Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:23, 6 June 2011

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Pally Pictures

I'm user 132. That account was banned for a period of time. That period of time is over. I'll use this named account and try my best to be a good member of the community. It is a scientific word for otter. Isn't that cute?

The three pictures on Palestinian people were removed by me, 132, after I posted a talk page comment about them. No one objected to my reasoning that the pictures are poorly captioned, misleading, and appeal to emotional politics on a page already plagued by controversy. There is also enough pics already.

Ohiostandard recently put the pics back in without explanation.

So, what I did was undo Ohiostandard's undoing of a good faith edit that was not contested on the talk page.

Why did you undo?Lutrinae (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal in the I-P topic area results in me automatically reverting generally speaking, especially in areas prone to cultural genocide and efforts to produce an article without a people. :) Just put a note of the article talk page with your new user id and someone will pick up the discussion. I'll try to join if I have time at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start a talk tread. But please note that I explained my edit with the words "Removed three pictures of an extraneous nature." That explains why I removed the pics, they were extraneous.

Extraneousness means excessiveness. Lutrinae (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that and I thought it was you, hence my deja vu comment, but it was a bit vague and I couldn't be sure. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You thought the explanation was vague, so you ignored good faith and deleted it anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.156 (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. When all of the sockpuppets have gone and the agenda driven editors lay down their arms I'll switch to the nice guy/assume good faith mode. It's nothing personal. I vaguely remember agreeing with some of your suggested image removals. I'll try to have another look. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dont accuse me of sockpuppetry. I have made no attempt to deceive.

The user who constantly posted Nazi crap on the Pally people article wasn't me, but banned at the same time. I think that was the only "evidence" used against me.

Anyway, bygones and we'll see how we can make some encyclopedic, NPOV I-P articles. Or does that area not interest you? Lutrinae (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything, I was commenting on the topic area in general and its unfortunate effects on my approach, but if you see any editors that you suspect are sockpuppets please let me know. Am I interested in making I-P articles NPOV ? Not much, there are more interesting things to work on here, but I try to keep an eye on things. I'm not going to revert your edit. I'll try to get over there at some point. Other editors will probably comment before me. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think your IP was "banned for a period of time" was it ? I think the article was semiprotected for a while because of edit warring or something, I forget. (see WP:SILVERLOCK) Sean.hoyland - talk 05:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you were write about the silverlock, but I hope you understand that I was often threatened with bans by people unwilling to be civil and talk. If you don't have the time for I-P conflict, then leave it alone. I don't think you are helping by removing material you don't like and replacing it with bias material you DO like. Lutrinae (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Persecution of socks

