series of edits. Gbelknap didn't even go back to edit out these claims (i.e. he avoided edit-warring).
- I'm going to pass on Gbelknap; I believe that the account was not controlled by the sockmaster who is at issue here. I'm quite willing to be proven wrong, if someone believes otherwise and can support their argument. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Query
I have undone a few of your reverts on pages that I have on my watchlist. From what I've seen, for the most part, these old edits were cited to reliable sources, concise, with proper grammar and spelling. I don't see any reason to revert these old edits unless there's something I'm missing. Why not just pick out the bad faith edits and revert those without touching the decent ones? Just because Wikipedia policy says we can revert edits of banned users subverting that ban doesn't mean it's the best thing for the encyclopedia to do so. Can you help me understand why you feel you must revert these edits? Rkitko (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. And in this particular case, the part of that policy that says "The measure of a site ban is that even if the user were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." (emphasis in original)
- The user in question has been permanently blocked many times, and brings nothing but grief to the project every time he is able to get himself unblocked. The site ban came only after verified evidence of off-wiki harassment of at least one other editor.
- Other issues (real life tends to get in the way) have prevented me from cleaning up this sockpuppet's violations of a block (and then a ban) until now. I apologize for the delay, and preemptively agree with anyone who wants to state that it would have been better to clean it up when it happened. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that banned users have been banned for a reason and their editing is not to be allowed. But what, now, is the purpose of reverting two-year-old edits that are decently done? Banning and blocking is not meant to be punitive but is instituted to protect the encyclopedia. How is it helping to revert these edits from two years ago? In fact, it might even be perceived that removing these cited paragraphs (mostly cited to a single source, I see) is doing more harm than good. It specifically impacts WP:PLANTS as many of the articles are within the scope of that project. If we want that info back on those articles, we'll now have to do a great deal of legwork to accomplish that. What protective purpose does it serve to undo these edits now? Rkitko (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- After careful consideration, it is my judgment that those edits were an attempt to game the system - either let him flout the rules by leaving the good edits intact, or revert a good edit. The policy spells this out pretty clearly, and says that even "good" edits can be reverted.
- So, the "protective purpose" from my point of view is to show that WP policy applies to all editors, and that no editor has an "agreement" with WP that allows them to ignore policies, or avoid a justly-deserved block or ban.
- I dispute your assertion that there is "a great deal of legwork" to return information to the articles. You're returning all of the information to each article with a single revert, but even if you didn't, the refs are still present in the article history, and it shouldn't be a problem for someone to grab a copy of Tilford and add new content.
- As a show of good faith, I will temporarily refrain from reverting as we continue this discussion.
- I don't disagree that banned users have been banned for a reason and their editing is not to be allowed. But what, now, is the purpose of reverting two-year-old edits that are decently done? Banning and blocking is not meant to be punitive but is instituted to protect the encyclopedia. How is it helping to revert these edits from two years ago? In fact, it might even be perceived that removing these cited paragraphs (mostly cited to a single source, I see) is doing more harm than good. It specifically impacts WP:PLANTS as many of the articles are within the scope of that project. If we want that info back on those articles, we'll now have to do a great deal of legwork to accomplish that. What protective purpose does it serve to undo these edits now? Rkitko (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- N.B. I am talking only about the Mar/Apr 2008 edits to the WP:PLANTS articles. There are a few active socks right now, and I am reverting these as soon as I notice them. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- However, I stand behind the explicit text of the WP policy: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." I don't see any references there to a time frame, or (to raise the issue pre-emptively) a COI on the part of the reverting editor. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Personal Vendetta
This user Paul Fagerburg is on a personal vendetta and should be banned. he filed legal action against Jeff Merkey and is simply on a personal vendetta because the judge dismissed his suit, fined him, and told him to avoid Jeff. As is evident, he is destroying content in Wikipedia for no reason other than personal revenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.116.225 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I called Provo and checked at the Courthouse -- PFagerburg filed a lawsuit against merkey. He should not be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.116.225 (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- <le sigh> Do we really need to go over this again? You just can't seem to get the facts 100% straight, so allow me to straighten them out.
- "filed legal action" - true. After enduring over 1 year of harassment, including telephone calls to my employer, I filed for a Civil Stalking Injunction. The temporary injunction was granted, and then dismissed a few days later when the respondent objected and demanded a hearing.
- "judge dismissed his suit" - true. I misunderstood the nature of the hearing, and brough affidavits rather than witnesses. Since you can't cross-examine an affidavit, the case was dismissed for lack of admissible evidence.
- "fined him" - demonstrably false. The court knows perfectly well where to find me, having mailed items to me in preparation for the hearing, and having called my cell phone. If the judge had fined me, don't you think the court would have told me about it?
- "told him to avoid Jeff" - partially true. The judge asked both parties to refrain from contacting each other. I've upheld the judge's request, and note that it was a request, not an order. If the judge had ordered either party to stay away from the other party, there would actually be an order entered in the case.
