Have you used a prior account on Wikipedia?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. What about you? I did used to have an AOL account back in 7th grade. Right now I'm trying to figure out how to plaster my user page with "THIS USER WILL NEVER FORGET DALE EARNHARDT!!" thingies. Sol Goldstone (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's cute. i hate to stereotype, but the Goldstone surname and being a Dale Earnhardt fan don't usually go together. you must have an interesting background. my apologies if you feel i am bothering you, but what exactly do you mean by an "AOL account"? Did you have a Wikipedia user name before the current one?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. I like to keep expectations low, so if people come to yell at me they look at my userboxes and say "Ooooh, that explains a lot". And nope, no wikipedia account. AOL was like the internet but painful and time consuming, almost as painful and time consuming as a WP account. For some reason I liked both. Sol Goldstone (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

people come to yell at me ? I see no history of that on your talkpage? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right! It's working already! So who did you think I was? Is there another charming Dale Earnhardt/Twilight/Derrida Pastafarian who used to frequent the Wikis? Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, delightful invitations to most sumptuous feasts of deliberation and grave judgment! A veritable smorgasbord of weighty pondering and solemn reasoning! Sol Goldstone (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Beer Barnstar
		For the right approach to dispute resolution. ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!     ←   ZScarpia   14:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sol please self revert per U.S. rejects UN report on Gaza flotilla raid. You can't get any clearer than that. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that particular source talks about a UN resolution when they mean HRC resolution, leading me to believe they meant something in the GA (which makes no sense in the context) so I was going to source it to the Reuters version which makes more sense. Sol (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you send me email by this link, I'll send you an academic paper on the Gush Emunim Underground that will give you more material in a citable form. Cheers. Zero^talk 03:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Any help on the topic is great. Sol (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reply to this? [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, my droog, I'll get back to you this evening on the matter (busy day). Any bits in particular that require focus? Sol (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I said in the diff above, is the Israeli view that the settlements are illegal or legal? I'm not talking about individual Israeli officials, that is not relevant, but the view of the state of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gotcha. To save time I'll just give you my gloss of the situation, harlan is the man to go to for all of his source wizardry (come to think of it, I should get his opinion on my opinion). This comes with all the usual provisos that my chief qualification for this opinion is that I have an internet connection and no better hobbies. The short answer is yes, they think it's legal. Military necessity allows occupying powers a variety of fun abilities under the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions, including the ability to seize land and destroy private property. The High Court (and this is very shrewd) protests that they, as the highest legal authority, cannot determine military necessity and leave it up to the military commander of the region. Thus they've yet to rule on it and probably never will; if the peace agreement ever comes then the new boundaries will decide which settlements have to go. Until then the settlements are defended as temporary (ie not violating Oslo) military necessities (not violating GC et. al.) that are outside the purview of the courts and under control of the army. The arguments are so arcane, so mercurial and so devoid of merit (made up for in chutzpah) that trying to pin down anything is entirely thankless. That's probably as clear as mud but there ya go! Sol (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sol, the reading was a pure enjoyment. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For brightening up WP with some well-placed humor (even if it was a bit sarcastic). Noleander (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you are too kind. I just couldn't think of any other way to say it =X Sol (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sol: you asked about duplicating material from Peace_and_war_in_Judaism#Wars_of_extermination_in_the_Tanakh into the herem article. I've encountered that situation many times, and discovered that the applicable WP policies are WP:Summary style and Wikipedia:Content_fork#Acceptable_types_of_forking. My personal philosophy is to do what is best for the typical reader of the encyclopedia: each article should be self contained (so that argues in favor of duplicating some material) but articles should also make use of "see also" and "main" links (which argues against duplicating material). A balance must be struck. One helpful thing to do is to treat one article as the "parent" (higher-level; overview) and one as the "child" (more specific or focused). Considering the articles you are discussing: Judaism and violence is the grandparent; Peace and war in Judaism is the parent; and Herem is the child. So herem should have the most detail about herem. The parent, Peace and war in Judaism should have a summary of the material (see WP:Summary style) with a "main" link (use template:main) pointing to herem. Bottom line: yes, material from Peace_and_war_in_Judaism#Wars_of_extermination_in_the_Tanakh can be copied into herem provided the sources say it is related to herem. One related issue is the name of the article herem: because many sources discussing "wars of extermination" do not use the word herem or cherem, it may lead to confusion, so renaming the article to "herem (wars of extermination)" or "wars of total destruction (herem)" or similar may reduce confusion (plus the possibility of editors trying to exclude material because the sources do not explicitly mention the word "herem"). If the herem article is not renamed to have a more general (and understandable to English-language readers) title, then the duplicated material should not be removed from the parent article. I hope that helps. --Noleander (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Atlas-crushing mountain of pettifoggery" -- it perfectly describes so much that goes on here. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, many thanks =) The more time I spend on here the more I wonder if the position of adjudicating admin for these disputes is an honor, a punishment, or both. Sol (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Templar98 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This accusation of sock-puppetry is so absurd that I neither know what to say, nor feel under any obligation to say it. Your excellent response has only led to people accusing you, if not of being me, of issuing instructions to me. I can't see the point of denying lies that stupid - have we been in touch? No, of course not, but denial only proves that mud sticks.

