The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 12:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

User:Alleichem is a relatively new editor on Wikipedia. He has hundreds of edits since his first (registered) one on September 3, 2008. But every one of his edits has been on a single, narrow topic, as can be seen on his contribs page.

Alleichem is a passionate editor, which can be a benefit for Wikipedia. But he continues to push fringe views which are contrary to the consensus of other editors. He was recently blocked for 24hours with Sky for edit warring ([1]), but when the block expired, he has continued with his disruptive editing, and has added personal attacks and unsupported allegations of sockpuppetry to his behavior ([2]).

Attempts have been made by User:Escape_Orbit, User:LisaLiel, User:SkyWriter and User:L'Aquatique on Alleichem's talk page to discuss relevant Wikipedia policies with him, but to no avail. Alleichem has claimed that if objections are not made to his edits within a very short timeframe, they have not been disputed. "it's been up for five hours and I haven't received a reply" ([3]). He has become abusive ("Lies, lies lies." [4]) and started claiming that SkyWriter and User:Garzo (an admin who has disagreed with some of Alleichem's edits) are the same person. He views himself as a bringer of truth opposed by people who are insecure about being challenged ([5]). His very first contribution was a "helpme" post to his own talk page ([6]) which suggests that he was engaged in his campaign prior to registering on Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and certify the same experience regarding Alleichem and the edits and diffs Lisa provided. I could add more, but Lisa did an excellent job already. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to add. I encountered Alleichem when he added what I believed to be a coatrack addition to the Lord article, much of it original synthesis. I put this down simply to enthusiasm of a new editor keen to "get the truth out". Perhaps Alleichem hasn't got to grips with what Wikipedia policies are, and more importantly, why they exist. Also note that having read the edit interpreted as an accusation of sockpuppetry; I think the evidence is flimsy. This could just as easily been addressed to two people. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This username has been confirmed to be a sock-puppet of a previously blocked user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mod_objective&curid=19060106&diff=240960485&oldid=240959099
Since this user name will probably be blocked, the RfC may be moot at this point. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user has been indefinitely blocked as the latest in a long list of socks. He won't reappear as this username. I think we can move to dismiss the RfC. Admin? It's in your hands. Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. How do we close it? -LisaLiel (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome[edit]

Speaking for myself, I would like Alleichem to calm down a bit and perhaps work on some other articles. If he's here to be a participant in Wikipedia and not simply to push one agenda, there should be no problem with this. Failing that, I would like for him to stop replacing the same disputed content in the small group of articles he is editing, and for him to stop ignoring editorial consensus that he disagrees with.

I concur. We've both offered to help him learn how to source notable and verifiable information, and to avoid OR, UNDUE, and SYNTH. If he can take some time on subjects less dear to his heart he can get the hang of things around here. There's a time and a place for most information under the sun, but they need their correct nooks. Even here he's trying to elevate this into a content dispute. It's not. It's a consenus and process dispute. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

I'm not sure how this is supposed to differ from "Statement of the dispute", but it's in the template, so I'm leaving it here. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Accused User:SkyWriter of lying and accused User:SkyWriter and User:Garzo of being the same person (([7]])
  2. Accused other editors of being "immature and selfish" and claimed that those who disagree with his edits "don't like the truth" ([8]).
  3. Has insisted on giving undue weight to a fringe theory that the Christian Bible was original written in Aramaic or Hebrew, despite criticisms from other editors ([9], [10], [11], [12]).
  4. Accused User:Garzo of lying in his edit summary ([13]).
  5. Accused other editors of reverting his edits because they are Christians ([14]).
  6. Accused other editors of reverting his edits because they are Orthodox Jews ([15]).
  7. Was blocked for edit warring ([16]).
  8. Repeatedly engages in original research and POV pushing ([17], for example).
  9. Accused User:LisaLiel of "deceiving" ([18]).
This user has demonstrated the same behavior from what appears to be a dialup connection. To get a clear picture of the disputed behavior, we'll need to include diffs from IP addresses such as 143.53.7.18, 143.53.7.76, 143.53.7.171, and 143.53.7.169 SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- there was a problem with sock-puppeting on the Yahweh talk page at about the same time that Alleichem and his IP addresses began to emerge. All of these user names and IP addresses are from England, and they are reproducing the same fringe information in this article. I had not thought of sock-puppetry until Alleichem brought it up, and it appears that one puppet may have gotten through. I've never done a check user before. Have you, Lisa? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be on the talk page, actually. But no, I haven't. I wouldn't know where to start. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated the check. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:UNDUE
  2. WP:OR
  3. WP:SYNTH
  4. WP:NPOV
  5. WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Virtually every diff on User_talk:Alleichem.
  2. [19]
  3. [20]
  4. [21]
  5. [22]
  6. [23]
  7. [24]
  8. [25]
  9. [26]
  10. [27]
  11. [28]
  12. [29]
  13. [30]
  14. [31]

