Fajkfnjsak (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

10 August 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

• Niaf7J1mdM (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These four edits [1], [2], [3], [4] restore contentious material added by the blocked user in question. See also obsession with applying the term "myth" to the Exodus and denying its having any historical origin found in Fajkfnjsak's edits, e.g. [5], [6], [7]. Compare also the wording on the edit summaries for these two edits, one by Fajkfnjsak and one by Niaf7J1mdM, [8], [9]. Both show an obsession with quoting exact wording from the source. The new edits are on the same pages at which Fajkfnjsak began his editing, and Fajkfnjsak is already known to have used Sockpuppets [10]. Notice also that this new account has a similarly formed name made up of a nonsense string of characters. Ermenrich (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

IMHO, Fajkfnjsak should have never been blocked. They were not disruptive. I argue admins to review his block. Fajkfnjsak should never request an unblock. The admin who blocked him should correct his obvious mistake.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Blocked and tagged, leaving case page open for sleeper check, although I have spot checked most of the articles the previous accounts were interested in and don't see evidence of any other socks. ST47 (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed plus:
  • H17UcmHdm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Fusab&MKF (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
•  Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

• • Editor977 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Powin1314 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Paokel214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Lentol41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Powelto42171 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I was investigating this AN3 report... ST47 (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Listed accounts are  Confirmed to Fajkfnjsak.  Blocked and tagged. ST47 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12 September 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

• Word2001 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New user just showed up showing same obsessions as Fajkfnjsak and his socks, particularly his most recent user:Editor977. Fajkfnjsak was obsessed with the Exodus and surrounding topics and this new user has posted for the first time at Talk:The Exodus repeating many habits and bugbears of Fajkfnjsak, who has an extensive record of trying to get around his block. The current user isn't edit warring, but I assume that's because The Exodus is now semi-protected [11]. Edit He's now started editing at Book of Exodus, another of Fajkfnjsak's old haunts.

• obsession with the Exodus as myth [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc.
• calling for adding information to The Exodus on Moses as a mythical figure/ [18], [19], [20] A very similar passage to the one he's calling for now was added by an IP that is probably Fajkfnjsak forgetting to log in before his block [21]
• Obsession with removing the terms maximalists and minimalists from the article, with nearly the same wording and reasoning: [22] As far as minimalists and maxmimalists, these have never been actual academic terms, they were just old derogatory terms that scholars used to denigrate theories and eventually to imply the false argument that a middle ground must be true. There is a wikipedia page on the concept, but these derogatory terms don’t belong in this article. [[23]] [24], [25] according to biblical minimalism page there is no "school of minimalism", biblical minimalism and biblical maximalism are just derogatory terms each side throws at the other to minimize the others' arguments
• Obsession with the slavery and historical truth aspect and with a positive depiction of the Egyptians/their depiction as victims [26] As this article states: There is an increasing trend among scholars to see the biblical exodus traditions as the invention of the exilic and post-exilic Jewish community, with little to no historical basis. The academic consensus is that The Exodus story is historically false. The only question is what random historical event can it be tied to (“historical basis”). The Canaanites - who did not live in Egypt, were not slaves, and were not Jewish. The Hyskos - who were not Jewish, and were dictators over Egypt. Or as the article states - despite the lack of any evidence, there “may have been” some Egyptians (note-doesnt even say slaves or Jews) that went to Israel. Compare [27] For example, if I make up a myth, "Australia enslaved millions of Finnish people." Then I said it was based on Americans enslaving Africans (real historical event). The historical event (the Americans enslaving Africans) does not make the myth (Finnish enslavement in Australia) true to any degree., [28] I feel like most Jewish people are not aware of this, however for those who do know-- It seems unethical to accuse Egypt of enslaving millions of Israelites, when historically we know that they did not enslave any Israelites. And the same goes for saying Jewish ancestors were slaves when we know they were not., [29] However, since the discovery of the dwellings inhabited by the pyramid workers located around Pyramids of Giza it has come to light that the pyramids were built by well paid and well fed native Egyptians and that there was in fact no enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt. [30] However, there is no evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Ancient Egypt, or even lived there. [31] It is unethical to make false claims of enslaving Jewish people against ancient Egyptians or living Egyptians. In addition, people connect with, care about their ancestors and do not want false accusations made against them.
• compare the above also with: [32] The redmount page that was cited says there is “remarkably little of historical worth”, it does “not meet historical accuracy”. He then says it has a historical “core” “mandated by faith” and that exodus was “god acting in history” The other source says that a different event with different people, timing, location, and events might have happened. Whereas 3 reliable sources independently said that there is no evidence for the sojourn, exodus, or wilderness wanderings. And yet the fact that there is a complete lack of any archaeological evidence for any aspect of a sojourn, exodus, or wilderness wanderings is omitted as “undo”
• Exodus is "false" [33] The academic consensus is that The Exodus story is historically false. [34] It is a good summary of the last paragraph and the academic consensus that the Exodus is historically false [35] Some people believe in the Exodus, creation, etc myths but they're still considered myths (false) by academia
• [36] Further, the last sentence of the entire historicity section is another condemnation of “minimalist” scholars. It being the last sentence of that paragraph falsely implies that the scholars mentioned in the paragraph are “minimalists”. The sentence also falsely implies without source that there is textual evidence fro the exodus and that it is contrary to archaeologists consensus. Compare [37] removed fringe opinion that majority of arcaheologists are wrong because they rely too much on archaeological evidence
• excessive use of < br > in posts: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]
• I'll also note that the account has not bothered to deny the accusation that they are a sock puppet in two further posts [43] [44]
• changing references to Old Testament/Pentateuch/Hebrew Bible to Torah [45], [46] [47] [48] [49]

Ermenrich (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]