User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2012/January

User:BothHandsBlack

appears to be a reincarnation of a previous editor. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated, either on this talk page or via email.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your intuitions were on target the last time, so I trust your suspicions in this case are valid as well. There have been more, let's say...peculiar, new User accounts popping up in the topic area lately: Miriel2012 (talk · contribs), for example, and there were a couple others I came across, but I forget where and what they called themselves now.—Biosketch (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm a "newbie" and "just getting started," and "any hints and tips would be welcome." Strange comments from a new account. Seems like the user is bending over backward to make a point to deflect suspicion. The user immediately dives into I-P, contacts a number of editors and opens "discussion" at IPcollab. he claims to have made "a hand full of pre-account edits." Seems to me that this is a classic reincarnate of a previously banned account. Problem is, I don't know if a CU would be helpful because presumably, the user would be well-acquainted with ways to circumvent technical evidence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The account is too familiar with processes here to be so new. Should take care not to get baited. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, reading BHB on his talk page, and its becoming more and more clear that he's a returned user. Can't pin him down though. Miriel12012 also had a previous account and I have my suspicions, but won't divulge it online.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, people. This investigation on his talk page has a strong taste of harassing. So far BHB is not disruptive, may be it is a WP:FRESHSTART attempt or even a new user. What's the point in hunting a harmless sock (if he is a sock)? -- ElComandanteChe ^talk 00:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

BHB is not a new user. Impossible. The acting on his talk page is so transparent.

BHB denies FRESHSTART and that's extremely unlikely as it is. FRESHSTART is only available to editors without a history of bans or blocks and it's highly unlikely that anyone editing I-A would be interested in a a FRESHSTART but have a clean record.

In my experience these fake new editors tend to behave at the beginning, but it is not long before their previous inability to behave rises to the top.

I suppose we don't have to play by the rules and to allow "non-disruptive" editors to rebirth themselves as newbies, but then that allowance should be applied to both sides.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Any recommendations or course of action?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

ElComandante, your comment is disappointing. The I/P topic area is rife with disputes – even a clean record shouldn't be treated as an open invitation to start creating alternate accounts to edit from. My money is on an account that became very active in the topic area around the time the YTA64 business was going on but suddenly stopped editing on 26 December. He was the most outspoken apologist for D31's "right" to create an alternate account as long as it wasn't involved in disruption. But what happened was that YTA64 was disruptive from the moment he started editing – vandalizing User pages and personally attacking editors – with the ultimate result being that he was blocked indefinitely, as indeed was the appropriate response to his behavior. WP:FRESHSTART mentions that evading scrutiny is not a kosher motive for creating alternate accounts. This discussion is therefore valid and important, and none of the editors who've contributed to it have yet crossed the line into harassment, so that and the "hunting" criticism are unwarranted.—Biosketch (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this could be him. I apologize if my comment was taken for criticism, all I wanted is to share my thoughts. Let me put it the other way: in the imperfect world we live in, wasting time and effort on non-disruptive probable socks is ineffective. -- ElComandanteChe ^talk 09:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If an editor says they are not a sockpuppet, you can't recognize them and there isn't enough evidence for an SPI report, there's not much people can do. Identifying sockpuppets and reaching a point where there is sufficient evidence for an SPI requires patience and research. The allowance that should be applied to both sides referred to by Brewcrewer is already the case in practice right up to the point (and sometimes beyond the point) when they start misbehaving by POV pushing and being vindictive. Agenda driven editors usually sabotage themselves before there is sufficient evidence for an SPI. So, if this editor is a sockpuppet and is intent of violating policy and causing disruption it will become evident with time. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What account are you talking about?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

ElComandante, I wasn't aware at the time I left my last comment that there was also a discussion taking place at BHB's Talk page.—Biosketch (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys! How is everything? I just thought I would check in at the kangaroo court over here.

Now, really, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia and yet when a new editor turns up, within four days (!) of him starting editing, a mob begins to sharpen their pitchforks for the forthcoming witch-hunt. Think very carefully when you answer this question: do you believe that the thought-patterns shown both here and in the questions on my talk-page are conducive to the retention of new editors? Have you assumed good faith? Have you even allowed yourselves to doubt your initial 'hypothesis'? Or have you, rather, latched on to any trivial detail that might serve to confirm you bias?

Let's look at the evidence that has been adduced against me (please forgive the caps in what follows – I'm not trying to shout, I just don't know how to bold words for emphasis yet):

To begin with JiuJitsu Guy's post:

'Agreed. I'm a "newbie" and "just getting started," and "any hints and tips would be welcome." Strange comments from a new account.'

