User talk:Jacob3939

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jacob3939, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jacob3939 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've never used an account named English Patriot man. I might have said something simular or something, but that does not mean I'm him. It is not fair to block people in this way!

Decline reason:

According to analysis below, it seams that you are really a sockpuppet. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{Checkuser needed}}: Please, compare to English Patriot Man socks (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/English_Patriot_Man/Archive#07_August_2016). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In progress.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The account is Unrelated. As an aside, I see no use of proxies, either by this user or by the blocked socks at the SPI. Maybe that occurred earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked on behavioural evidence, which I would rather not present on-wiki. The user sometimes uses proxies, so a checkuser investigation may not be conclusive. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to WP:WIKILAWYER, but if you blocked this account after some non-private evidence, then you have had to send that evidence to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Reminder_announcement_about_blocks_based_on_private_information). How am I supposed to review this unblock request now if I can't see the evidence? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: Sorry, I would have preferred not to post it here, but as the checkuser cannot make any connection, here is why I blocked:

username follows a pattern of previous sock names (User:Nowak 1991, User:Sphere1994, User:Windows66, User:Cowboy9876, User:Hashi0707, etc.)
User is editing on articles edited by this group of socks: Aryan race, Nazism, Racial policy of Nazi Germany
As is typical for socks of English Patriot Man, this user performed enough edits to get autoconfirmed and then proceeded to his preferred subject matter.
His main focus is typically the racial policy of Nazi Germany, specifically the definitions of who was considered Aryan and who was considered subhuman. Diff of Talk:Racial policy of Nazi Germany, Diff of Aryan race, Diff of Talk:Nazism. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the admin, I want to clearify that I wish to define Aryan, since it is clearly misunderstood by many. And I have never tried to define who are so called subhuman, I wrote that this term was never used on many of the people that the article claim. The reason I do this is for carification, and you need such people on wikipedia. When it comes to English Patriot man, I hope you will check the users edits more carefully, for Diannaa described, with some errors, only my edits.2A02:2121:243:3E6C:0:1D:84BC:2601 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that this term was never used on many of the people that the article claim All the statements in the article are sourced by numerous scholarly articles. Who are you claiming wasn't defined as non-Aryan subhuman. Poles, and Slavs certainly were as numerous sources state.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: There is no technical evidence, and I think you agree with me that the behavioral evidence is not particularly strong. Would you mind if I unblock this account? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije-take a look on edits on the talk pages on these articles, the user frequently refers to past discussions before the account was created. and says "this was agreed upon before" and such. It is clear that this is a sockpuppet of EPM who will try to argue that Slavs weren't treated as subhumans by Nazis and eventually claim they were classified as Aryan. In fact this part

You should also stop using the term subhuman to reference people who are not Aryan, because they never said that.Not acording to any sources I have read is almost exact sentence used over and over by EPM in various articles throughout the years(he isn't very creative). If you want I can give examples where he used the same arguments and statements.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: Yes, I would like you to show some diffs. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to some samples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/English_Patriot_Man/Archive

   *English Patriot Man:

   There is no evidence to suggest that the Nazis thought of Slavs as non-Aryan and you will find nowhere these saying as such, in fact I have yet to find the term "untermenschen" (sub-humans) ever be used against the Slavs.

  *His sock Windows66:
   Firstly, whilst some historians and authors say the Nazis viewed Slavs as untermenschen (subhumans), I have not found any speeches or documents that refer to them as such.

Jacob 3939

You should also stop using the term subhuman to reference people who are not Aryan, because they never said that.Not according to any sources I have read[[1]

It is the exact sentence in structure and argumentation repeated over and over by EPM and his sock. The topics edited are the same as well. If you want I get diffs to the above sentences but they are under the link above to sockpuppet investigation already. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and here he admits to editing article about Nazism before, although this is the first edit by this account in the article This has been discussed before and we concluded that it should be included

And here too he states that this is another repeat of previous edits Part about nazis meaning Germanic or Nordic people when saying Aryan, again, he later deleted the part "again" from the title[2] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that my edit on racial policies of ..., were badly written. It sounded like I didn't want subhuman to be used at all, and that is wrong, It were used. My badly worded thoughts were that not every non-Aryan were called subhuman. I appologise for making such a foolish statement.

I hope that you will read some parts more closely. This Englis Patriot man wrote that the slavs were Aryan. While I have written that the Aryans were defined as Nordic or Germanic by the National socialists. While he tried to make you stop using subhuman on slavs, I never mebtioned slavs. This is a big difference. I have not edited Nazism before recebtly, but I have discussed at the talk page with an IP, this one change from time to time. This was were we reached an agreement on defining the term. Jacob3939 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have on my watch-list a suite of articles that I watch specifically to keep an eye out for socks of English Patriot Man. His main focus is the racial policy of Nazi Germany - who is Aryan and who is not, and eventually specifying that Slavs were considered as Aryan rather than Untermenchen. He does not broach this topic right away, because although it is his main focus, it is also his main "tell"; it makes his socking very easy to spot. So I have to watch for more subtle clues. So as soon as I see a new user with the familiar pattern of construction of the user name editing three of English Patriot Man's favourite target articles (Aryan race, Nazism, Racial policy of Nazi Germany), after performing eleven innocuous edits and getting autoconfirmed, it sets off alarm bells. After getting autoconfirmed on his fourth day of editing (July 25), Jacob3939 begins that same day to edit the article Aryan race regarding the definition of who is Aryan and who is not. Then on September 16 he posts on the talk page of Nazism, concluding his post with This has been discussed before and we concluded that it should be included. Like MyMolobo states above, he later changed the section header to remove the word "again": Diff of Talk:Nazism.

