User talk:Vertrag

Welcome

Hi Vertrag! Welcome to Wikipedia. :-)

When you have some time to read through them, these pages may help you.

If you need to ask any questions, just ask on my talk page. One last thing: when leaving comments on talk pages, sign them by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Enjoy your time at Wikipedia :-). --[kazikame] 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content

Removing content, as you did at Undergarment, may be considered vandalism. Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal of the religious photos from Undergarment. Please don't remove these again unless you have a sound reason based on Wikipedia's policies. I cannot see any policy based reason for removing these. I'd also like you to temper your language in edit summaries. Referring to another editor's remarks as "strawman bullshit" is uncivil - please refrain from such uncivil discourse in the future. Thanks, Gwernol 12:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Foxe BLP and COI issues

Vertrag I am sorry John has sucked you in as you recently reported John's many fouls and gaming the system. I understand you are using a sock to protect yourself from John Foxe as you stated here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Ruckman I assure you Vertrag I am no sock but my IP changes randomly and sometimes frequently due the nature of my cellular connection. I am the one you agreed with in the BLP noticeboard and it was because of your posting there that I investigated USER:John Foxe and easily figured out who he is and then posted a COI complaint as a result. Thanks for the help 172.56.15.85 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC) It has occurred to me that you may agree with what I posted if so could you clarify that as it appears you agreed with John Foxe (a confirmed user of sock puppetry). 172.56.15.85 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Foxe's position that the second Noticeboard you reported looks more like a vendetta since those edits are clearly 3-4 years old. I do agree (generally) with your initial BLP noticeboard complaint/ By including the second report you muddied the waters. Additionally, you should be very careful re WP:OUTING. Demonstrating the conflict of interest is one thing, providing too much detail to out someone's personal identity is quite different. Vertrag (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sound advice Vertrag. I have not revealed who the real John is but he seems to have intentionally revealed himself with his sock account User:Hi540 and even made comments indicating who he was after being caught (it would appear he wanted people to know who he is or a bad case of judgment). It is hard to do a COI without knowing why an editor has a COI and a diligent reviewer will figure it by John's own remarks. Your links to past sock puppetry by User:John Foxe led me to dive in and it was quite easy to connect the dots he left which led to this COI posting concerning his edit for a friend and academic colleague Chuck Phelps of the above COI complaint who bungled the rape of a young teenager in his Christian school and church which has strong ties to John Foxe and thus a serious conflict of interest. As I have previously stated there are many other serious COI related to BJU and fundamentalism. He edit wars in those areas which he most directly involved and as a result has been topic banned and blocked for multiple reasons over a very long period. I suspect some additional abusive socks on his part and have been doing some serious research to possibly make a case. Again I apologize for my IP randomly changing due to its cellular nature. I am one of few capable editors who has chosen to not create a Pseudo Wiki indentity/account and I regularly police against abuse of wiki standards. I have caught more than a couple of abusive socks (as you have indicated some socks are legitimate) over the years and helped purge a great deal of link spam as well and that can be verified by an admin who knows how to use there wiki tools. Thank you again for coming back with your advice. 172.56.15.75 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments - I agree that Foxe probably has been using other socks over time. As I said he is patient and has a clear long game to promote his particular religious views in articles on those topics, and to make religions and belief systems with which he disagrees look as ridiculous as possible. Good luck tracking things down --Vertrag (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found few possible alternative accounts/socks but some are already permanently banned from quite awhile back. Others seem to be sleeping for now and a check user would likely be of no use on very old socks. There is a tool I have not yet used to compare edit similarities between users but again it appears he has become wiser since the User:Hi540 sock got banned. His prior history using socks for only short periods to minimize the chance of getting caught. Some appear as SPA's. I hope people look more carefully concerning his editing and especially his Bob Jones Brand Fundamentalism agenda. He is clearly promoting his personal religious agenda in a deceptive manner. He is a skilled edit warrior with years of experience gaming the system. The ironic thing is I likely share some/many of his viewpoints but believe integrity, compassion and the possibility I may be wrong should lead me to respect others. Thanks again for your civility and previous help on the BLP investigation. 172.56.15.75 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, you have both accused me falsely. I have many enemies at Wikipedia. If I had been using socks, I would have been banned long ago. Check it out. Take as long as you like and get as much help as you like. Both of you claim a moral compass based in religion, so if you truly believe in integrity, compassion, and the possibility you might be wrong, then you should apologize. Just a private e-mail would do.--John Foxe (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to PNAC

I just noticed that these were your first edits ever to the PNAC article or any related article, and see that you've been on Wikipedia since 2006 but only have 50 edits, though you seem to have a highly cultivated understanding of many policies and practices.
Have you ever registered any other accounts on Wikipedia?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ad hominem. Of course I have - if you've looked at my edits you know I've already admitted this is a WP:SOCK. But I've never edited that article before and am not violating any polices. Vertrag (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you have other accounts and accuse me of an ad hominem? Why not just disclose the accounts so that I can scrutinize them?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of amended RfC

There is an RfC related to paid editing on which you commented or !voted, which was just amended. See Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology & Retraction of SPI Report

Hi Vertrag, I'm posting to apologize unreservedly for my SPI report, and to formally retract any and all accusation I made against you. I obviously jumped to a conclusion that I should not have, and was being overzealous. Mea Culpa! Fyddlestix (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]