Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (7th)

User:Daniel575 (7th)

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

IZAK 16:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence

Unfortunately has had a long history of abusive editing leading to multiple blocks and bans, subsequent use of sockpuppets, bans and blocks, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel575 for at least six prior proven sockpuppets that have been blocked.

Many editors familiar with Judaic topics on Wikipedia know that User:Daniel575 has returned as but have been afraid to confront him (pathetically, one admin has taken it upon himself to even "protect" him), see comment by User:Yossiea in this regard: "We all know he is (Daniel575), but he has an admin friend, . When I pointed out one of Daniel's sockpuppets, I got yelled at for going on a witch hunt. We know he's Daniel, he's Dutch, check out his edits. It's getting to the point that nobody wants to edit Jewish or Israeli articles anymore because they are not in the mood of getting involved with Daniel and his tactics . If you look at his talk page, Y gives tacit approval of the knowledge that he is indeed Daniel." So much for that.

The main issue revolves around 's abusive language and violation of Wikipedia's rules on a gross scale that mirror exactly the behavior of. He has taken it upon himself to be the "St. George" of Haredi Judaism's "anti-Orthodox" wing slaying the "dragon" of "Zionism" in all its forms in order to save the "maiden" in this case anyone who agrees with his radical POV. User:Daniel and his sockpuppets can be recognized in many negatives ways. One is the curses he throws at those who oppose him. Thus in a recent CFD User:Eidah accused those who oppposed him as:
 * "Zionist heretics who are being controlled by the Soton
 * "the despicable yetzer horo of supporting the impure Zionist lie"
 * "you have sold out to the disgusting traitors and you are working to defend the reshoim" ("reshoim" means "wicked")
 * "All of the groups in this category are VIRULENTLY anti-Zionist"
 * "impure Zionist state and praying for it to be dissolved"
 * "Zionism of any type, religious or secular, is completely false"
 * "the transgression of the so-called 'religious Zionists' is even worse than that of the secular Zionists, because through their actions they aim to justify the acts of the Satan."
 * "'religious Zionists' will face their punishment for that in Gehinnom"

A simple review for July and August of 2007 of User:Eidah's talk page shows his total disregard for Wikipedia's culture of simple co-operation and his willingness to be blocked for his brazen actions. He functions like a Kamikaze:
 * Advice from User:Meshulam: "Careful about the language you use, especially on talk pages...The problem is that your message is easily dismissed if you use inflammatory language to explain your edits."
 * Blocked by User:PinchasC (admin) for 31 hours: "in regards to this post, please review Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and Violating of WP:POINT abuse of editing privileges.
 * Warning from User:Avraham about insults: "For example "
 * Warning from User:Meshulam: "...you're perceived as being a pain, you'll never win an edit war. And a 24 hr block means that everyone gets free reign on the articles in question until you're done. And then if you go back to edit warring, they'll just block you again..."
 * Blocked for 24 hours by User:MastCell: "for violating the three-revert rule at Neturei Karta."

