Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pfagerburg~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 12:04, 21 September 2010 (→Unblock discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dude, are you really using and ordering ATMELs or are you here just for propaganda ?

Your question is irrelevant to the fact that the observations in the article about supply and willingness to sell small quantities badly violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; that is why they were removed.

Still, I will respond to your question: yes, I have been using and ordering AVR's for about 10 years now. I used to have an STK200 and STK300, way back when you you needed a different kit for the Mega103 and Mega603, which were the only mega's at the time. I also remember when you could sell AT90S2313's for $20 on ebay because they were in very short supply and someone had designed it into a satellite card hacking device circa 2000/2001.

More recently, I just finished designing a Mega324P into a piece of automated test equipment for a customer. Pfagerburg (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Af89003a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.253.113.194 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Still here

Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page, but it's better to use e-mail to contact me, or to alert me to something that must be discussed here or other places on-wiki. The e-mail address in my account is active; the "Email this user" link will work. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Block

Pfagerburg, I've blocked this account indefinitely, because it appears to have been used mainly in pursuit of Jeff Merkey. You were banned by Arbcom for one year because of it, and I advised you in July this year when it started up again that you risked being blocked indefinitely if you continued. You also posted that you had taken some kind of legal action against him for harassment, so choosing to interact with him further on Misplaced Pages is not wise. As I see it has begun again I've placed an indefinite block on the account. Please use the {{unblock}} template if you wish to appeal it. SlimVirgin 01:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Pfagerburg has agreed to a complete interaction ban with any socks of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and will focus on editing articles instead. Reports about socks can be made to the appropriate venue, after which Pfagerburg will disengage so other users may deal with the problems. Any violation of this interaction ban will result in an extremely long block up to an indefinite one. AniMate 06:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Request handled by: AniMate Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

The block of the above editor was executed on false grounds and needs to be overturned. As discussed at length on WP:ANI, Pfager was reverting edits made by a banned user, which is totally within the rules. Another user, Petri, flaunted those rules by restoring the banned user's edits. If anyone should be blocked, it's Petri. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside input from reading the ANI thread: indef block was not necessary. Strong warning followed by first 24 hour block would've sufficed. And definitely should not have been blocked by an admin listed by the user at ANI as being involved in the issue. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm in any way involved in this, SP. My first and only interaction with him was in July when I warned him he risked being indefblocked if he didn't start to use this account for something other than pursuing Merkey. SlimVirgin 03:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting this. If this Merkev editor was indef banned by Arbcom, how can you indef ban this user for 'pursuing' an indefed banned editor that is not supposed to be on Misplaced Pages? It would seem to me that identifying an indefed editor and alerting admins is something that should be encouraged, not get you blocked indefinitely. I have never seen either editor before today, but reading the ANI discussion and the sequence of events has me puzzled here. Dave Dial (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe both were banned for one year. Merkey was later indeffed for socking or something. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

or something. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take AniMate's suggestion. Here's my proposal:

1. I do not revert any edit by this particular banned user, except for harassing edits on my own talk page.
2. I do report edits by this banned user to WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:SPI, or another appropriate venue (such as an e-mail to oversight, or opening an Abrcom case).
3. SlimVirgin and JzG are prohibited from taking any administrative action against me for reports I file in those venues. Rightly or wrongly, I understood SV's edits to my talk page in July as threatening to block me even if I reported the sock puppets in WP:ANI or WP:AE.

And with that, I get unblocked. Deal? Pfagerburg (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You agreed to stay away from Merkey on WP back in July, in several posts, and as I recall by email too. But here you are again. And I will definitely continue to take admin action in relation to this if you're unblocked, because you must not post at all about Jeff Merkey. You've made only 248 edits to articles in over four and a half years, 652 edits overall, most of them connected to Merkey. You're not here as a Wikipedian, at least not with this account, but as a Merkey detective of some kind, and it's completely inappropriate. SlimVirgin 04:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with SlimVirgin. What I propose isn't a voluntary restriction, this would be a formal ban from reverting Merkey's edits. Also, SV wouldn't be restricted from being involved here. If you're really here to contribute to the encyclopedia and not here to continue your feud with Merkey, it's going to take some convincing. If all you're interested in is reverting his edits, I don't see any reason to unblock the account. AniMate 04:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

" If Pfagerburg agrees to not revert any more edits by Merkey's socks he should be fine. If he spots any edits, he can report them here and a neutral editor without a conflict of interest can revert them." That is exactly what I have proposed (with the exception of any harassment which he might post on my talk page; that gets reverted without a response in the future), and that it be made a formal prohibition. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agreed to stop reverting 2-year-old edits made by that banned user in violation of his ban which was in effect at the time. If I notice an edit by a banned user, I should be able to report it to the appropriate venues. Otherwise, what is the point of a ban?

I thought AniMate's suggestion was perfectly appropriate - I don't revert, just report it and let others deal with it. And yes, AniMate, I would agree to that as a formal restriction.

