Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:55, 17 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

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)

Why don't you see for yourself? Everyone's cracking up laughing, people's bladders are exploding. It's the comedy event of the year – just like you said it would be. I hope you're not offended I didn't leave an invitation on your Talk page. Oh wait, you're asking about my ANI, right? I thought we were talking about something else. Well the ANI is even more informative than I had anticipated. A variety of contributors are sharing their interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policies in relation to the issue raised, stressing the pernicious effect sockpuppets have on the Project but also acknowledging how important WP:NPA is to maintaining a healthy environment for editors to work in. The discussion is even civil and serious, to boot. I'm truly sorry if it disappoints you to hear that.

No, I haven't noticed how nobody ever complains about the "P-side." But I'm glad to see you surrounded that expression with scare quotes, suggesting you don't accept it as a true representation of reality, because it presupposes a dichotomy I don't consider myself a part of. Yes, when it comes to our language and our content disputes and our ad hominem insinuations on Discussion pages, the simplest thing to do is to label an editor "pro-P" and "pro-I" and then draw a host of conclusions from there. Would it surprise you to know that I am both pro-I and pro-P? or is such an idea repugnant to the very fiber of your being? Actually, I honestly don't care one way or the other what you think. Really all I care about is that the contributors I collaborate with follow the rules and dedicate themselves to building a reliable, neutral and eloquent encyclopedia. If you're committed to that vision, ahlan wasahlan. But if it's winning political battles that motivates you, which I regret to say is my impression from the brief time our edit histories overlapped prior to your being sanctioned, and from your seeming inability to edit any Misplaced Pages articles not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict ever since you were sanctioned, then you'll have earned yourself a place on my Naughty list, to borrow a useful expression from our colleague and gracious host Sean.hoyland. And you will lose. Again.—Biosketch (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A dichotomy that you dont consider yourself a part of? Really? So there is a reason you brought SD to AE for including the Golan in Syria and not Reenem for repeatedly including it in Israel, or reverting edits by that user that purposely distort the cited sources? Really? You think you are "pro-I" and "pro-P"? That is awesome, Im proud of you. Well, perhaps I shouldnt lie, much like you feel about me I dont care what you think. I judge you by your actions, and of those actions I have seen enough that I think I am reasonable in putting you squarely on one side determined to, oh lets go with your phrasing, "win political battles". My inability to edit any articles? Who wrote this, adding more material from quality sources to an article in a few days during my topic ban than either the editor who wrote the above or below comments have added to all articles in the past month? Next time, think before you speak and make sure that you arent showing yourself to be ignorant of the facts. I will "lose"? That is interesting. Stupid, but interesting. I wont waste any effort with the below, too much time has already been wasted attempting to get that "editor" to understand basic facts. But for the ANI, that "variety of contributors", they all said there as no issue here, right? That the responses by Sean and SD were "standard", right? Just wanted to make sure I was looking at the right discussion, because the one I see does not seem all that informative. Silly, in that somebody actually thought that this was something to bring to ANI, but not informative. nableezy - 12:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Minimal editing while topic banned from articles but still taking every opportunity to throw mud on talk pages. Let the battle continue I suppose.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono - where's the "Like" button???????? Soosim (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason I brought Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) to AE and not User:Reenem. Are you genuinely interested in knowing it or were you asking a purely rhetorical question? If it's the former, I strongly urge you to moderate your tone, as it encourages confrontation, not cooperation. If it's the latter, then it confirms that your underlying objective throughout this dialog has been to provoke my emotions rather than engage me intellectually. While we're at it, I also strongly urge you, the next time you're debating with yourself, as in your last comment, whether or not to lie, that you not debate at all and simply tell the truth. I sincerely hope this is not a dilemma you're faced with often when you contribute here.

You made valuable contributions to one article in the space of...how long ago were you topic-banned? a month? During that month, I and the other editor – whose name you appear to have some difficulty articulating – have made notable contributions to literally dozens of articles. One of us even created a new biographical article, and the other received a Tireless Contributor barnstar from a senior Wikimedia Foundation volunteer. Not that this is a competition, mind you; but it does reflect better on an editor when he's not obsessed with one tiny area of the Project.

