Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:04, 17 April 2009

Scramblecase

Scramblecase (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Report date April 17 2009, 08:24 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Collect (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Transity (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by neon white talk

This relates to a WQA Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Ratel submitted by User:Scramblecase. Although the editor denies being a sock of another editor and asserts he/she is brand new to wikipedia, initial edits demonstrate familiarity not only with policies and guidelines including some not so common ones such as WP:BURO, Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines and WP:SPA but also with the discussion and and WQA process (the editor even notfied the accused, something which 90% of experienced editors don't realise they should do). A particular phrase that jumps out as being strange from a new use is the references to SPAs such "please refrain from lobbing WP:SPA at me". I find it very unusual that a supposed new editor is ready to defend themselves from SPA accusations in their very first post. Considering that the editor has only made around six or seven edits, the 4th of which was to file a WQA report suggests to be this is not a new editor. I think it is necessary in order to progress with the WQA or mediation to establish whether this is a sock of an editor that has previous been involved in long term dispute with the 'accused' in the WQA. --neon white talk 08:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

• Please go right ahead - I have nothing at all to hide. Let me know how I can assist so we can get back to the WQA on User:Ratel. --Transity 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Seconded - go right ahead, with the expansion that, as I've already stated, I am perfectly willing to engage in a live telephone conversation with an admin and any/all parties I am accused of "being." To reiterate: this is not some ridiculous type of bluff. Set it up, and I'll be there. Unlike Ratel, I do not bluster and intimidate; this claim is an offer, not a threat.

Neon, no offense taken. I can certainly understand that you may find my ability to read before I write unusual - I'm unfortunately not employing sarcasm, here, as I'm instead finally realizing that, apparently, that is, indeed, a rare habit. I will point out the obvious fact: Ratel himself made reference to WP:SPA - quite irrelevantly, in my opinion, as I see WP:SPA as overall irrelevant in the first place - and the reference was esoteric and specific enough, in an unwarranted attack on Transity, for me to look it up. (See ) Seeing further references by both Transity and Ratel to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV made it quite natural to start looking through the policies and guidelines. Being a member of the human race, with an inherent curiosity, and an educated person with enough knowledge of information technology (professionally), library sciences (hard to avoid in my generation), and social compacts (we all live in at least one of them), it wasn't hard to surmise that policies such as WP:BURO existed, and, in fact, I specifically sought out a policy with such content in order to make my point (that Ratel was, aside from being abusive, being needlessly pedantic and stringent to the detriment of the article). I hope that at least some reading this can see the irony in the idea that I am being taken to task for thorough research and preparedness on a site dedicated to the maintenance of an encyclopedia. Should I apologize for not jumping in without making sure I knew how to contribute and make my points?

I read the IC article, I read the Talk section of the IC article, and it piqued my interest. In fact, one of the first things I did was click on Ratel's SPA reference, out of curiosity. When I realized what an accusation of SPA implied, I rolled my eyes; how can any community thrive if new members are denigrated out of hand? Why was Ratel, on a site for encyclopedic information, behaving as if "fragging the noobs" was his motivation for being here? (I don't frequent MMORPGs for similar reasons - to avoid miscreants like Ratel.) Arming myself with the knowledge of what a SPA was, and the immediate admonishment for Ratel not to use that irrelevant red herring to dismiss my contributions, I joined the discussion. Again, this only seems like being thorough, to me. I can see how it might appear otherwise to an outside observer; what I cannot see is why it would be the "default" assumption, especially in light of WP's guidelines regarding good faith and civility.

