Talk:Artem S. Tashkinov

Very dubious article which discusses the person whilst it should be discussing their website
I'd like to discuss the article Artem S. Tashkinov.

This Wiki claims to be "rational" yet for what it's worth this particular article does **not** provide **any** proofs to its extraordinary refutations which fully invalidates it. Also the article discusses a particular web page on the Internet, yet it's named after **its author** which looks like a perfect example of an "Ad Hominem" argument (which is nothing but an attack). As such, this article existence is extremely shameful and I regret you have it and I hope that RationalWiki moderators could maybe consider some decency towards its author and this Wiki itself.

196.52.84.58 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Before I write you off as a counter productive troll, where are your arguments? I see none. I see tired lazy boring copy-paste criticism that's been plastered here a thousand times already, misuse of "proof", and bland accusations of "they were being mean to him!!!". Put some effort in your criticisms, and don't make poopy fart "I THOUGHT IT WAS RATIONALWIKI" edits to articles especially after it's been reverted. 23:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Before I write you off as a counter productive troll, where are your arguments? I see none. I see tired lazy boring copy-paste criticism that's been plastered here a thousand times already, misuse of "proof", and bland accusations of "they were being mean to him!!!". Put some effort in your criticisms, and don't make poopy fart "I THOUGHT IT WAS RATIONALWIKI" edits to articles especially after it's been reverted. 23:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What is this article name again? Artem S. Tashkinov. What does it discuss? This web page. Tell me again if it's OK with you. What about "crook" (recently renamed to "cook", what?) in the first paragraph? What about using CV as a sort of argument? 196.52.84.58 (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Should I ago through all the "arguments" and invalidate them right now since you've made the article immutable? I can do that. This article has a single writer, no one has ever reviewed it, no one except its author was given a voice. Amazing. 196.52.84.58 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. If this guy is promoting computer woo, we make an article explaining why his woo is woo. If he has no qualifications, chances are really high that his claims, especially if they run against expert knowledge, are bollocks. The article does appear to examine his claims. I don't see the problem. Anyhow, you should just contact for whatever problems you have. That user has created the article, hasn't edited since April 21, however.
 * And yes, you should also explain to us why those arguments are bad. And I mean "explain". And I've made the article "immutable" and denied your "voice" because you've made two terrible edits under two different IPs, first of which I blocked for vandalism (which those edits are). Yes, no one has ever "reviewed" it. You don't count either. 23:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to break nested comments, so that these counter arguments could be easily read:

Counter argument 1 against "refutation" number 1: there's this renowned Linux developer working for the security department in Google, Dmitry Vyukov, who created syzcaller, an instrument for finding bugs in software and he has a lot to say about Linux kernel quality.

Counter argument 2 against "refutation" number 1: each new kernel release contains dozens of regressions which are fixed in minor releases. For instance kernel 4.4 now has several thousands (!) fixes for various bugs, including regressions, buffer overflows and other issues.