You can continue trying to argue that the ANI is "hilarious" and "silly" if you think it makes you look prettier in the mirror. Meanwhile, here are some facts to ponder. Number of chuckles: 0; number of giggles: 0; number of snickers: 0; number of guffaws: 0. That's eight contributors total, none of whom laughed, and all of whom took the time to respond in earnest to my inquiry. I got what I wanted from the ANI. Clearly you, however, did not.—Biosketch (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that humour is a very personal and complicated business. Take Vince Fluke's case for example, "So I was watching The Great Dictator with Charlie Chaplin. Turns out I was watching actual footage of Hitler. What the hell was I laughing at?" Sean.hoyland - talk 10:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not asking you to answer my question, I already know the answer. The rest of your comment is best left alone, as I often have trouble replying to comments of such, ahem, quality (try to guess if I mean that, or if I am debating with myself on whether or not to tell the truth). As far as ANI goes, no, I got what I wanted. Every single person dismissed your complaint as lacking substance. And I laughed. Everybody wins, well, except you. I think this is where you tell me that I will lose and I giggle. Bye. nableezy - 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Um...every single person dismissed my complaint as lacking substance? You're sure about that? Evidently, replying to comments of quality isn't foremost among the things you have trouble with. It's really a shame that in those debates of yours between telling the truth and not, the truth is so often on the losing side. Bye bye now.—Biosketch (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Really, youre going this route? You do know that nearly everything on Misplaced Pages can be linked to, right? Lets see, the discussion, archived here, began with you seeking comment as to whether three diffs relating to socks of banned users were "inappropriate", those three diffs being , , and . You called the last a "personal attack". The following users commented in the discussion: Atlan, Sean, DeCausa, Cptnono, Errant, Nick-D (those two being admins) and Baseball Bugs. I generally ignore what one of those "editors" has to say about conduct, so forgive me for forgetting him in my "everybody" comment above. But of the others, Atlan said that they would do the same as the first two diffs and that the third was not a "personal attack", DeCausa made a general query and did not really address the topic under discussion, Errant said nothing was "problematic" and that these are "normal responses to socks", Nick-D agreed with Errant, and Baseball Bugs said if the user is banned the material may be removed on sight, per a link you should have been already familiar with as I posted it in my first comment in this section. Cptnono was the only person to find fault with any one of the diffs, but said nothing about the other two, saying Sean should not have made the comment. But, again, I usually ignore some peoples opinion on proper conduct and given that nobody else saw anything wrong with Sean's comment I see no reason to all of a sudden start paying attention. So it may not be "every single person" that found your complaint in lacking in substance as one person saw some substance in roughly 1/3rd of your complaint, but "every single person" not involved in the topic area, and "every single" administrator that commented. And yes, "every single person" saw no problem with the first two of what you called "inappropriate". nableezy - 03:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on, wouldn't it have been easier to just say, "Oops, my mistake" instead of going through that long, drawn-out, cop-out of a speech? You messed up. It happens. I'm not gonna tease you about it. Just give me some of those kittens or bouquet of flowers or whatever it is you're supposed to give me now and we can move on.—Biosketch (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As fun as this has been, let's not lose sight of what's important. 1) You misidentified something as a personal attack and inappropriate when it wasn't and you misunderstood the procedures for dealing with sockpuppets of blocked and/or banned users. That's fine. Now you know. 2) Nableezy is one of the key resources Misplaced Pages has in dealing with people who persistently violate WP:SOCK. If everyone became vigilant and active in confronting sockpuppetry and trying to find a solution, the topic area would be a far better place. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"Fun," you say? That's an interesting perspective. But here's an alternative one to consider. And I wasn't even gonna open my mouth again, but part of me still believes in your capacity to be a positive influence on I/P contributors of all creeds and persuasions. 1. I made a comment suggesting that calling an editor "compulsive" and "unethical" could be considered a personal attack. You took offense to it and, rather than calmly explaining your position, implied that I was accusing you of antipuppetism and threatened to rebel against Misplaced Pages in the event that consensus should form against you. Now that Nableezy (talk · contribs) has been discredited, your language is suddenly level-headed and conciliatory. Why is that? Why is it "fine" that I misunderstood procedures now, when just a few days ago it was a pretext for adding my name to your Naughty list? 2. I sincerely urge you to consider with whom you choose to cast your lot in these parts. Your readiness to overlook Nableezy's behavior above and elsewhere – but in particular the glaring fact that his every message here is suffused with schadenfreude – on the altar of his being one of Misplaced Pages's "key resources" in dealing with sockpuppetry, does not help the image of neutrality you go to such lengths to try and promote.—Biosketch (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, all those words and nothing to say. I have been discredited? Because one person, an involved user, saw one part of complaint as having some substance, where everybody else saw it for what it was? Get off it. The point was, and still is, that nearly everybody saw your complaint for its true worth. Yes, I did not include "nearly" earlier, but if you think that somehow "discredits" me you are really grasping for straws. Cptnono agreed with one part of your comment. Everybody else disagreed with all of it. But Im the one thats discredited by those whole little charade of yours. How interesting. nableezy - 05:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

<- Biosketch, I try to find joy in all things. There are many things you don't understand about me. I'll try to explain but ultimately they don't matter because I don't matter. Nothing that happens in Misplaced Pages really matters. Also, I don't have much time as I have to travel.