- "filed a lawsuit against merkey" - distorts the truth a bit. A lawsuit, a civil lawsuit, has a plaintiff and a defendant. A petition for a civil stalking injunction has a petitioner and a respondent. The court identified the parties as PET (petitioner) and RES (respondent), so technically, it wasn't a lawsuit.
- I didn't make the determination that you and the other accounts are actually Jeff Merkey; administrators decided that based on a sockpuppet investigation and the behaviour of the accounts in question. I happen to agree with their view, but I am not responsible for their conclusion. I will therefore address you as if you are Jeff.
- I have already asked you once before not to contact me. Please stop harassing me; it makes me feel unsafe. Pfagerburg (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This person is involved in legal proceedings with merkey. topic and reversion ban is appropriate. He just posted an attack page in his reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.116.225 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- If I'm "involved in legal proceedings with merkey," that's news to me. The last legal dealings I had with him were concluded in late Dec 2009, the aforementioned civil stalking injunction which was denied after a hearing as explained above. Please stop harassing me; you are causing me to fear for my safety. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A request
Hi Pfagerburg, regarding your recent request for page protection, and the reverting, it would be best if you were to avoid making edits that could be perceived as a COI, in your own interests as much as for any other reason. Please feel free to archive this request once you've read it. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your concern, but I stand by the explicit wording of the policy: "anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." ([28], emphasis mine). I see no references in that policy to a time frame after which the edits cannot be reverted, nor any COI by the reverting editor. Per the policy, when a user is site-banned, their edits are simply not welcome, no matter how good the edits appear to be. I'm amazed that no-one has cleaned these up before now.
- I'm currently abstaining in good faith per a discussion with Rkitko, and I'm also interested in why you think it is important to let stand the edits of someone who showed such utter contempt for the WP community and its policies so many times. Gay arbiters, WTF? Pfagerburg (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know the background to this, so I hesitate to say too much. But in general, if you've gone to the bother of initiating legal proceedings because you felt concerned, and they ended (or somehow came to a halt) in December, it's perhaps unwise after having taken a break from editing to immediately resume an interaction with that person. Looking through your contributions, dealing with that person's edits seems to be a large chunk of what you've done since July 2007.
- That's without comment on the kinds of edits you're reverting, because I haven't looked, but I'm thinking that if they need to be reverted, someone else is likely to do it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Slim, if someone else were going to do it, then there wouldn't be 27 accounts worth of edits that Pfagerburg is currently going through. It's very much like the BLP push a while ago. Everyone else thought that someone else was going to do the heavy lifting... Nobody did. 69.17.50.67 (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, legal proceedings ended in December; as I noted above in response to the IP's harassment and spreading of half-truths, the case was dismissed for lack of admissible evidence. Had I gone to the expense to bring two particular executives from my employer to Utah to testify in-person about the harassing phone calls they received at work about me, I have no doubt that a permanent injunction would have been issued. So it goes.
- I don't consider the reverts to be "an interaction with that person," because he is not present here. Or is not supposed to be present, anyway, due to a siteban. So I'm not interacting directly with him, except to ask someone (whom I believe is him) to stop harassing me through semi-anonymous IP addresses.
- As for my contributions, I think it's been about 50/50, making useful edits to articles, and then noticing that "he's baaaaack" again and taking care of that at the same time. And there was the year-long span when I was blocked on WP and so I edited on Wikibooks, which isn't a contribution to WP per se, but is a contribution to the overall Wikimedia community.
- Regardless, policies apply to all editors, and there are no secret agreements or special statuses which allow any particular individual to violate WP policies with impunity. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I just became aware of your involvement in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, and that you were banned for a year because of a perceived pursuit of the same person. You've made only 180 edits to articles in over four years (530 overall), and many of them appear related to Jeff Merkey, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to stop making any edits that relate to him, broadly construed. In your own interests, never mind the project's, it really would be better for you to spend your time on Wikipedia in some other way. I'm sorry. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to resolve this through AN/I, then. The policy is very clear: "anyone" may revert edits made in defiance of a ban. You're welcome to start the thread, or I will tomorrow. I'm going to bed now. Pfagerburg (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- A decent night's sleep and some time to think about it can make a huge difference. I reluctantly agree with you, SV, and will cease the reverts. If someone else (who is not tarred with the COI brush) chooses to revert the edits, they can do so per policy, and it's their responsibility if admins take exception to it.
- I still think the prohibition on edits by banned/blocked users takes precedence over WP:COI, but I can see that I'm not going to win that argument, so my time will be better spent elsewhere. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, PF, I think that's a good decision. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
1ac57b5f9230797a12d8695fdb79228e1a6943c7070df01d64ccdfcd40aadd57 174.29.175.144 (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- [29] Pfagerburg (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- PF, I asked you on July 7 to stop making any edits about Merkey, broadly construed, and I thought you had agreed to that. I'm sorry to see that the situation continues, and I'm afraid I'm going to consider blocking this account indefinitely if you continue to post about him. We can't have a situation where one account is almost dedicated to pursuing one person. I hope you'll give this careful consideration and start using the account for other purposes. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)