However, I'm unhappy that you've had to waste your time on something so obviously nonsensical. If you would like me to deny I'm a sock-puppet of anybody or defend any of my edits I'll do so. Templar98 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of a blocked user[reply]

Templar98, I've pasted a link to your comment here on the case page. Hope that's Ok. If it isn't, feel free to remove the link.     ←   ZScarpia   00:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - I've seen such deviant weaselling from some of these people I'm just not inclined to speak to them. Templar98 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of a blocked user[reply]

Meh, you're probably right, it might have made more sense to just let the SPI fall flat(unless it turns out I'm some sort of Tyler Durden)but the admin in charge wanted a response from one of us and I figured I'd lay it out as clearly as I could. It's probably strayed into troll feeding but I like to be thorough. The only question is where to go from here, which probably requires more tedious reports. Huzzah. Sol (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I now know I don't have a split personality. Farewell, 2Sock Shakur. Sol (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there mate, I see baseless accusations of stalking aren't the only thing Brew uses to try to scare people out of hir subject area/personal realm. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I hadn't realized this was widespread! Perhaps we can start a support group! Of course, then the support group would be the subject of an SPI and the whole cycle would start over =( Sol (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support group, yes! Even tho Sol and I have had some disagreements, I could tell he was a nice person. So it was hardly surprising to see him attacked with same kind of stupid attacks I've had vs me. It's just amazing this nonsense is allowed to continue, even when people have had 3 complaints vs them. Block these insulting harassers for a day or two or three here and there and it might actually keep them in line! CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, the guy is definitely a sock but I don't know who's sock, and there are so many people with the same strong POV this guy has...anyways if you could help me find the owner and get this guy blocked that would be much appreciated. Passionless -Talk 06:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited experience, the only advice I have is to try and ignore it. A puppetmaster can only really make you lose your cool/get self-destructive/quit editing. If it becomes a real nuisance take it to the SPI board but the nature of WP enforcement limits effective sanctions. There are puppetmasters who have been doing this for years (! which is a mind-boggling waste of time, check out NoCal100, still active in the I-P area or the ludicrously prolific Runtshit vandal) and no one can stop it. Sol (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm being followed by sock and meatpuppets everywhere now, though I think the sockmaster is evident in my newest case of User:GabrielF-(sent by brewcrewer) and :I invented "it's not you, it's me". The edit times match up between the two, they both track me, same sytle/POV, and the sock fixed the master's spelling mistake on a talk page....Do you think that this one is clear enough to bring it to admins? Passionless -Talk 00:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think I'm the person to ask. My experience is pretty limited with SPI's. You'd need to provide all of the evidence (which is a headache) for anyone to get a clear sense of what might be going on. If it's just one article then probably not. If it's happening across multiple articles, same accounts, maybe so. Sol (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason nobody checked the most obvious sock candidate for this guy? The one who had 9/15 of the same edits. Bulldog123 15:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no! I was involved in a dispute with said candidate at the time and didn't want to look like I was filing a retributive report. NoCal100 has a history of following him around and I figured it might be him. The extensive history of tag teaming with new accounts might make it WP:DUCK worthy. It could be entirely innocent but when new users keep showing up to help out the same editor, I get a little curious.Sol (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a largely sociopathic bastard I'm happy to help if I can. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sol Goldstone. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sol, I am sorry, if some of my comments hurt you. I assure you, it was absolutely not my intention to hurt anybody. What I was doing for the last few days was not attacking neither you nor anybody else for that matter, but only defending myself from the bogus accusations. Now, Sol, you said you will help to catch the hacker. Could you please name the user, who contacted you because this user is probably the hacker. Please do be reasonable. Do you believe I would have filed a false report to the authorities without prove that my account was hacked, do you really? My accounts were hacked, and you were used by the hacker. Now it is your turn to help to catch it. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood what I said. Let me repeat. I am finished dealing with you. You're behavior is astonishing, literally breath-taking. I've never seen anyone react to a pretty fair offer with such an artillery display of vitriol, accusations and slander. You have zero credibility. You now appear to be someone who will say literally anything for your own sake. You are justifying calling me a criminal as self defense, insisting this has to do with a hacker despite having no idea what it is. Once you see it, it will be obvious who probably sent it. I'm sure you will say it's from a hacker since you insist it is already. What kind of proof is there of a hacker or is this something I just accept at your word? Your word has suffered a serious currency deflation. You've made no attempt to look at it, rejecting my offer by implying that I want to send you computer viruses. Don't come baring half-hearted apologies after your bully tactics fall flat.