This is the post that led me to block, where he specifically gets into the use of the word "untermenchen" as part of the racial hierarchy: You should also stop using the term subhuman to reference people who are not Aryan, because they never said that. Here is a similar post by Windows66 in February 2014: Hitler never even calls anyone "subhumans" or "untermenschen" in his book neither. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 14:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am convinced by the behavioural evidence. This is not a new editor, and it's very likely English Patriot Man. Huon (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I say things that are completely different from him! Jacob3939 (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jacob3939 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

When my last unblock request were reviewed, it were said that there were no technical evidence for this block. Only arbitrary evidence; that I had edits simular to english patriot man. What I have written is different from the user, his and my opinions differ. You may also notice that I am not a native speaker of english from my edits. Many of the socks claimed to be english patriot man might also be falsly made accusations, so the user you should compare this with, is only english patriot man. I hope you will reconsider

Accept reason:

I am unblocking your account, as I am not 100 per cent sure and your new evidence is compelling for several reasons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing exclusively with English Patriot Man is not appropriate, as we have twelve socks on the confirmed list as well as four more not currently on the confirmed list that I received private information from a check-user were socks. Of these sixteen confirmed socks, the following used a name-and-number combination for their username:

Of the 32 suspected socks, the following used a name-and-number combination for their username:

Also: Folks may not be aware that it's possible that English Patriot Man was himself a sock of user:GeordieWikiEditor (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#English Patriot Man states that he is a banned editor). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeordieWikiEditor/Archive; perusing the accounts listed there I see more usernames with the letter J (there's two in the confirmed socks and 7 in the suspected socks) and more name-and-number combinations. For example User:Jimmyson88, user:Nufc2011, user:Geordi2011, user:Jimmyson14, user:14Adrian, user:Vincentnufcr1, user:SubaruImpreza2.0. It's not a rare thing for people to do, but still, it's a very persistent part of the pattern.

Of the 16 confirmed socks, here's the ones that edited on the topics Untermenchen, Nazi racial policy, the definition of Aryanism, and so on:

Here's the confirmed socks who performed 10 or more innocuous edits in 4 days or more to get autoconfirmed before moving on to protected articles in the topic of Nazi racial policy (many of the suspected socks did this as well):

Here's where you express an opinion identical to Windows66, a confirmed sock: You should also stop using the term subhuman to reference people who are not Aryan, because they never said that. Here is a similar post by Windows66 in February 2014: Hitler never even calls anyone "subhumans" or "untermenschen" in his book neither. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This were a mistake, they did. I cannot deny that this is a simular statement, but on different articles. But at least I can say that my grammar and english are different from most native speakers of english and probably different from these possible socks. Jacob3939 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I start to wonder if I am wrong, but then I look again at this diff of Talk:Nazism, where you say This has been discussed before and we concluded that it should be included. Your wording seems to indicate that this is a decision in which you participated at some time in the past. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the decision, but I discussed it with others on the same page under an IP. I think I used this account there too. Jacob3939 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! I did not edit it with this user, but jacobbaggins, that I forgot the pasword to. The discussion can be found in archive 27 on the talk page. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism/Archive_27#Aryan_as_a_term_reserved_for_nordic_people

The discussion is under "Aryan as a term reserved for nordic people". Jacob3939 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost exact statement by English Patriot Man his sockpuppet and Jacob3939

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/English_Patriot_Man/Archive

English Patriot Man:

   There is no evidence to suggest that the Nazis thought of Slavs as non-Aryan and you will find nowhere these saying as such, in fact I have yet to find the term "untermenschen" (sub-humans) ever be used against the Slavs.

His sock Windows66:

Firstly, whilst some historians and authors say the Nazis viewed Slavs as untermenschen (subhumans), I have not found any speeches or documents that refer to them as such.

Jacob 3939

You should also stop using the term subhuman to reference people who are not Aryan, because they never said that.Not according to any sources I have read[[3]

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English patriot man said slavs were not refered to as untermench. This is different than what I wrote. You have also left out parts of my edit, an example about Japan, that is after my opinion isn't something epm would write. As written before I know that the word subhuman were used, it were a mistake.Jacob3939 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification for American Politics 2 and Race & Intelligence[edit]

Given your editing interests, you should be aware of the following discretionary sanctions:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]