Really? I mean, really?? When a new editor identifies himself as a new editor and states that he welcomes advice, this raises suspicions over whether he is in fact a new editor? Is this just a wikipedia thing because I have used plenty of internet forums wherein this is A STANDARD WAY OF POLITELY INTRODUCING ONESELF.

'Seems like the user is bending over backward to make a point to deflect suspicion.'

This is a classic example of the thought pattern that lies behind conspiracy theories. By taking this approach you create an environment within which NON SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR IS EVIDENCE OF HIDDEN ULTERIOR MOTIVES. I possibly made the mistake of trying to engage with your comments in as good faith way as possible. Perhaps I shouldn't have attempted to conceal my annoyance at what I considered to be a ham-fisted set of questions asked with undertones of accusation? If I had let you know what I actually felt about the inappropriateness of your questions, not to mention the ensuing petty latching on to incidental comments in my response in the hope of getting some kind of 'gotcha' moment, you would, I presume, have simply found further confirmation for your thesis in what would have been labelled my 'defensiveness'.

'The user immediately dives into I-P, contacts a number of editors and opens "discussion" at IPcollab. he claims to have made "a hand full of pre-account edits."'

Let's be clear – you do not own the IP articles. A new user 'immediately diving into' editing them is not suspicious behaviour unless you see them as some kind of proprietary domain. It is, rather, PRECISELY WHAT A NEW USER WHO IS INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT SHOULD DO! In addition, I don't have words to describe how I feel about you putting 'discussion' in 'scare-quotes'. If you have any problems with my approach to the discussion there then please make them explicit but it shows the most enormous assumption of bad faith to describe an attempt to achieve consensus in this way and to use it as part of your “evidence” (see what I did there?) for me being a liar.

'Seems to me that this is a classic reincarnate of a previously banned account. Problem is, I don't know if a CU would be helpful because presumably, the user would be well-acquainted with ways to circumvent technical evidence.'

Again, this is classic conspiratorial thought. The fact that no evidence will turn up to support your conclusions is explained away by your presumption regarding my technical competence. No space is left for the reasonable conclusion that no evidence will turn up simply because there is no evidence. Now, I don't actually deny that conspiracies can be real and that sometimes the conspiracy theorist can be right (Suez and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident being two well-documented examples). However, the requirement to assume good faith precludes pursuing such lines of thought on Wikipedia. To take a sanitised version of a phrase from the forums of a game I used to play (Eve Online; IP on wikipedia is filled with pussycats in comparison): 'Proof or get out!' (feel free to guess what the two words in between 'get' and 'out' were :-)).

Moving on to MichaelNetzer's comment:

'The account is too familiar with processes here to be so new. Should take care not to get baited.'

Firstly, allow me to dispel the illusion that you are engaged in a project with a highly complex set of rules and processes here. You are not. This is not tax law. If you look over a few of the contentious IP talk pages with the eye of a newb you will rapidly be exposed to the processes BECAUSE YOU GUYS FLING THEM AT EACH OTHER AS WEAPONS CONTINUOUSLY! How many talk pages do you think contain a reference on them to arbitration measures, or ask for a request for comments, or have a mediation cabal icon on them? How difficult do you think it is to click one of these and read an example of one of these highly mysterious and completely inaccessible procedures? I flatter myself that I am brighter than average (I'm an academic philosopher) but still, I don't think anyone who spent a couple of weeks reading these discussions could not absorb the basics in the way that you find so suspicious. This may not be the case in other areas of wikipedia but you guys are so contentious and do battle so frequently that you more or less provide an introductory textbook to the relevant procedures.

Now, Mr BrewCrewer … After starting with only suspicions and intuitions, it took you merely three days to come to firm conclusions about me:

'BHB is not a new user. Impossible.'

What powerful, killer evidence led you to this position of certainty? What decisive, factual grounds persuaded you?

'The acting on his talk page is so transparent.'

I confess to being a little embarrassed on your behalf. Surely you did not mean to say that your powers of acuity are so refined that you are able to determine the truth or falsity of the content of someone's writing, when this person is completely unknown to you, upon examination of only a few paragraphs? Because if that is what you meant to say, I suggest you get in touch with the intelligence agencies of your country and offer them your services. They will either offer you a job or, and I think this is rather more likely, they will roll around on the floor gasping for breath as they point at you and laugh. Snarkiness aside, this is obviously an absolutely terrible ground on which to base a fully determined, unqualified conclusion. If I'm completely honest, I doubt that you think your powers are such as would be required here. Rather, I think it is another case of confirmation bias wherein you have already decided what your view is and are willing to latch on to even the most tenuous “evidence” in order to support that position.