I thought better of you. When you were banned I spoke on your behalf. I'm sorry I did that. Sol (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sol, I do not believe you should feel sorry for "speaking on my behalf" during my ban. You never have. Here's what you said. If you call it "speaking on my behalf", then of course everything else you said about me could be put where it belongs to. I let you to figure out the exact name of it. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness earlier posted a query as to "what happened?", urging Sol to come back. While Supreme Deliciousness subsequently deleted his question, I imagine that it must be naturally be in the minds of others who come to this page.

What happened was that (if I understand correctly the comments at AN/I and on Jimbo's and other talkpages, and if they are accurate), a wikipedia editor's account was illegally hacked by a phisher, and then Sol (trying to hide behind a proxy) appears to have posted personal information from the target's hacked account publicly.

This involves allegations that are quite serious. Phishing in many Western countries leads to incarceration of malefactors for a number of years; though it is not clear to me which countries would have jurisdiction from the facts that have been shared. But anything further on that is outside the scope of wp chatter.

There is a cautionary tale here -- phishers pose as email providers to obtain passwords; we should all NOT agf when receiving any such requests. As to your urging, Sol has been blocked indefinitely, so it would not seem wise for him to return.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so I saw what you did just there. Firstly, you posted emails from an account belonging to another editor on here (you know who). This was reported to Oversight for suppression as RL identities are involved, to say the least. You did this using a South-African proxy, now blocked. Sadly, though, it was not as anonymizing as it should have been and checkuser  Confirmed that this led directly back to you. I've blocked your account for a month for all that, and defer to the community for further action. If any admin wants to extend that block or whatev, I'm fine with that, too.

What annoys me the most is how cowardly this all was - Alison ^❤ 06:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Using sockpuppet/proxy accounts to release personal information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sol Goldstone and User:Mbz1. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The developments concerning you at ANI are very grave, and IMO worth community banning over. Therefore I have proposed to ban you from Wikipedia; see WP:ANI#Community ban on Sol Goldstone? for the ban discussion. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the community consensus expressed here [3], you are now banned from Wikipedia. I suggest that if you wish to appeal against this community decision, the best way will be through Arbcom, since there would evidently be some potentially sensitive, private off-wiki evidence involved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Sol Goldstone. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Jewish religious extremism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15 § Jewish religious extremism until a consensus is reached. BD2412 T 20:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]