• My role doesn't include being a positive influence on I/P contributors of all creeds and persuasions. I literally don't care about my effect on other users. Sometimes I will encourage people to follow the rules, sometimes I will do my best to get them blocked when they won't. If I fail, it doesn't matter.
• "You took offense to it". No, I didn't, I just thought you were wrong. I challenge you to say something that offends me. It's quite difficult.
• "antipuppetism" = joke = play on the word antisemitism, something I have been accused of here before along with hating Arabs, being a Marxist, and many other amusing things that I only get the opportunity to be accused of here in WP. It's one of the aspects I actually enjoy about WP. Everyone in the real world is very nice to me so it's a welcome and entertaining change.
• "Threat", "Rebel" ? No, there was no threat and there's nothing to rebel against. It was a statement of fact about what I would do if the outcome got in the way of dealing with editors who blatantly and repeatedly break mandatory policy. It doesn't matter to me if there is a "consensus" to not do or say something unless the consensus is actually supported by policy. There are rules, people should follow them and everything will work out fine.
• I don't understand how Nableezy has been discredited. No one gets any credits here. Nableezy is an editor who tries very hard to make sure content complies with policy. It's very difficult in the I/P topic area because there are many people whose ability to think clearly in this topic area from a policy perspective has been damaged by what I assume is their socialization. I didn't realise I had a lot to cast but assuming I have, I'm happy to cast my lot in with any editor when they try to enforce policy. How it affects my image as an editor in the eyes on other editors is of no interest to me whatsoever. This is a crucial point to understand. Also, I don't have an image of neutrality nor do I claim to be neutral but you will never see me make an edit based on my opinions about the real world. In fact, you would be hard pushed to find an edit in subject areas that I care about (in a political sense) or in subject areas where I have substantial knowledge about the topic. I just don't edit articles about things I care or (like to think) I know about. This is how I avoid conflicts of interest and can survive in the I/P topic area.
• I don't mind what editors say to eachother in conversations like this. It doesn't matter to me what Nableezy says to you or what you say to Nableezy. You are adults. Cptnono has said some spectacularly inappropriate things to Nableezy and vice versa. Life goes on.
• My tone isn't meant to be conciliatory because nothing is broken from my perspective. Your actions were consistent with those of someone acting in support of a sockpuppet. You explained your position. Matters were resolved. Fin.

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), all I'm insisting is that you be precise in your language and that you not make unsubstantiated claims. There's a difference – an important one, in this case – between "everyone" and "four uninvolved editors." Moreover, the purpose of the ANI was never to vindicate my attitude or to seek enforcement against anyone; it was to relocate a discussion whose flavor was becoming sour (in no small part owing to your sarcastic contributions) to a forum where it could continue on a more gentlemanly level.—Biosketch (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), thank you for clarifying. Happy trails.—Biosketch (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty obviously not true. I made one comment, an on-topic and not sarcastic one, prior to you raising this at ANI. You said here that you did so to see what the admins would say about these diffs. So, for at least the people whose views you claimed you were interested in, they all so no issue at all, or, to use your words, in their view the issue is as silly as I thought it was. Oh, and it was not "four uninvolved editors", it was "every uninvolved editor". Still an important difference? Oh golly gee willikers, I just dont know. nableezy - 14:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think you do know. You know very well. Back when you left your first comment here, this discussion was still about the diffs and not about sense of humor or semantics or whatever it's become about now. Most of your comment was on-topic, but you had to top it off with, "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." Correct me if I'm wrong: you wished a user would file an ANI purely so you could get a good laugh out of it. Is that not so? In other words, (a) you did genuinely want the business of what went on at your Talk page to be the subject of an ANI, and (b) your motives for wanting the ANI were unethical in nature, even sinister, namely schadenfreude. Here is how the Collins English Dictionary defines sarcasm: "mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult." So yes, despite your insistence to the contrary, your comments – prior to, during and after the ANI – were sarcastic.

And on the topic of the ANI proper, I agree that every uninvolved editor supported an interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy essentially in agreement with Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs). That is not what you have been saying all this time, however. First you insisted that "Every single person" opposed my position. That argument was shown to be false, which you yourself reluctantly conceded, despite later insisting you were never wrong. Then followed several more days of pointless caviling. And now you're trying to convince me that all the uninvolved editors thought the ANI was silly, or hilarious. Well that isn't true either. It's easy to gage their attitudes from their language, and their language was dispassionate and professional through and through. Speaking of which, AGK (talk · contribs) recently requested that you maintain a "duly professional" code of conduct as a contributor to Misplaced Pages, to which you replied that you would try. Please try harder.—Biosketch (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!!

		Barnstar for anti-Semitic, Islamic fanaticist, terrorist-supporting merit
		Congratulations, I hereby award you this barnstar for your work in contributing to anti-Semitic, Islamic fanaticist, terrorist-supporting drivel all throughout Misplaced Pages. Keep it up!