I'm sorry that you don't think I edit frequently enough to warrant your approval "as a Wikipedian." I've been very busy at work this summer, and only been able to pop in here on an infrequent basis. In case you didn't notice, the latest sock impersonated me and attempted to frame me for sockpuppetry. Am I supposed to sit back and let that continue? Pfagerburg (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you ever get unblocked you should consider yourself in an interaction ban with Merkey. This would include filing any complaints at WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:SPI. Your comment above however shows a continued combative and vindictive attitude, so I do not think you really need to be unblocked. Besides, there is nothing in your edit history that points to any other involvement on Misplaced Pages other than your long term battle with Merkey. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri, if you look at my contribs, there are many other edits to articles completely unrelated to this issue. I don't recall seeing any policies on how many edits a user must have before they are considered to be a legitimate user. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not an admin; you have no authority to impose an interaction block. A real admin already suggested that it would be appropriate for me to report socks to ANI, AE, and SPI and leave it at that. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I think this block is overly harsh and the justification for it is weak at best. Having previously been involved in a prolonged "battle" with an army of socks of a banned user I get where you are coming from, but I don't know that this sort of a deal would be binding on SV or JzG unless ArbCom were involved or something. In any event it is probably in your best interest to disengage entirely with Merkey. These protracted fights with banned users often end badly for the "good" user if they go on too long, which this one clearly has. I think you will find that if you sweep the pages you were watching because of this matter off your watchlist you will discover that Misplaced Pages is a lot more enjoyable when it isn't a constant confrontation with some deranged person who is obsessed with sneaking their edits onto Misplaced Pages. Just some free advice to take or leave as you please. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Beeblebrox, Slim Virgin herself said that any uninvolved admin was free to overturn her block. I have proposed that I will not revert any more edits from this banned user, which is exactly what AniMate suggested in AN/I.

And I didn't detect the latest sock through pages on my watchlist; I was alerted to the impersonation and harassment off-wiki. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pfagerburg is not simply fighting a banned user and socks. As this edit and a related AN/I thread seem to indicate, he has been involved in a real life battle with Merkey for at least five years. If Merkey was harassing Pfagerburg then it would be different, but I have seen very few signs of that. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean like creating a new account (in violation of a siteban) that attempted to impersonate me, and trying to frame me for sockpuppetry? Or the harassing edits from IP's on my talk page? Or the edits back in 2009 where he falsely claimed I was a convicted stalker? Pfagerburg (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The claim that I ran "Pagan Savage" in the diff you cite is false. I never ran that website, and Merkey has no proof. He admitted it himself in court. (sigh) Do we really have to go over this again? Pfagerburg (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, and I removed the sections wherein I discussed the ban-violating edits and the harassment as a show of good faith that I will leave the articles alone. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is something worrying irrational going on here. You said that you went to court to stop Merkey from harassing you. But here you are, doing little else with this account but pursue him. There's an important principle in law that a person has to approach the court with clean hands, and the same goes for Misplaced Pages. You can't use Misplaced Pages to pursue real-life personal grudges, all the while claiming that it's the other person who's hounding you. SlimVirgin 04:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Merk is banned from here, so by definition it is not possible to stalk him here, because officially he's not here. Whatever nonsense went on between them in the real world, wikipedia policy still allows the edits of banned users to be removed. Regardless of Pfager's personal motivation, the banned user is not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not "pursuing" him. I noticed several edits in violation of policy, and I brought them to the attention of the Arbitration Committee, the Admins Noticeboard, or I reverted them. Each time, I was then targeted for harassment. Per my edit above, I will report these edits to the appropriate venue, and then move on. I edit occasionally on subjects of interest to me, especially technology. You can see in my contributions I have made some improvements to the various articles. This is not a single-purpose account. Pfagerburg (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You've done little else with this account for four and a half years but pursue Merkey, and there's no point in pretending otherwise, because your contribs speak for themselves. It's not good for you, never mind anything else. SlimVirgin 05:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe your original dispute may be related to the SCO / Linux legal disputes. In your latest mass reverts you have extended the conflict to cacti! This I find unacceptable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Banned users are not allowed to edit" are you unable to comprehend? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Importing an off site dispute onto Misplaced Pages isn't acceptable. The purpose of the encyclopedia isn't to settle scores. Bugs, you're taking an extremely unhelpful, black and white view of a complicated situation that has a lot of shades of gray. If you can't see how Pfagerburg's edits weren't in his best interest considering the onsite and offsite issues these two have had, perhaps it is time to step back and let others deal with this situation, because you aren't doing him any favors. AniMate 05:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but I am beginning to think that Baseball Bugs is just trolling. His long edit history does not seem to have very many main space (article) edits. Appearing to defend someone, but in fact just wanting to see some distraction is by definition what trolls do. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the second time tonight you've made that personal attack, and that's twice too many. Don't do it again. My concern is the enforcement of the rules. You've been on here long enough that that should be a concern of yours also, and you should know better than to proxy a banned user's edits. It is you that was stalking Pfager, and it is you that continually tries to distract with bogus issues about cactuses and such. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, for what it's worth, I don't think Petri has been stalking me. He certainly has an interest in several articles where this particular banned user has been known to edit, and when I have reverted that banned user's edits, Petri seems to prefer the content over the violation of policy, and wants the edits restored, regardless of their origin from a banned user. I think that stance allows a banned user to game the system with "good" edits (and WP:BAN specifically discusses this), but it is at least an honest disagreement, and not one that I attribute to any personal malice from Petri Krohn. Pfagerburg (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'd be more firmly convinced if Petri would acknowledge the rule instead of continuing to argue about why he shouldn't have to obey it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wish that certain people would see the value of strictly enforcing the policy that banned users are not allowed to edit. However, I don't see a refusal to adopt your viewpoint (and mine) as evidence that Petri is stalking me. Because I don't think he is. Pfagerburg (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You would know better than I as to whether you're being stalked, and if you think you're not being stalked, then you're not. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was alerted to the issue by the AN/I thread and recognized the name of this Merkey guy as If I have seen it somewhere. (Never got to read the article though.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Try a little WP:AGF, Petri. Baseball Bugs is taking a verylegalistic approach to the "edits by banned users" policy. He obviously feels very strongly about it. That doesn't make him a troll. Pfagerburg (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There cannot be any compromise on the rule against allowing banned editors to edit. Presumably there's a good reason that Merk was banned. Any personal or nefarious reasons Pfager may have for reverting the banned users edits are overshadowed by the simple fact that Banned users are not allowed to edit. Pfager may be right for the wrong reason, but he's still right to revert the edits, and Petri is wrong to put them back. If you don't have "black and white" on the banning rules, you undermine wikipedia, and that is unacceptable, to coin a phrase. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now, if I may summarize what I believe are the motivations of Slim Virgin's block:

