User talk:Shrike/Archives/2011/December

Telling admin how to do his job

is not the best way to become a lovely bloke and everybody's friend we all want to appear, if you are interested in my view. Sincerely yours, ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you probably right but I say this things becouse I feel there are some injustice.I am very much appriciate you input.Thank you.--

Regarding "My feeling that there is some discrepancy in your actions toward suspected not new editors.But we will stop here.--"

There isn't a discrepancy. I honestly haven't looked at many of his edits so I have no idea what side people think he is on. All I know is what he said, he's been accused on bias both ways. I looked at his very early edits, his early talk page use, his AE response and decided that they were not consistent with those of a new editor in my experience. This is my procedure. If I recognise a long term repeat offender sockpuppet as I often do, I don't wait for proof. If they are causing disruption I treat them as an illegitimate editor. If they aren't causing disruption I will try to ignore them. Bear in mind that almost all sockpuppets in the topic area that I can recognise are 'pro-Israel' (although I would dispute the accuracy of that label) and they almost always cause disruption eventually. If I don't recognise someone or I'm not confident about whether they really are a sockpuppet I give them the benefit of the doubt when they have explicitly stated that they aren't a sockpuppet. So, you see, it actually has nothing to do with sides in the I-P conflict. It's to do with confidence levels. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, for interest, this report is why my confidence level was low in this case. I don't know any editor in the topic area, past or present, legitimate or repeat offender sock, who would have filed a 1RR violation report for something that clearly wasn't a 1RR violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::"Bear in mind that almost all sockpuppets in the topic area that I can recognise are 'pro-Israel'" And that is exactly discrepancy that I talked about.(Of course its my subjective view - but that what I observe)--Shrike (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where the discrepancy is other than in the size of the datasets available to learn about sockpuppets. Let me be more explicit. The empirical data available in the SPI reports indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the vast majority of sockpuppets in the topic area are pro-Israel. I can only learn to recognise patterns that help to recognise individuals based on what I've seen, based on the evidence of past cases. If you see pro-Israel sockpuppets almost all the time, often the same ones over and over, that is all you can recognise. Is there a systemic bias in the SPI process or could pro-Palestinian sockpuppets be significantly better at avoiding detection that other sockpuppets ? There is no evidence of that and it seems highly implausible. I'm much better at recognizing ant species than bee species. It doesn't mean I'm pro-ant and anti-bee or vice versa :) Sean.hoyland - talk 19:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you are definitely paying attention to these socks, I guess you've been thinking about them quite a lot. I also guess you have formed a certain opinion about the reason they keep coming for. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Obviously it's because they're inherently evil. No, it seems to be quite complicated, not unlike the recent question on the science desk about the "annoying ambivalence of domestic cats". Someone could probably write an academic paper about sockpuppetry as it touches on many interesting issues. Dan Ariely and the Center for Advanced Hindsight spring to mind. I think it's difficult to generalize as the people seem quite diverse in many ways but the one thing they appear to have in common is that they seem to sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. I could say much more about this with specific examples but I'm short of time. Ultimately I blame the parents. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks very much for the barnstar, I totally missed it with everything else hitting my talk page! --WGFinley (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia joke for you

...and a sad one it is. WP:BLPN#Talk:Palestinian people Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Restrictions lifted

I'm still traveling, but it seems that the internet access was better than I thought, so I took a little time to review your recent edits and I don't find anything particularly alarming. Considering the age of the sanctions and that you haven't had any AE/ANI/etc. reports since then as far as I can see, I'm lifting the 1RR/week restriction and the topic ban from Refaat Al-Gammal, effective immediately. T. Canens (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Shrike. Hereby I resign from my mentorship, for you no longer need a mentor, not because the sanctions are lifted, but because you have overgrown the past problems. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Is given to you for the exceptional ability to learn and improve from criticism. ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--Shrike (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)