| Revision as of 07:00, 21 December 2005 editTommstein (talk | contribs)2,106 edits →Self-Admission← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 05:54, 14 February 2011 edit undoMissionary (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,047 editsNo edit summary |
| (19 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
'''Missionary''', wikipedia editor from ]. |
|
{{Sockpuppet|1=Retcon|evidence=]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{|name="userboxes" id="userboxes" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; {{{extra-css|}}}" align="{{{2|{{{align|right}}}}}}" |
|
==Self-Admission== |
|
|
|
!<big></big> |
|
|
|
|
|
|- align="center" |
|
As has been pointed out above, this account was a sockpuppet of Retcon. The user Retcon (myself) was unaware of the sockpuppet policy on Misplaced Pages, and the intention used for switching to Missionary was due to multiple personal attacks by the user known as Tommstein when I was using Retcon. I then posted content as Missionary, and was again abused. I exercised bad judgement on one thread in relation to defending one identity with another one. When I became aware of the sockpuppet policy in its entirety 4 days ago, I immediately ceased posting content on disputed pages under either alias. I deeply regret this infraction, and while I will be attacked by a few individuals for my lack of knowledge on this policy and poor decisions, I simply want to move on. This account will no longer be used and this user will not make multiple edits on any individual pages with more than one alias. Administrators can check this in the future. I ask for a fresh start. I also ask that, not as rationale but to allievate attacks on other new posters, administrators also continue to monitor Tommstein and Central, as they call their fellow users names when their beliefs conflict with their own. I have violated the sockpuppet policy, just as Tommstein in particular has violated the personal attacks policy with labels such as "punk", "idiot", "dumb" to names but a few derrogatory statements, along with his multiple POV attacks attempting to discredit an organization he is no longer associated with. I will be making a list in the upcoming days (as Retcon) on the multiple occasions for administrators to review. Thank you for your time, and especially to my fellow JW editors, a sincere apology. ] 16:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User pt}} |
|
:I'm sure many others here are not remotely impressed with your halfway confession. You are clearly lying when you make out you did not know about using multiple accounts, and you have consistently lied when challenged on this when suspected, and caught, protesting over and over, and claming the accusations are vicious lies and personal attacks, and as we already knew and see the accusations were all true! How many more names have you hidden away? What about the others? ]?, ]? ]? And how many others out there? How you expect to "start a new" when you haven't the balls to even come clean, but just make more excuses of "I didn’t know" or "he called me a name. . ." You are a Jehovah's Witness and you seem to have little or zero comprehension about honesty. You have also caused a great deal of stress on the board with your vandalising and arguing, and pretending to be many different people, and wasting posters good faith and time, as if you thought it would make your case better, when in fact you just look like some deceitful religious propagandist who has no comprehension of honesty or integrity. You demonstrate how dangerous your religion is, as even when caught you have failed to show any repentance, or even comprehend what you did and are still doing is totally out of order. Where are your apologies to Tom and I? You protested your "innocence" over and over again, and now you just make excuses for it, no real repentance. You should be ashamed, you come here representing Jehovah’s Witnesses and this is how you act. ] 20:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User en-4}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User RJ city}} |
|
::]. - ] 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User UERJ}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User UFRJ}} |
|
:::It's hard to assume good faith when this person has ] that this account was '''not''' connected to Retcon,and even attempted to provide "evidence" for that position. I've tried to wait and see what's going on here, but as of now, I can't ]. --] ] ~22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User ITN|]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User Good Article|2010 Haiti earthquake}} |
|
::::While the behavior was deceptive, intended to avoid personal attacks, it was self-evidently not done as a blatant disregard to the policy, as he was unaware of the policy. Once the policy was made known to the user, he posted an admission. There's nothing at all other than accusation to connect Retcon to any other account. ] can be seen in that he did not intend to violate Misplaced Pages policy. ] can also be seen in that there is no evidence that he is intentionally trying to hurt the project. It is not really 'good faith' to revert an edit on someone else's talk page if they were the ones editing it. The best and more logical explanation is ], not bad faith. (No offense to ].) - ] 22:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User wikifr|1=Missionary|2=Missionary}} |
|
|
|
|
:::::Sorry, I'm just not buying that. People told him that he was suspected of being a sockpuppet - rather than say he didn't know what that was, or say nothing at all, he instead decided to lie and create fake "evidence" that the Missionary account was not him (i.e., ]). |
|
|
:::::As to editing "his" talk page - I try very hard to bend over backward in such cases, and held my hand many times when I felt that "Missionary" was using deceptive edits here to hide. Now that ] has admitted this account is a sockpuppet, "user Missionary" has no rights to the content of "his" page, in my opinion. --] ] 22:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Agreed. RetCon, while I appreciate that you may not have been aware of the sockpuppet policy, you were accused of violating it some time ago, and you did not immediately admit to it. You used the sockpuppets to try defend that you were two separate users, and then even changed post signatures. This hardly seems the behaviour of someone who made an honest mistake. --] <small>AKA</small> <small>''']'''</small> 23:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Konrad, I did not see the word sockpuppet in Retcon's interchanges as himself or as Missionary with others; nevertheless, I had never heard the term before Misplaced Pages, and if you had called me a sockpuppet, I would have thought it was some tech-geek/nerdy insult and dismissed it. I certainly did not see the accusation labelled until right before I saw Retcon acknowledge it. I agree that Retcon was attempting to play as more than one person, but as someone unaware of the term and/or its application within the rules of Misplaced Pages. - ] 03:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Gentlemen, you are correct, I made some poor decisions for which I regret. I would say, as my solitary defense, that had the No Personal Attacks Policy been as equally enforced as the sockpuppet policy, then I would've stuck with Retcon. Tomm and Central have a long history of attacking fellow editors whom they disagree with, attacking them with derrogatory slurs which directly contradict policies established here. Central was banned for a period due to his hostility last summer, and Tomm has had several individuals whom he has verbally abused. Unfortunately, I made a bad decision which I regret, although I cannot bring myself to apologize to these two individuals as they have instigated this situation, Tomm with his multiple erroneous "vandal" proclamations whenever a viewpoint disagrees with his own, and Central with attacks and slanderous misrepresentations such as "did you know the Society is involved with contract killings?" Krich, I know I have no leg to stand on, but I ask that you refer to the other contributors on the pages in question...Dannymuse, IP Girl, CobaltblueTony, to name just a few of the many they've offended. Ask for their testimony and please restore some order to the JW pages, they are heavily NPOV in certain areas rather than presenting both sides...as they offer extensive commentary. I'm through with those pages, much to the delight of these two detractors. Again, to everyone else, including you Konrad (whom I havent' always agreed with but do respect) I offer my sincere apologies. I know it is too little too late, but that's all I can say. ] 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::].] 07:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