As to the fresh-start stuff, if this means I am an old editor with a new identity, then no, I'm not. I'm just quite a bright person who has apparently astounded you all with my ability to understand a very simple and basic set of procedures that is well-documented and easily accessible.

'In my experience these fake new editors tend to behave at the beginning, but it is not long before their previous inability to behave rises to the top.'

So, by this point I have been explicitly labelled a fake new editor on grounds whose feebleness cannot be overemphasised. Three regular IP area editors have indicated their willingness not just to keep their minds open on the question but to come to firm conclusions on the basis of NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. A fourth, Biosketch, has not offered any “arguments” in support of the claim but has indicated that he is willing to follow the 'intuitions' of another editor.

The approach you guys are taking is fundamentally corrosive to a project built on the idea of collaboration. I have no doubt that many other new editors in my position, faced with these kinds of attitudes (note that these are not just accusations; a finding of 'guilty' has already been passed) would simply decide that Wikipedia is not worth the effort if it involves being maligned in this unfounded way and would just leave. Which is to say that your approach is highly detrimental to the project you are engaged in. I am, of course, offended by the conclusions reached here and more than a little irritated by the inquisitorial approach taken on my user page but I will not allow myself to be driven away by this attitude. I may be new but I can say with confidence that you gentlemen need to change your approaches.

To give an indication of how disruptive to normal editing you are being, I direct your attention to Cptnono's comment on the collaboration page:

'The proposal is great if we are just talking about the leads of articles. Note: At face value but the proposer still should give us some examples of how to handle more Palestinian based topics or else those calling for his head as a sock will not be silenced.'

Not only have you created an environment in which it will be very difficult for me to interact with all of you on a straight forward basis, given that I know you are all reading everything I write with an assumption of bad faith, but your treatment of this issue has poisoned my freedom to contribute as I see fit. Due to your poorly grounded conclusions, other editors are now stating that I must act in such and such a way in order to prove MY good faith (EVEN WHEN THEY BROADLY AGREE WITH MY PROPOSAL!). This is clearly intolerable and I will have to recuse myself from engaging in any further editing until the air is cleared. It seems plain that none of the editors who assume bad faith on my behalf can reasonably contribute to that discussion either, so long as they labour under such an assumption.

So, what is to be done? Much as it grates, I am willing to undergo any process of independent verification that is available through Wikipedia in order to establish my bona fides. This feels uncomfortably like a concession to a completely unreasonable approach to me but if it will help us to move forward I will grudgingly subject myself to examination. However, given the comments made so far, it seems very likely that when any such process turns up nothing suspicious, this will just be taken as evidence for my cunningness.

Here's what I would like from you chaps:

1) No more decisive statements that I am a sock-puppet! By all means keep the discussion going in open-minded terms but in the complete absence of any real evidence I find such statements to be offensive and liable to make it very hard for us to work together in editing pages in the IP area.

2) If you decide that sufficient evidence has been gathered, then go through the proper procedures and allow admins to make the final determination, rather than doing it yourself in a kangaroo court.

3) Finally, I would like some explicit statements that you are willing to set aside your unfounded conclusions and assume my good faith when interacting with me. If you are not willing to take this approach then I don't see how it will be possible for us to edit in the same areas without breaching wikipedia policies.

Thanks for your time and here's to hoping that we can move forward and actually spend our times editing this encyclopedia thing that lies in the background of these discussions! BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. This particular post is in an entirely different "voice" from your "academic" posts on AN/I. I assume this more colloquial voice is closer to your real and usual style of discourse.