Counter argument 3 against "refutation" number 1: Coverity is not the only automated system for finding issues in code and also it's not even the best one. There are multiple alternatives. 196.52.84.58 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're doing better but the opinion of Dmitry Vyukov, I don't think that's quite enough to contest the RationalWiki response, being bolstered by Coverity report. No one is arguing that Coverity is the only automated system, and I don't know if it's unreliable or not, but saying "there are alternatives" is not really enough to convince me that we should discard what Coverity finds in favor of another system. 23:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess you can leave everything as is if the article, which starts with "Internet cook" and is written as a final word on the matter by User:Capacitor who does not reveal his name and qualifications, is what you are proud of. Hopefully you'll leave this Talk page as is, so that people could taste how "Rational" your articles are in general. I mean you let **anyone** openly **slander** any person on the internet after providing some **dubious claims** with some **random links**. I see zero difference between the discussed article and this rationalwiki article. There's no expert opinion here. There are no known security or IT experts statements. Just claims. Also since when Coverity has become **the** instrument to measure software quality? This is not claimed by anyone on the Internet other than you. What does Coverity have to do with regressions which are pieces of code which have incorrect logic and cannot be caught by Coverity because it only validates code for programming errors? God, this makes me laugh. The first claim of your wiki may have a discussion for a dozen pages and you make it look like there's nothing else to discuss. Done and dusted, right? Since it's on RationalWiki and you're the ultimate sages.196.52.84.58 (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also your "Utter batshit" paragraph which is **not** related to the article at all is just a perfect example of another ad hominem attack. The author of this RationalWiki opus certainly has a grudge against Artem S. Tashkinov and it shows. "Rational" wiki, my buttocks. This is just laughable. I wonder why the author hasn't sued you already for defamation. I guess since he's from Russia he has no legal means of doing that and also you might be hosted anywhere in the world, so prosecuting you might be difficult if not impossible. Anyways, the quality of this article is just stellar. You must be proud. 196.52.84.58 (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is your rant done? 00:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself. I hope Artem S. Tashkinov will find avenues of dragging you into the court for defamation or at the very least he'll ask your registrar to put you down. If nothing like that happens, the content of the article speaks volume about "rational". I was pretty sure the Talk page is worthless and so-called "moderators" do not fucking care and it's exactly that. Not a single word from the article will be amended and it's gonna be great. I've no desire to fight with windmills here and waste my time. Good bye. 196.52.84.58 (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I hope Artem S. Tashkinov will find avenues of dragging you into the court for defamation" Bitch, you almost made me laugh. 00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I do hope he doesn't sue us in "the court"! He'll be the first person to have ever thought of doing such a thing! No one has ever been angry enough at a wiki to try taking them to "the court"! It's our one and only weakness! 00:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This editor makes a ton of assumptions about things ("surely the article cannot be touched", "surely this author has a grudge against poor Tashkinov", "surely this author is only insulting Tashkinov", "surely the so-called moderators don't care", "surely this is defamation", "surely you guys think you're the ultimate sages"), and thinks those count as arguments. Cute. And for that "regressions" part, doesn't the article already go into detail about anecdotes and how it isn't unique to Linux? BTW, I guess suggesting the target of the article follow-through on lawsuits still qualifies as a legal threat. Check the Legal FAQ if you get convinced by a drive-by bonnie if you ever see this, Tashkinov. 00:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. I did **not** claim "surely the article cannot be touched". Don't understand why you said that. 2. "surely this author has a grudge against poor Tashkinov" - using what he wrote in Wikipedia **10** years ago under the title "Utter batshit" cannot be interpreted differently, sorry. People make mistakes sometimes. 3. "surely the so-called moderators don't care" - considering the wording of this article it's true. 4. "surely this is defamation": is calling someone "Internet cook" and again let's get back to "Utter batshit" something different? 4. "surely you guys think you're the ultimate sages" - well, I've changed my mind after reading a few of your articles.  I just wonder why you're so eagerly letting anyone without any known qualifications publish whatever they please and call it "Rational" even when the wording is far from rational. And what's with constant insults from the venerable moderators here? 196.52.84.43 (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * To be fair to 196, the article is pretty much awful. Maybe create and vote on a deletion request. Tobias (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you do a better job than our fellow BoN telling us why? You might have to take some time explaining stuff, but it'll save everyone time in the long run. 00:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't actually care about the article; I just rolled in to mock the hilariously-worded legal threat. 00:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm open to arguments but BoN is causing me to engage in backfire effect and I'm no computer expert and am not familiar with the field and jargon, but I'm also not prepared to really take someone who disrupts articles and makes bad arguments. The BoN might have a point buried in there, but it's obfuscated by terrible argument and bad conduct. 00:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "The court" Fuck me, I'm still smiling like an idiot. I don't even know why I find that so fucking funny, but I do. 01:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just google "Artem_S._Tashkinov" and little comes up. Appears to be a nobody aside from leaving comments on forums about computer software related issues few people visit. User who created article is also a single-purpose-account, aside from creating this, has done very little else. This is likely someone who has debated Tashkinov on a forum and then used this website like Encylopedia Dramatica to bash him.Tobias (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One more question, how about the statements? I'm not familiar with the world of woo with computers, but are they common arguments against, like, the Linux operating system? Can they be useful in another article? 01:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good case for an AFD then. That's too bad. 01:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea that the Linux kernel is crap is pretty mainstream these days, so the general argument isn't even woo. 01:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

AFD
I started an AFD on this article based on the new information given to us by Tobias. 01:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath
I probably expressed bad judgement when writing this article and won't argue against the deletion, but what worries me about this guy's claims is the part where he pretends that one can assess the security of software simply by counting the CVE reports filed, and because his article seems to score fairly high on google pagerank.