The speed with which I filed a WQA subsequent to the creation of my account is no mystery, either. At the moment, I am most certainly a WP:SPA. I do not, and have not denied this fact, ever - I have only said that it is irrelevant, and requested that it not be used to dismiss the merit of my contributions. I note that, of course, this is precisely what has been happening. As I indicated, I saw Ratel's abusive and dismissive behavior, and was not interested in letting his dismissal of the topic stand. This is my personality, both online and offline - if I see irrational, irrelevant, abusive behavior getting in the way of progress or accord, I act to counter it. Once again, note that my first contribution was to observe that Ratel was quoting policies as red herrings; whether or not his accusations are ever true, he continues to ignore other users' arguments and abuse them. Unlike Colonel Warden (on the current WP:WQA regarding Ratel, which one hopes will not be lost in the shuffle), I do not find this attitude to be merely "brusque" - I find it to be uncooperative and non-constructive. As soon as Ratel's behavior was directed at me, I again suggested that he rectify it, or I was willing to simply go to the next level. This is, to me, precisely the same pattern as trying to peacefully break up a fist-fight between strangers (which I have done - as I said, that's part of my personality), being punched in the face by the aggressor, and calling the police in response. The difference here is that, with the "slow motion" model of written interlocution that the Internet provides, I had plenty of time to "read up" on what was going on and be prepared, rather than march in blindly. (Also, I would normally use more humor with the pugilists, but WP seems, to me, to be a place to observe a little more formality, at least in issues like these.)

I also observe that Colonel Warden seems to be in agreement with Ratel in the original IC/PBS Talk that started this mess. Should I now begin proceedings against him because he both: a) agrees with Ratel; and b) defends Ratel's outrageous behavior? Of course not. The entire problem here is that Ratel's assessment of another user, and his treatment of that user, is far too often entirely based on the user's agreement or disagreement with him. A valid question is: if I made precisely the same points, calling out Ratel's behavior, but then disagreed with Transity and agreed with Ratel, would I have ever been accused of being a sockpuppet? I would certainly have been abused by Ratel for calling attention to his obnoxious behavior; but the only reason he suspects sockpuppetry, when you boil it down, is because I agreed with someone who he disagreed with. This seems like abuse itself, of an otherwise useful policy. His accusation severely loses merit, in that light.

As I said, I am now quite certainly a WP:SPA, out of necessity - I have only just joined WP, and I find myself defending my actions in observing another user's inappropriate actions. Yet, how am I to ever be anything other than a SPA upon first creating an account? I have plenty of information and assistance I'd be happy to contribute to WP (yes, all my claims to do this or that or the other professionally are quite true; and, like any human being, I have plenty of experiences, hobbies, interests, and skills to draw on). I have, however, been derailed in that goal. My "single purpose," at this point, is to make someone with some kind of authority take a long, hard look at Ratel's behavior. Feel free to investigate me for sockpuppetry, for my own behavior, and so forth; but, to reiterate, because apparently the point continues to be dismissed:

1) Whatever or whoever I may be, Ratel's behavior remains inappropriate.

2) Whether I have an account or not, Ratel's behavior remains inappropriate.

3) Whether I exist or not, Ratel's behavior remains inappropriate.

As I said, continue to investigate me. You may even end up banning me - I'd be quite annoyed, as the only reason to finally sign up for an account here was to see if I could contribute anything (and, as I've noted, the impetus for signing up was my opinion that I had something specific to contribute to - namely, Ratel's and Transity's dispute). But that is all utterly beside the point (not of this page - it's quite on point here - but of the larger issue). The point is, and will remain, that Ratel continues to exhibit abusive and dismissive behavior which is not aimed at the improvement of this site, any useful contributions he may have made aside. Not to carelessly skirt Godwin's Law, but this analogy is on point: making the trains run on time does not excuse fascism. Similarly, providing some good or even excellent articles and information on WP does not excuse obsessive, abusive WP:OWNership tendencies.

Ask me what questions you would like, neon. Ask them privately, ask them publicly, do the same with Collect, Transity, or any others you feel would be appropriate. And, as I said, my offer of a live conference call still stands, and is thoroughly genuine. The fact that this has come so far is quite ludicrous, but again, I have absolutely nothing to hide.

But meanwhile, whatever proceedings may be afoot regarding my account: users and admins alike, please do not be fooled by the supposition that my own status - sockpuppet, SPA, dictator-for-life of an oppressive third world country, all of the above or none of the above - in any way alleviates Ratel's requirement to behave appropriately and civilly toward others on this site. He is not brusque; he is a detriment to civil discussion and consensus.

Please continue to further discuss the WQA regarding his behavior on the appropriate page. Scramblecase (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

• Open SPI cases