Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 30 May 2011

So long and thanks for all the fish

That's all there is, there isn't any more. betsythedevine (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Archives 2005 Archives 2006 Archives 2007 Archives 2008 Archives 2009 Archives 2010 Archives 2011

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100

I have closed and declined this case because previous checks have confirmed (through both technical and behaviour evidence) that User:Red Stone Arsenal is not engaging in any sockpuppetry activities because checkuser result reveals accounts related to Red Stone Arsenal (if any) even if they're not listed in the report. The result came back is negative. Also, if you want to accuse someone engaging in sockpuppetry, you should gather more evidence and a search (located right here with a big search bar and button that says "search all cases and archives") would instantly revealed that it is not the case. Since Red Stone Arsenal and you have opposing POV at Start-up Nation, I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character. Therefore, I am cautioning you not to abuse the process and use SPI as a venue to silence editors with other POVs. OhanaUnited 06:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me a striking failure of WP:AGF to accuse somebody of using sockpuppetry "to try and assassinate his character" on the basis that you know a lot of stuff about how SPI should work than I do. I did not know that a past SPI checkuser would show the user had no other account; in fact my impression was the opposite. I thought that the reason you have to state which account you think somebody is an SPI of is that checkuser is not a fishing expedition. Furthermore, if you review the SPI case for Rym Torch, the person I thought was the same as Red Stone Arsenal, you will see that Checkuser evidence was not sufficient to reveal his identity with NoCal 100. I have no intention of using SPI to silence editors with other POVs, but I intend to use it whenever I encounter a brand-new user who jumps right into taking up the arguments of a banned user. I hope I will be equally willing to file SPI if the banned-user-lookalike is on the same side of the argument as I am. And I appreciate the tutorial you have offered on how SPI is supposed to work. betsythedevine (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is our job to treat all accounts as equal, be it involving an IP, an anonymous registered editor or someone editing under real-life identity. Two checks were run on April 27 and May 8 of 2011. Let me repeat my message again. Checkuser will reveal (if any) accounts used by Red Stone Arsenal even if they're not listed in the case. The software does that for checkusers. Both times the result turned up nothing. Checkuser software reveals these accounts if they're less than one month old (or longer?). Since the first report involving Red Stone Arsenal was filed on April 27, it would have already identified Red Stone Arsenal by then if any connections exist. Two cases have passed through different checkuser and clerks' eyes. They agreed that they're not related to each other. Therefore, I arrived at the conclusion that the case was meritless to begin with. OhanaUnited 17:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Rym torch banned account, which is the one I thought is the same as Red Stone Arsenal, successfully evaded checkuser but was caught by some other (apparently secret) SPI method. Therefore even if Red Stone Arsenal has twice been checkusered against all other Misplaced Pages accounts, something I didn't know, those same checkuser tests did not reveal the true character of Rym torch but some other method did. The fact is the Red Stone Arsenal does not act like a new editor, he acts like a heavily POV-pushing experienced editor, as both Nableezy and HelloAnnyong, who filed SPI before I did, also noted. I really think it is hugely unfair to accuse me of trying to character-assasinate a POV-opponent by filing an SPI against somebody that many others besides me think acts just like a sock. betsythedevine (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have started a topic to obtain third party's comments. OhanaUnited 21:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Betsy. I'm not sure whether you'd noticed, but I re-opened the thread that Ohana started at AN/I. Thought you should know if you didn't. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing. Things got a bit procedurally rumpled around the time of Fences' closure and my re-open, but an inadvertently positive outcome of that, I think, was that you removed this. I don't blame you in the least for finally growling back that way. You'd showed such extraordinary patience at all the poking up to that point, though, and it was very much to your credit. People are smart enough to look at the tone and content of your responses and compare them to what your usual critics are saying; you certainly come out on top by refraining from responding in anger and defensiveness. "Procedurally rumpled" is going to be the name of my garage band, btw, if I ever start one. ;-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

<--And here's what happened. OhanaUnited started a thread at ANI, asking for third opinions. Quite a few respectable admins and longtime editors, including OhioStandard, FencesAndWindows, Heimstern, and MalikShabazz gave decided opinions that OhanaUnited should redact the statement:

Since Red Stone Arsenal and you have opposing POV at Start-up Nation, I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character.