I mean, the sampling of his "method" is completely anecdotal, because the system is voluntary and the amount of reports obviously depends on what happens to be currently studied by researchers. Also, if people actually start to believe the "method" works, businessess – probably unwilling to be in the center of a controversy – might stop filing CVEs themselves or even avoid disclosing their vulns altogether. Basically, it is like confusing reported crime and actual crime with each other, perhaps even more wrong in some aspects.

Tashkinov doesn't refer to any academic sources endorsing this kind of "methodology", and I can't find any either. Whether or not Linux kernel is crap is an another issue, but trying to assess that by anecdotal evidence alone is not helpful.

Perhaps the issue could be handled in some other article.

--Capacitor (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * AFAIK there are no other known metrics of product security other than the number of published CVEs. Also, in just the 2017-2018 time frame the Linux kernel had at least three local root exploits and none for Windows 10, so maybe just maybe the number of CVEs does correspond with overall security of software. Also, notice how iOS has the lowest number of CVEs among all modern widespread existing OSes and it's near impossible to crack it and exploits for it are sold at $50K a piece or higher. The fact that you're offended by this article pagerank says how much you're taking it personally and how you're personally affected by it. However the poll at the end of it clearly shows that over 80% of people agree with him which kinda shows that he might be right in general. 193.37.252.11 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * While you continue to disagree with him you don't offer any different industry recognized metrics of software security but at the same time you make it abundantly clear that he is wrong and you're right. Also, reported crime and actual crime usually do correspond with each other except for the countries which hide/underreport their data. 193.37.252.11 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, you offer no "methodology" either. Considering the sheer number of serious regressions in each Linux kernel release, perhaps he might be onto something. 193.37.252.11 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just don't use the words "Batshit crazy" and don't quote something you have zero knowledge of, whatsoever. For instance, this article has literally tens of thousands of confirmations in media, forums and social networks and zero known proven explanations, so there are wild theories why it happened. Expressing one of them doesn't make you crazy.


 * One last thing. In the article you claimed he has no qualifications for writing anything and perhaps you should treat his words as such. Leave a comment in the comments section of the original article and express your concerns. He doesn't delete comments except obvious SPAM. If you read the comments closely, you'd find a lot of people disagreeing with him. And next time, don't name the article under his name. That's called "ad hominem" and it looks poor and abominably. 193.37.252.11 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, "usually" and "except", here we go. That's why we need sample surveys to gauge out actual crime rates if we want to e. g. know if some country is safe or not. By the way, academia is not "industry" and you don't get to spread hysteria based on pseudostatistics just because there is no convenient, zero-effort way to compare different software by their security. Security researcher Bob Rudis has written a quite critical view about that kind of naive CVE count comparisons. I'd prefer to trust the judgement of an actual expert instead of the one of a self-taught sysadmin somewhere, let alone a silly web vote. And no, titling an article with a person's name is not called "ad hominem", but dismissing someone's arguments by claiming that they are offended is. And please don't write your comments between other user's comments. --Capacitor (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * So, you've carefully chosen the side which *claims* that CVEs mean nothing however you dismiss all the *hard evidence* that the number of CVEs *does* in most cases correspond with the overall state of product security/safety and by doing that you clearly show that you're extremely biased and that kinda invalidates all your attempts at being reasonable and rational and that makes our further dialog meaningless. And again you refer to his qualifications as if they make everything he says bullocks *despite* all the facts to the contrary and all the citations in the article because your carefully *chosen* researcher says otherwise. It's still astonishing that you claim the article named *after* him is not ad hominem despite discussing *not* the person but his work and citing his words from 10 years ago which you cannot refute at all and giving them a very personal touch, "Batshit crazy". You're so full of Scheiße, you're just pity. I do understand you're deeply personally offended by this article existence but the Internet is full of bullocks, so may choose to ignore it and sleep well. 89.238.154.117 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Still no proof of the prevalence of that "method" within the scientific community, only accusations, personal attacks and "teach the controversy"... Showing a single software that happens to have a low CVE count and a good security reputation is not "hard evidence". --Capacitor (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

'The page has been deleted. Stop bloody arguing about it!' Spud (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)