1. Pfagerburg brought a real life legal dispute to Misplaced Pages and turned it into a Misplaced Pages battlefield.
2. Pfagerburg acted in bad faith when he summarily reverted edits and deleted valuable content from Misplaced Pages.

Neither of these reasons have anything to do with whether banned users are allowed to edit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is YOU that acted in bad faith, by proxying a banned user's edits. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My actions and edits are not discussed here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither of you are helping here anymore. Both of you please disengage, since neither of you can actually unblock him, all you can do is continue your little argument. If you want to do that, take it to one of your talk pages, because it has no place here. Bugs, as someone who wants to see Pfagerburg unblocked, surely you can see this is actually hurting any chance he has at a timely unblock. AniMate 06:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If standing up for the rules is a blockable offense, something has gone dreadfully wrong with wikipedia. Bye. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

AniMate, I have already offered you substantially everything you suggested in the AN/I that would lead to me being unblocked. I won't revert (or AfD or CSD) any edit made by a sockpuppet (proven or suspected) of banned user User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, but will instead report the edits to ANI, AE, SPI, oversight, or Arbcom. The only difference I requested is for edits made to my personal pages (user and talk), which edits will be reverted without comment. Just because someone else believes even more strongly than I do in the importance of the edits-by-banned-users policy should not reflect negatively on me. Pfagerburg (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm still concerned about your motivation to continue to edit. Clearly I can't demand that you edit to prove good faith, but I would like you to understand that your purpose here is not to continue an off site dispute with Jeff Merkey, but to improve the encyclopedia. You are here to actually edit and not to deal with Jeff Merkey, right? AniMate 06:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am here to edit. I have many technology articles in my edit history, as you can see. Plus I have varied interests in language, the military, and some aspects of popular culture. Pfagerburg (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has given me the go ahead to unblock, and I'm going to do so. Understand this is a full interaction ban between you and any Merkey socks. No reverting allowed with the exception of your user space. You can only make reasonable reports to appropriate boards, after which you should disengage and let others decide the best course of action. Like you said, you have many technology articles in your edit history, so focus on improving those and try to resist the temptation to go fishing for socks of Jeff Merkey. AniMate 06:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ACK. Reports go to ANI, AE, SPI, Oversight, or Arbcom, and are handled by parties there. Pfagerburg (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're unblocked, and I think I got the autoblock as well. I'll keep an eye out here in case I didn't. AniMate 06:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP, what you said would have been better in an e-mail. Since you say we have interacted off-wiki, may I assume you already have one of my valid e-mail addresses?

Call me idealistic, but in spite of some of the "stuff" that goes on here, I still think WP can be improved from within, rather than criticizing from without.

I could be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time that's happened, and it certainly won't be the last. Pfagerburg (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't have an email for you, unless you use your Yahoo! mail. Yeah, I'm one of those *terrible* SCOX trolls... I could probably track you down through your work if I felt like it, but I can't really be bothered. I used to feel like you, that WP had some redeeming features and could be improved from within, but I had that little ray of hope beaten out of me by certain of the admins. If you still have doubts, you could spend a lifetime trawling through the content on that attack site named by joining the words "wikipedia" and "review". Really, Misplaced Pages's not worth the effort as an encyclopædia, and it's certainly not worth causing yourself real life trouble with net.kooks over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.94.88 (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My Yahoo e-mail account is one of the valid e-mail addresses I have. Pfagerburg (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)