OhanaUnited's response was instead to discover new reasons he was right to insult me for filing a good-faith SPI, proudly noting that at least one user agreed with him that I'm a generally bad person. And that user was Mbz1! And Broccolo agreed, of course, offering as evidence that I had at one time made an edit to an article for which I later apologized. Imagine being tormented by the opinions of people who call themselves Broccolo and Mbz1. I don't have time for this now, and quite possibly I never will again. Good job on retaining editors who are women, Misplaced Pages, we just love being publicly insulted for unjust reasons. betsythedevine (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Regret

I'm very sorry to see this happen to you. I think you've been treated unfairly here, but no one can make OhanaUnited listen to others or redact his unfair accusations. I do hope you'll be back under a pseudonym soon. Again, I find it regretful that this was handled this way and wish I could have done more to help. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Betsy. I recommend that you don't do a WP:CLEANSTART. Stick with your present account. Anyone who has never been scolded at ANI in an embarrassing manner has not lived very long and has not done anything interesting. Any attempt at doing clean start adds a lot of murk, and could be source of trouble in the future. Also your inimitable style, which some people like, would probably shine through in any new account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Retiring? :(

I hope you'll reconsider after a break - it's good having you around. :( Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! We need you around here... please come back soon :) – SJ + 02:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm real sorry to see this, hope that you'll reconsider! Qrsdogg (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider

This recent debacle has only now come to my attention. You are simply too valuable to this project to allow this instance to overwhelm you! I admit that it is completely selfish of me to implore you to reconsider when you are the one who had to undergo the "microscope of ANI", however I hope once the sting wears away you will either return using your own fabulous name, or under a new (I would assume equally fabulous) account name. I sincerely hope that this is more of break to re-energize than any permanent retirement as your keen mind and sharp writing skills are needed here. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo 13:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo, for the kind words and thoughts. I am actually finding it harder to abandon my watchlist than I expected. And SJ has asked Ohana to apologize so maybe that will solve the whole mess anyway. betsythedevine (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that certainly is good news :) --Jezebel'sPonyo 14:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your beautiful collection

There are quite a few problems with your "collection" on me, but could we please return one more time to this exchange:

Remember, I made an offer to you: "In other words we promise to each other to behave in such a way like we have an interaction ban. Agree?", and your response to my offer was an angry "No".

I believe that, if two users, who usually are not editing in the same area (as we are not) do not get along with each other (as we do not), would agree to disagree and walk their different ways, it is the right thing to do for the involved users and for the community.

I believe that, if one user (me in this situation) is asking for this agreement, and the other user (you in this situation) angrily refuses, there should be no doubt who is the victim and who is the hound there.

If somebody, no matter who, offered me something like this, I would have agreed immediately with no questions asked.

My offer still stands. Will you consider it now please?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your "offer" sounds symmetric but it is not. I am a quiet little wikignome, with a real life that takes a lot of my time, watching over a few articles and occasionally creating an article like Tory Row or André Grabar. There is nothing in any of my interests to interest you in the least, although you seem to have my talk page on your watchlist, and you seem to have forgotten that I asked you not to post here.

You are one of the most prolific and combative editors in Misplaced Pages and also on Commons, with huge block logs in both places. On a very few rare occasions -- rare compared even to my own work here and very rare compared to yours--I have publicly compared your version of facts with what the actual facts show. I first encountered your scorched-earth style of debate over List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Your frequent use of WP:PA instead of discussion of content was something I had never seen before except done by quickly-banned trolls. A few weeks later, I saw your name at ANI, where somebody was asking for you to be (temporarily) blocked as a way to get you to change your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. . I agreed, citing diffs to support WP:BATTLEGROUND: . When you contended on your talk page that you never made PA , I again responded with diffs. I understand that my participation there was unwelcome to you, but I felt it would benefit Misplaced Pages if you could be motivated to change. I also think it would benefit you, but since you never agree that you are doing anything wrong, I think any change in your behavior is unlikely.

You and I have also clashed at a couple of AfDs, notably ] and ]. In fact, it was frustration with the low quality and editorializing of many of the articles you were submitting to DYK and getting quickly approved by Broccolo et al that motivated me to try to change the system there so that 1) articles should be NPOV and stable before being front-paged and 2)Proposed and now acted-on policy change: "DYK novices are strongly discouraged from confirming articles that have been flagged as subject to active arbitration remedies, as are editors active in those areas."

I have also taken part in a couple of discussions at user talk pages I was reading when you started attacking other editors, often without notifying either the people you were attacking or the people whose remarks you were quoting to attack them. I can cite plenty of diffs if you want but this is long enough.

In your proposed no-interaction agreement, you would supposedly promise to stop wikistalking me and making random attacks on my character as you did for example here and here. On the other hand I would be agreeing to let you attack people I respect without making any comment, even when I knew you were misrepresenting the truth and I could prove it. I would be agreeing to say nothing while you and your friends manipulate DYK, intended to reward the creation of new encyclopedia articles, to front-page links to op-ed "article" coatracks for demonizing Arabs, Muslims, and critics of Israel. That is not a symmetric agreement. It does not benefit Misplaced Pages. This is why I said no in the first place. Let me reassure you I am not following you around to see if you are attacking people or pushing bad articles into DYK. If I did that, I would have little time to do anything else on Misplaced Pages. betsythedevine (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)