User talk:DavidAppletree

Comment

It may be best to simply drop the above thread which is unproductive at best. Its aim was to explain your block in wiki-terms, and that has been done. Whether you agree or not, it looks likely that it will end up as status quo at this point until a way to productively move forward is found - which is much more important than "winning" a debate.

On that matter, please see WP:ANI#Possible mentorship/supervision proposal. I have no "stance" on this so you are welcomed to accept, decline, or discuss by email as you prefer.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, and while I appreciate your effort and I know your intentions are in the right place, it seems like a solution to put me a virtual ghetto to control me like a child or rabid animal. And it's cool. I thought the community might appreciate me trying to go legit, offering some full disclosure and editing in my name, without any socks, and accepting the mentorship of Avi, Spartaz and Off2riorob, but instead, I will quietly just go away. I didn't come here, in my name and representing my organization, to be attacked, harassed, controlled, and humiliated. But again, thanks. I'd rather be editing anonymously, and underground, than deal with this, and it seems WP would rather that, too. --I mean, to keep me off articles related to the things I know most about? Absurd. --DavidAppletree (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not stand in the way of you being unblocked, should you reach an agreement with FT2.--Scott Mac 00:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've already stood in my way with this account. Good luck, next time. Of course, I know why you really blocked me. I guess you didn't like it when Avi called you out on it either. Hope you don't mind me discussing it, off wiki, and with Jimbo, here. Hey, I would have brought it up on your talk page, but ya blocked me, so...what can I do? --DavidAppletree (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking reason

The reason for blocking you is simple.

This is a collaborative project to build a neutral encyclopaedia, people are allowed to edit here only if, in the view of the community, their presence here helps us towards that aim. We are explicitly not a battleground. On the balance of probabilities, as things stand, it is unlikely that your presence on Wikipedia will aid us in those aims.

That you may be an alternative account of a banned user, is one consideration (I actually haven't looked at that).
That you maintain an off-wiki list of editors you view as opponents, is another. (You could have removed your "hit list" and tried to work with users collaboratively, or through our community dispute resolution if that proved impossible, - but you've maintained your site. It is very difficult to see how people can work collaboratively with you, and disagree with you, if they have a fear of being listed off-site.)
Your userpage tended to add to that "chilling effect"
You are clearly here to fight a fight for "truth" as you see it. Now, there's nothing with opposing anti-Semitism (all power to you), but espousing a cause and editing neutrally are not compatible. We all have causes, we leave them at the door when we come here. Your presence here will tend to polarise further areas which are already difficult for us.
You could have quietly created an account, and shown us anonymously that you were a benefit to the project (you still could) - had you done that, you'd have been given more consideration, but you chose not to do that - in nearly 300 posts, you've edited articles 4 times.

It is nothing personal. It is just that you are doing one thing, and Wikipedia is doing another, and the two are incompatible. Now, it could well be I've got you wrong, but you've given very little reason to think so, and so the likelihood is that we are better off without you editing at this time.--Scott Mac 23:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors are here, exactly? What constitutes "the community?" I'm guessing the vast majority of this "community" did not opine on this case. In fact, people with long-term problems with me and my organization were the most vocal. Your second point is not valid, as that is an old post---I think about 2 years old---that has not been "maintained" whatsoever. Last I checked, WP does not have any say over off-wiki content. I have no obligation whatsoever to censor my website as per this communities' request, just as WP has failed to remove many privacy and security concerns at my request as well as many defamatory statements, despite repeated requests. I have no clue what you're talking with regard to your third point, but if you're cold, get a blanket. I'm not clearly here to fight for "truth" as I see it. I was here to be a constructive member of this community and to try to work out out problems I myself was experiencing on this website, which were also problems for Wikipedia. If you think I wish to be accused of being every single self-appointed defender of my organization, you're flat-out wrong. And that's exactly what is happening. Every single pro-JIDF editor has been accused of being ED, who has been accused of being me. Regarding my edits, I have spent the majority of my short time here defending myself from an onslaught of harassment, attacks, and false allegations. That's why I've only gotten around to 4 edits on articles. Also, I was encouraged to stay away from editing articles during this time. I was just trying to do what I was advised to do, as per what my mentors were telling me.

You should have assumed good faith. I had a lot of good stuff to contribute and I felt I should be here, especially considering the onslaught of personal attacks, as well as privacy/security concerns I felt the need to address here. Beyond that, if people would have "chilled" I could have actually helped edit a lot of articles, as I have a wide variety of interests. Had the handful of editors here (apparently forming the entire "community") ever bothered to assume good faith or had they given me chance, they would have see that, but it's too late now. Thanks for the scarlet letter on my userpage. --DavidAppletree (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove material relevant to the block or subsequent discussions of the block - thanks. Further removal will result in the locking of this page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

You have over and over demanded that we should Assume good faith, but our policy on AGF isn't a suicide pact. You have already lost our assumption of good faith. You've admitted to being a sockmaster, you admit to editing with an agenda, you host an offsite attack page and out other editors by posting real life information about them. You're asking to be a part of OUR community, but only with your rules. We are a collaborative community, with a set of rules and policies that help all of the different varieties of editors here to all get along( in theory anyway, but its the best system we got) and accomplish the only goal for being here, to build an encyclopedia. You do not get to demand exemptions or changes to the rules to suit you and your situation. Play by our rules if you want to be a part of our community. It's up to you restore our faith in you. He iro 03:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page protected

DavidAppletree's reply to the above was to try and forge an anti-Jewish racist rant as an apparent post from another user and to state in email he was going to use enhanced deception (actual words: "deep undercover").

I have protected his talk page due to the above forgeries/abuse. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged DavidAppletree's user page as "community banned" for reasons stated on his user page and at WP:AN and requested community review. (Thread link). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to David

You've pointed out that I made a crude comment about circumcision. Regardless of our wikipedia conflict, I'd like to apologise to you and any other person who was offended by my remark. It was not intended to offend but, nevertheless, given the understandable sensitivities, it should not have been made. When it was drawn to my attention by Avi, I apologised unreservedly and struck it.

The context, if you are interested, is that I was defending an ethnic Jew whose biography had included unfair material. Someone accused me of bias, and asserted this was because I was Jewish. I was bemused by this, and shot my mouth off about not wishing to be circumcised. Ironically, that's invited the opposite criticism of me being ant-Jewish. All I can say is I try to defend people wronged by their Wikipedia articles, regardless of their creed or race.

I now notice you questioned the appropriateness of my remark a few hours later. I didn't see you post at the time - it was on a busy thread. Had I seen that you'd (quite rightly, and fairly gently) called me on this, I would certainly not have blocked you for an unrelated matter a few days later. I strongly suspect you would still have been blocked by someone else, but that's another matter. I don't block people I may have offended.

Given your conflict with Wikipedia, I'm not sure if you are interested in my apology, or will be willing to believe a word I'm typing. However, given my stupidity, I can only venture to make the effort.--Scott Mac 09:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]