This is the problem with sockpuppetry, it takes an unusual amount of discipline to carry it out effectively, and few people have it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If the point you are making is intended to question whether the 'academic voice' is real I would re-emphasise my offer, repeatedly made now, to send you explicit proof that I am an academic. Just tell me how to email you and I'll send a mail from my university account with a link to my university webpage (which also notes my physical location, which can, presumably, be checked against my IP address). The reason this post has a different tone is because I was really quite annoyed when I wrote it, having just woken up to find to my great surprise that a bunch of accusations were being made against me. Unfortunately, there seems to be far more interest in wild speculation based on the 'analysis' of writing styles than there does in actually taking me up on my offer to provide something definitive! As far as writing styles go, everyone here on wikipedia seems to be a self-appointed expert in making inferences on these grounds and seems to suffer from the delusion that everyone writes consistently with a single voice that varies neither according to circumstance, emotion or the people that are being addressed. I started off with a measured tone when responding to these guys' questions on my talk page. When that precise tone was cited as evidence against me here (see above) I decided that there was absolutely no point in trying to keep my annoyance out of my writing. When I addressed a bunch of people with whom I had had no dealings at all on ANI, I reverted to a more measured tone. There is really nothing odd about this unless you are looking to confirm a theory you already hold. And if you are suffering from a confirmation bias, then there is really nothing I can do to allay your concerns as a concise post somewhere will be contrasted to my long-winded ANI post and be presented as evidence of acting. A common or garden slip of the tongue in a post will be held up as definitive evidence of inconsistency.

I feel like I'm living in a surrealist novel at this point being charged on the basis of evidence that is irrefutable because it is not actually evidence but is being treated by everyone as if it has some weight. Very, very frustrating.

In short. Let me send you an email to prove who I am. If not, please explain why you prefer this bloody charade than actually dealing with verifiable facts.BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear BothHandsBlack, you are by no way obliged to prove anything to anyone. But if you feel that the disclosure of your real identity and IP address will help you to refute the socking obligations and to ease the current tension, you may email me with the details. I promise to keep them confidential forever from one side, and to research the possibility of previous account usage from another, and publicly announce the conclusion. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 11:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to add that usually only checkusers are trusted with this level of confidence, and sending this information to a regular user like me is quite an exceptional step. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 12:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm happy to take an exceptional step if it can help defuse this issue. I have mailed you my regular email address, personal details and institutional webpage link, plus a list of documents (such as flight booking confirmations from earlier in the year) that I can provide to demonstrate that I had no ability to post to wikipedia when at least some of Unomi's posts were made.BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Identity disclosure

Ladies and Gentlemen, may be I'm going to convince no one, but that's how I see it now. BHB emailed me with his/her real name, work email, location, IP address(es), work-related web links, publications, and additional details like flight orders, email conversations, and even some minor financial info. Based on this and additional evidence I can conclude with a high degree of certainty that BHB and Unomi are different persons. Also, I assume that no sockmaster would willingly expose the real life identity to such a degree — at this point I have enough information to send flowers to BHB's home, if I wish. Of course the uncertainty always remains, and given a suspected puppeteer name a formal SPI could bring a univocal result, but BHB's persistence in cleaning his name from a particle of distrust went to the extent beyond reasonable doubt. Just ask yourself: what would you think if a suspected sock would throw on you the most complete identity disclosure you've ever seen on the internet?

BHB, in your place I'd left this behind, and start contributing content. The more you concentrate on this, more people will think you are hiding something. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Didn't realise my address was in one of the mails! However, I should note that I prefer chocolate to flowers. Many, many thanks for taking the time to look at that stuff. I am indeed going to get back to editing now and I apologise for keeping you away from doing the same. It's true that I probably went overboard on this but I do value my good (internet user) name. I expect some suspicion will still remain but hopefully it will be at a manageable level that will still allow the assumption of good faith. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, ECC, no one will be convinced. I don't have any issue with BHB, but i did want to remind you of how this is supposed to work. This is a duplicate conversation, right? Because this isn't the proper venue. And you clearing the user means nothing to other people unless you used the appropriate tools. I am under the impression that you do not have access to CU and are not an admin. That means that you vouching for the user will not do anything to set the other editor's minds at ease. Furthermore, it is not a good idea for him to be sharing anything personal with you. The fact that he did is suspect (either he is really that honest or he is way to trusting). Like I said, I have no problem with BHB but since this was already a "kangaroo court", a silly and unverifiable verification will not be sufficient. The best answer is to go to SPI. Although some admins do not understand the standards: "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing"

That being said, there needs to be some actual evidence provided at SPI. Either do it or not, but grow up and take it off the talk pages. Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, the only reason Che stepped in was because I had offered the same material to admins (including Beyond My Ken on this page) but they showed no interest in seeing any real evidence that might discredit their phrenological insights. And no, the fact that I made a full disclosure is not suspect in any rational sense. It is only in this odd land beyond the looking glass that doing what you are supposed to do is held as evidence against you and providing real evidence to refute those claims is ... also taken as evidence against you. I can't really see what else I can do, so unless one of the admins takes me up on my offer to look at documentary proof of the falsity of the allegations I'm not going to bother trying to defend myself anymore (because defending myself is also evidence against me ... [sigh])BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 12:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)