A truly exhaustive list would take forever. I'm going to stop here.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

The length of time this has been going on and the attempts that have been going on during that time are evidence that nothing is working. The recent accusations of lying and sockpuppetry are the culmination of several weeks of uncivil and unhelpful behavior.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. User:LisaLiel
  2. User:SkyWriter

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}


Admins: please do listen I haven’t a clue what these two peoples problem is, but since day1 when I started adding evidence that contravened the view that YHWH is a guess word, they’ve been on my back trying to get rid of me. I’ve been polite, but they continue to accuse me of all sorts of accusations. I think Sky is still bitter that he was blocked for an edit war for 24 hours. with me. But to set a few things correct, I think the Admins should hear the truth. 1. I was involved in an edit war and had to pay a 24 hour penalty, likewise with Sky 2. I said Lisa was an orthodox Jew because she is. I felt as a Jew she was trying to push her views too heavily 3. I said Garzo was a Christian which he is. I felt that he was trying to push his views too heavily. 4. I recommend that everyone would read what sky is accusing me of and read it in its context. All these things happened several days ago before I was punished for 24 hours 5. Sky and I were punished for edit war. But the war wasn’t really a war, since I was correcting spelling mistakes. I can’t believe some of the accusations here, but I’m not going to write an essay. They’re playing Mr. and Mrs. innocent, but I’d appreciate if the admin would simply go to the Yahweh page and see exactly what these people are complaining about. You’ll find a strange difference. I’m hardly doing any editing on the page, in fact, I’m probably doing the least edits. Really strange. And another thing. I;d appreciate if the admin could answer the question, if someone adds good evidence to a page with citations and proof, should it be disregarded: then why do I get this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=240905741&oldid=240868599 Why is it tht in the Relevance in the New Testament section, no mention is made of the fact that many scholars beleive that the NT has hebrew or Aramaic originals? See, something is clearly wrong. It's not a mainstream view that's been presented, and it's certainly biased.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Alleichem

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Semi-Involved View by L'Aquatique[edit]

I first heard of this problem about a week ago, via a posting by LisaLiel on the WikiProject Judaism Discussion Board. According to Lisa, Alleichem had been continually posting original research to various God and Judaism-related articles, particularly those about His Divine Name. At the time, very little had been done with the exception of revert his edits, so I strongly (in highsight, probably too strongly) urged both Lisa and Tim to attempt to talk with him about it so hopefully they could forge a discussion withough having to go on to further dispute resolution.

That seemed to be all she wrote, so I considered the case closed and moved on. However, I recieved a message from Tim stating that both he and Lisa had tried very hard to communicate with this user and had mostly failed. He asked me if an RfC would be appropriate and I responded that yes, it would be, but give me a chance to talk with him, hoping that hearing from an admin would help. Unfortunately, while I was typing out my long message to him, he was blocked for edit warring, as was Tim. After some discussion with the blocking admin, I decided to unblock Tim, who was blocked for about five or six hours in total. Alleichem remained blocked for the full 24 hours and when he returned he did reply to my message, but I don't think he actually got it.

I believe strongly that this user is acting in good faith. I have seen nothing in his contributions that would indicate he is anything other than a relatively new user who does not [yet] understand our rules. New users who feel they have something earthshaking to contribute often find our rules idiosyncratic because they have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. In particular, he seems to not grasp the difference between supporting your info with sources and supporting your conclusion with sources. However, the fact that he is edit warring is worrisome. My not-so-educated advice would be to attempt to enroll him in our adopt a user program, and see if we can find an adopter with an interest in religion and theology who can explain this more gently and in better context than others and I have been able to.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree very much. MuZemike (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree. I suggested on his talk that both Sky and Lisa would possibly mentor him...which is what he needs. Someone needs to show him the ropes.--Buster7 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


View by User:Researcher123456789[edit]

Type view here

Users who endose this summary:

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
More