First let me say I sympathize with you over your frustration regarding sockpuppets invading Misplaced Pages articles and Talk pages. They consume valuable resources and get in the way of the Project. In one case I even took it personally when it was discovered that an editor whose contributions I appreciated was a sock. So your comment here, which on one level is comical in a way, is poignantly true and sad. That being said, though, and recognizing that you've developed a far keener sense of sockpuppetry detection than I have, I do wonder if comments like this one are appropriate. Again, I hate to be in the position of defending a sock – and in fact I'm not defending him or any other sock – but the principle of innocent until proven guilty should apply to Misplaced Pages no less than it does in Western justice systems. You could have at least waited for a formal conviction of the IP before launching into a personal attack like that. (And even after the conviction, I question whether a personal attack can be considered a positive contribution to a discussion.) Part of me wants to take this to AN/I just to get input from the powers-that-be, because I haven't been able to find a clear policy that addresses these things. There's also the matter of editing another user's Talk page that's a problem, e.g. here. It's my understanding that a user's Talk page is essentially his own private property. Basically it comes down to whether a sock is allowed to be personally attacked – whether prior to, pending, or after his conviction – and whether his contributions can be treated as the equivalent of vandalism. At least this comment would seem to indicate that the answer is no.—Biosketch (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of anti-sockpuppetism ? Isn't that a personal attack...or does a word have to actually exist before it can be a personal attack...hard to tell. I knew it was him based on data I have about his MO. There was no doubt or ambiguity or else I wouldn't have commented. I'm not a psychic. My day to day work involves things that are orders of magnitude more complex and risk prone than reliably identifying this editor's signal from the wiki-noise. Misplaced Pages isn't run by admins and I don't have to wait for permission via formal rulings by anyone before I say anything or for validation of my statements. Sockpuppets can't be here and they can't do or say anything. There are objective reasons why the descriptive terms I used are justified. A person who has been proven repeatedly to lie is a liar, a person who compulsively does something is compulsive, a person who sociopathically fails to distinguish between right and wrong is unethical. These are objective statements with a large amount of empirical evidence to support them for anyone familiar with this editor. They are not personal attacks, they are entirely accurate evidence based statements. I could use other terms too, some of them would even be positive, but I find it particularly sickening and way over the line that this person has even cynically exploited the restriction of basic human rights in the form of free access to information in parts of the world to try to lie their way out of blocks and justify the use of anonimizing proxies before. I have nothing but contempt for this kind of sociopathic behavior and I do what I can to eliminate it from the project and confront users with the reality of what they are doing in the hope that one day they will wake up, stop, think, and find an alternative approach such as the cleanstart process (which no one seems to want to use preferring instead to continue using deception for reasons I genuinely cannot comprehend). You can't honestly expect me to take you seriously about striking out banned editors comments on Nableezy's page or anywhere else for that matter ? I mean, come on. If Nableezy has a problem with me editing his page he will tell me openly and honestly, possibly using the words "fuck" and "off", which would be fine by me. You can take it to AN/I or anywhere else for clarfication but if the outcome gets in the way of confronting dishonest editors who blatantly and repeatedly break the rules, removing the effects of their presence and eliminating sockpuppetry I won't comply with it. I'll have to be blocked first. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See, told you so. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See also here, which was started by (suppress giggle) a sock of a banned account. WP:BAN also allows for the removal of any edits by a banned user. Sean, if it were necessary, and it isnt, you have my permission to remove or strike any comment made by a sock on my talk page. I was tempted to not say anything here in the hopes a user would actually take this to ANI as that would have been hilarious. nableezy - 12:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As if to show that life sometimes imitates art, someone has. Would you cocoa it? RolandR (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen that "Striking or deleting sockpuppet contributions" thread before... unbelievable. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I too share your frustration at the disruption caused by sockpuppets; especially the serial sockpuppetry we have seen in the I/P area: I have commented on another talk page about this. We need to find a more efficient way of dealing with this, and of protecting the many decent editors who have been sanctioned after being targeted by socks. Meanwhile, I have just submitted an SPI on yet more Ledenierhomme socks. This abuse seems endless. RolandR (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the 93.91.196.xxx IPs were covered by a rangeblock but it expired earlier today. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) We especially need to find some way to deal with the problem of what I call "drive-by/short-term" socks. These are the accounts that show up for a few days, not necessarily consecutive days, make a batch of reverts, and are gone again, presumably on to the next account. The goal appears to be to force established users to "burn" 1rr edits, and it's pretty effective. When such accounts obviously represent experienced users there's no reason we should have to try to figure out whose sock they are in order to put a halt to their disruption.

They don't leave enough behavioral evidence behind, since they just edit for a short interval, and some, at least, seem to be sophisticated enough to evade checkuser detection. This problem will sink any pretense of NPOV in the I/P area if it's not resolved. Is there any comprehensive remedy anyone can suggest that has a chance of actual implementation?  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think default semi-protection of i/p articles is worth discussing. Zero 02:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), "Anti-puppetism"? I can see how that might be funny, or offensive, but no. The issue is not whether a given sockpuppet is a liar or a cheat. Some of the users I've interacted with here are certified hypocrites and utter morons – but the point is that, much as I'd like to sometimes, I can't tell them so. WP:NPA explicitly forbids it, and for good reason. Indeed, that policy authorizes my reverting your comment to the sock at Nableezy's Talk page, per "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Whether or not Misplaced Pages is run by Admins, I don't know. But it is run by policies and guidelines, and they are meant to apply to everyone equally. Personal attacks, regardless of whom they're directed at or under what circumstances, do not belong in the Project.

Edited to add: Those are my feelings on the topic. The AN/I started to discuss this where it can get more authoritative input is here. We'll see if the Admins consider it as silly an issue as Nableezy (talk · contribs) is convinced it is.—Biosketch (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hows that working out for you? You ever notice how nobody complains that socks on the "P-side", however rare they are in comparison to the dedicated people socking to support the Greatest State on Earth, are treated poorly, or cries when their comments are struck out or their edits reverted? I wonder why that is. nableezy - 12:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frieda Hughes Elevation.png

Thanks for uploading File:Frieda Hughes Elevation.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored it to the article. The fair use rationale is legitimate and uncontroversial in my view so I do not support the IP's removal of the image from the infobox. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)