Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:49, 1 July 2014

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

How you identified?

How you identified that the user is a sock puppet on Template:Kidnapping? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. The edit summaries and the targeting of specific editors and articles are characteristic of this person. They also often issue threats of violence (see this threat for example), one of many made against many editors. Many of their edits, and they had made thousands, are revdel'd. They have been doing this for 10 years since they were about 15. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sean, it is good that you are keeping watch and reverting. You may want to update that LTA, it says "active", yet no update since April 09. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islam by country may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

Arbitration enforcement editing restriction: Arab-Israeli conflict

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from commenting on arbitration enforcement requests by others relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, except where your own conduct is the subject of the request.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  11:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you have more confidence that admins can see through the smoke than I do. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not really, we can only work with the evidence we're given. At any rate, in response to opinions by other administrators at WP:AE, the duration of the restriction banning you from commenting about enforcement restrictions by others is set to three months.  Sandstein  11:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Some comments

• Two things are known with certainty about AmirSurfLera, they are not a new user and they lie. That should, in my view, be sufficient grounds for blocking the account. Who the sockmaster is shouldn't matter, but for reasons I don't understand given the constant disruption by sockpuppets, it doesn't work like that.
• Admins at AE can work with the evidence they are given but in AmirSurfLera's case they haven't. I already made it clear at AmirSurfLera's first AE case that a checkuser confirmed that they are a returning user with an undisclosed editing history (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151#AmirSurfLera. Their statement here (available via the link I provided at AE) that they have not edited Misplaced Pages before is inconsistent with the checkuser's result, because it is a lie. Nevertheless they are still being treated as if they are a 'new user' and had a request processed as if they are a legitimate user. This is an error.
• Describing AmirSurfLera as a sock given what is known with certainty about them can't reasonably be described as casting aspersions.
• What can admins at AE and other noticeboards do to help under these circumstances ? They can help by doing nothing, by not processing requests from editors when it is clear that the editor has unclean hands.
• AmirSurfLera's sockpuppetry will be dealt with in due course. What hasn't been done yet is formally identifying the sockmaster. Checkuser Elockid hasn't edited since 2014-05-26. When they return they will be able to carry out further checks based on information I have provided. If the checkuser data is insufficient to connect accounts, then and only then will I spend my time and the clerks time at SPI on the behavioral evidence that connects indefinitely blocked Shamir1, with Precision123 and AmirSurfLera. But even then, there is nothing admins can do to prevent an editor like this from coming back and they will come back unless they can be persuaded to stop. Fire and forget style blocking doesn't work. What you see as disruptive conduct at AE, I see as an intervention to try to get someone to stop. Getting blocked for it is collateral damage.
• As for trying to restrict editors from commenting at AE as a sanction in general, it can't be enforced. I don't think admins should issue sanctions that can't be enforced. Admins don't know who is commenting at AE because they generally don't look beyond account names. Compliance with this kind of restriction is predicated on an editor's honesty, their willingness to not engage in sockpuppetry. Sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors have commented there and filed reports numerous times.

Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• • I am not happy with the treatment you received here. I was thinking of opening an AN/I about it, but would like to hear your opinion first. On a related matter, see this. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Huldra. In my view, the treatment Sean.hoyland has received is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. IjonTichy (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it was a bad decision but it doesn't really matter. I don't mind. Admins are required to be uninvolved (and human) so some questionable and bad decisions are inevitable. One cost of being uninvolved is probably that admins don't really have a particularly good understanding of the state of affairs in the topic area, how bad things (and some people) really are, the level of deception and dishonesty, the ineffectiveness of policy, SPI, the discretionary sanctions, pretty much everything. The same mistakes are made over and over, actions that editors in the topic area know don't work and haven't worked for years. The discussion at Arbitration/Requests is important though. Something has to be done to fix the topic area. The only thing that bothered me about that AE report is that no one addressed the questions raised by editors. Admins are servants of the community and answer to the community. Editors need to be able to see that AE works and that admins will listen. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you have such a laid-back attitude about it (only way to survive in the IP area, I suppose!). The problem is that if this goes uncontested, then we really cannot say a word when the geese start quacking all over the place.. Both are important, I think; both what is a blockable offence, and what to do with the throw-away socks. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think that socks coming only from only one side? The recently blocked user is clearly WP:DUCK.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, socks are definitely not coming from only one side. I think socks are predominantly from the pro-Israel side by far at the moment and they have been for a long time. There is good evidence to support that view. What might happen is an increase in the number of socks on the pro-Palestinian side. If admins are unable to protect the topic area and its editors I think it can encourage vigilantism. That is probably one of the reasons why there are so many pro-Israel socks because there is a perceived inability (whether true or not) to deal with POV pushing. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Shrike, I think I accidentally ignored your second sentence. If you mean Sepsis II could be blocked on the basis of WP:DUCK, I don't know whether that is the case. They could also be a genuinely new user with strong views. Their earliest edits in ARBPIA suggest that they didn't know what they were doing e.g. see the ref formating here. Of course it's easy to fake such things too. I'll also add that all socks are not equal to me. Some don't concern me and I'm not interested in which side they support. The socks that really get my attention are the ones who show signs of sociopathy. They are a danger to the content and the community. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Shrike: In my experience, pro-Israeli socks outnumber pro-Palestinian socks by somewhere between 10:1 and 100:1. There are several reasons for this. For one thing, there have never been off-wiki canvassing by the pro-Palestinian side (AFAIK), while there have been several for the pro-Israeli side. (I recall a baloon-trip over Israel as first prize for the most "pro-Zionist editor of Misplaced Pages", or something like that, one year ;P). Also, if you meet pro-Palestinian activist, (and just take my word for it: I have met quite a few) you will soon realise that no group, absolutely no-one, dislike Misplaced Pages as much as they do. This was established very early on. (Just a hint: Don´t ever tell a pro-Palestinian activist that you edit Wkipedia. Unless you really like beeing despised, that it.) Pro-Palestinian activists have instead flocked to http://www.palestineremembered.com/. It is embarrassing to see how well that place has covered basic info, like population at different censuses, etc. Much, much better than Misplaced Pages. And that web-site is now being quoted in academic sources (which I can assure you that WP´s I/P pages are not.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE

Per your request: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk • contribs) 09:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall decline the opportunity to participate though because what happens to me doesn't interest me, nor does it matter. Instead, I shall simply enjoy the comedy of watching you perform your little dance from afar. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)