The above is but a small example of what has gone on in less than two months, and the list could go on and on as one rummages through his edits. ALL the subject areas edited by User:Eidah are exactly the same ones that User:Daniel575 and all his sock-puppets sat on. They are one and the same and should all be blocked. IZAK 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Daniel575 and his latest sockpuppet User:Eidah make life miserable for anyone he opposes. His primitive curses and wild non-compliance with any rules smack of cyber-terrorism. He must be blocked and banned to the fullest. IZAK 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we really have to do much other than to point to his edits, and point to his 6+ other sockpuppet cases. This has gone on long enough. Yossiea (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC) I don't have much to say about this subject. I am only responding because I was quoted. If you look at the greater context of all of my statements on this user's talk page, you will see that I was giving him (what I thought were) helpful pieces of advice, not warnings. He and YiddisherYid are equally guilty of edit-warring. With respect to Y's "support" of this user: the only evidence that has been brought is the innuendo and accusations of other users.... there isn't a single quotation from Y brought above that demonstrates his dedication to protecting Eidah. Eidah has a lot to say, and is a wealth of information. He has not threatened any users. He has written abrasively, but all of the comments brought above are sweeping condenations of Zionism, not individual editors. I do not think that condemnation of Zionism is against Wikipedia policy. With respect to the accusation that he is a sockpuppet (which is the only accusation that matters in this context): All that IZAK has managed to say about that one is that he is Dutch and an Anti-Zionist. IZAK has also stated (in underlined text, which I guess is supposed to add credibility) that "everyone knows" that he is Daniel575. If that is the case, then it remains to be seen what grounds "everyone" has for "knowing" such a fact, given the utter dearth of evidence. He may indeed be Daniel, after all. But there simply isn't enough evidence for anyone to eternally block this user on those grounds.--Meshulam 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * It should be fairly simple to check. He is evading a community ban by reincarnating himself. How many followers of Dushinsky originally from Holland do you know editing Wikipedia? Yossiea (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not having been to Holland lately, I can't answer this question. But this comment is no different from IZAK's "case in chief." Rhetorical questions are not evidence. I can tell you do not like this user, but there is no evidence other than that he's dutch and anti-Zionist. --Meshulam 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * EVERYBODY KNOWS that this person is who he is. He's completely upfront about it. I remember the "community ban" discussion on ANI or whatever when he was first indefinitely blocked. Whether or not that was justified then I do not express an opinion on, but I am not willing to enforce it again. Some other admin may if he wants to, I suppose. I am not protecting him in any way - I have done nothing whatsoever to protect him and I don't understand in what way I am involved with this. -- Y not? 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would seem that IZAK is right. I think that I personally recommended to the user to simply find another hobby rather than getting obsessive about WP. But it's one thing about being obsessed and another thing about being aggressive, something that is usually reduced over time in balanced people. Maybe facebook could be expanded with Daniel's expertise or something. --Shuki 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As somebody who has had edit wars with him this last week i find his work very valued to our enciclopedia, from correspondence i had with user Izak i can see why he wants to get rid of use Eida, but eida should not be blocked for Socpupetry he did not try to hide his identity and hasn't used 2 names to influence any consensus. Please make him talk with one name and lets make it about the issue not about the user. Izak has tried to delete his category and it failed so he goes after this user. Please lets not fool ourselves, lets be honest we don't like his view but if he is right with the facts we should not try to win our view by simply blocking him on technicalities of sockpupetry which he is not guilty in the real sense of the word.--יודל 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * יודל: Eidah's behavior goes way beyond the acceptable bounds of normal editing. When any editor says something Eidah does not like, he is liable to utter the weirdest and cruelest curses and launch into edit wars and revert articles wildly-- something that Daniel575 and all his other sockpuppets did in the exact same way, so they are all coming from the same source. That kind of behavior is dangerous and not normal and does not belong in a community that is devoted to building a rational encyclopedia. I have nothing against the subject matter that so fascinates Daniel575/Eidah, and he does bring some good information when he writes. However, very sadly and unfortunately, the negatives outweigh the positives in this case. When he turns his attention to edits on his watchlist (as he instantly does when edits are made to "his" articles) he then goes on what can only be called rampages and tirades to swing the totality of his interests into only one direction (his "anti-Zionism" mantra.) That is what is called an obsession and it is dangeous and destructive as he lets no-one and nothing get in his way, and he thinks he is being so clever and righteous in doing so. How sad and pathetic. Daniel575/Eidah has a lot of growing up to do and when he can somehow prove that he is capable as functioning as an adult and completely avoid any sort of tantrums and especially those curses, threats and destructive edits, then he can come back sometime in the future. For now, he must be put back into his cage. IZAK 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * i agree he should be blocked for calling names and behaving as a non consensus builder by reverting articles in silence. But not for his views they are very valube to an open free encyclopedia. therefore the issue here is wrongly identified as sockpupetry--יודל 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The admin who confirms that Daniel575=Eidah also curses and condemns those who wish to expose him to trolling by revealing his previous compromised identity:

See Category talk:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism: " I am aware that is user is a reincarnation of Daniel. It's not exactly a shock to anyone. Everybody knows. However, I have done literally nothing to protect his user, not as a user, and certainly not with my administrative privileges!! If you would like to submit a recall petition, you may do so. It will be fun, actually. As for running around revealing what I attempted to conceal, you have my intense contempt, and you have committed a grievous aveirah bein odom lechaveiro, for which you will have to answer in two weeks. -- Y not? 20:03, 30 August 2007"
 * How dramatic of you, IZAK! -- Y not? 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dramatic? I have only quoted you verbatim without adding one word. Your words also affirm User:Yossiea's statement above that "We all know he is (Daniel575)...We know he's Daniel..." Al Pi Shnei Eidim O Al Pi Shlosha Yakum Davar ("two or three witnesses establish a fact")... you should know that. IZAK 12:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, silly rabbit, the top-line commentary -- Y not? 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Azoy, well it's a summary of the facts. IZAK 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * This looks like a match, and Eidah will be blocked, but if it is necessary to create Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (8th), please do a better job of presenting the evidence next time. There's actually nothing in the evidence above that shows Eidah is Daniel575; I had to conclude that on my own by looking at their contribs. What's here is a bunch of complaining about Eidah, combined with many assertions that everyone knows who he is. Well, folks, the admins who deal with this page may not know who Daniel575 is, and don't see any obvious connection between him and the suspected sockpuppet. So make it easy for us by presenting some clear evidence. Also, next time please do not include an acrimonious, off-topic dialogue. Thank you. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)