RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive52

Laurogeita Hamabost[edit]

Laurogeita Hamabost is a sockpuppet of the vandalbinned user AvengeroftheBoN. He should be desysoped and vandalbinned just like AvengeroftheBoN was, since he is the same person. He also has broken a previous agreement that he would steer clear of the Israel/Palestine-related articles, editing them recently. These edits include removing text he disagrees with. PBfreespace (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of being a sock:

First post was about Israel, Avenger's favorite topic. Note that this IP address is the admitted IP of Laurogeita Hamabost.

His IP address traces to southeastern Germany (near Dresden), where Avenger admitted he lives.

Just 13 days after getting a new account, user couldn't help but get back to his old tricks, namely removing accurate material from articles that doesn't support Israel. Afterwards, he keeps on doing it.

User displays many of the same opinions and views on Middle-East conflicts as Avenger does. For example, user vehemently opposes the Shia Houthis in Yemen, writing a whole section on someone's talk page about it. Sockpuppet of Arisboch, Avenger's long-time friend, jumped right in and agreed with him. Also is against the use of the word Zionist, just like Avenger.

User has displayed an interest in high-speed rail and mass transit, another quirk of Avenger.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

What we're voting on[edit]

This is a vote on whether Laurogeita Hamabost is a sockpuppet account of AvengeroftheBoN. If the vote is yes, then all penalties applied to AvengeroftheBoN will by default be applied to Laurogeita Hamabost, since they are the same person.

Yes[edit]

First. I think the evidence is pretty clear that this account is yet another sockpuppet of AvengeroftheBoN, one of many in a long line (Pizzameister, Zuge). PB (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
If we ban the 6th one, he deffo won't make a 7th. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 06:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Takes out sourced statement on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians with "Could not verify the source provided. Let's not make sweeping claims without sources" and goes on to rewrite everything according to their views without any sources. Mmyeah, sounds like Avenger alright. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 42016 AQD (UTC)
The book may not even exist for all I know. I tried to rewrite the article as neutral as possible, as I am not an expert on the Middle East. What the article was before looked to me as if it were written by someone with an agenda. I hope this attempt at neutrality is okay. If that is what Avenger does/did, I would like to meet them. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Neutrality you say? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 42016 AQD (UTC)
Yes, some Arabs do consider the fact that Israel exists at all a catastrophe. And just claiming "ethnic cleasning" without good sources (not one book that no one ever heard of) is not exactly neutral. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Doubling down, ain't it grand? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Care to mention one Arabs that considers the fact that Israel exists at all a catastrophe? Just one? Or are you not an expert on these things? PBfreespace (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I can tell you I know several Arabs in real life who think Israel's existence is a catastrophe. I don't know why this claim even needs to be "supported." Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

~~Burn the witch!~~ Pretty Brown Haired Girl (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You are ineligible to vote, see our community guidelines page on voting.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

Am I the only one that does not know what this vote is about? I presume it is about some sort of punishment for the weak case based on what is arguably doxing. In that case, I vote no. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The vote is accusing you of being a sockpuppet. If you are, you will be vandal-binned. If you aren't, you won't. Also, this has nothing to do with doxxing. No names, addresses, or personal information was released. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Bob just showed how you violated this person's privacy here. Are you going to stop doing that? If this coop fails, can we take you at your word that you'll stop accusing this person of being a sockpuppet? Ë. (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Arguably a coop case should be brought against Pbfreespace3, but I won't be the one to initiate it, as it can be legitimately said that there are disagreements between us. another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Opinions that mirror [insert disruptive user here] too closely? Oh no. Make a case for actually being disruptive. I'll change my vote then, as it stands I'm more tired of how personal this quarrel is to you. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This isn't about whether his opinions are bad. This is about him breaking the rules by making a new account so he can evade his moderator-imposed punishment.^{— Unsigned, by: Pbfreespace3 / talk / contribs}
It is my judgement that re-regging to build a new reputation is against neither the letter nor spirit of rationalwiki editing guidelines. For much the same reason checkuser isn't implemented at all. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Archive this shite. Robledo (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Productive edits. Insightful. Godspeed. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 04:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The evidence is weak but suggestive. I would however support de-mopping, as I would for anyone getting into a shitfight on Palestine/Israel. Bongolian (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Why do I have to come back to the exact same bs I left to? *sigh* Bubba41102 ^{The place where you can scream at me} 10:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Pbfreespace3 should be the person having his user rights removed for brazenly violating policy yet again. Usually it's block rights, now your privacy policy. Nobody cares. Ë. (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Name one policy that I violated. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
How many recent coop cases have boiled down to 'User is an Israeli partisan, therefore a sock of AvengerofBON?' Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Wait no, actually 1, the one with Pizzameister. And he was a sock, still is. The point here is that this is a malicious account created to break the rules. How hard is that to understand? PBfreespace (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
What Ikanreed says above, to the letter. Especially: "It is my judgement that re-regging to build a new reputation is against neither the letter nor spirit of rationalwiki editing guidelines. For much the same reason checkuser isn't implemented at all.". And while this cannot be misconstrued into an attempt by PB to doxx or out anyone — and while PB doesn't make a terrible case, either — I must say I still find the rampant speculation and tallying of user mannerisms highly disconcerting. Precisely because the list that opens this coop case doesn't document any specific rule violations — instead, the list itself is an attempt to pin down the (relative) identity of Laurogeita. To me, that is indicative of our dire need to revise the rule on sockpuppets inheriting penalties. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
So you're explicitly saying that it's OK to violate the rules if you want to rebuild your reputation. Nice. PBfreespace (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
those rules are unenforceable without going down a route no one wants to go down. We can ignore them. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all. And to be honest, I sincerely hoped that you would honor the fact that I amicably went out of my way to clearly state that the accusations against you of attempting to doxx or "out" a person are unfounded (even adding that you actually make a decent case). As far as the rules are concerned, we have age-old ground rules on fundamental privacy that clearly outweigh one Saloon bar vote on vague sockpuppet penalty inheritance. Still, I'm not even dishonoring that rule. I'm calling for it to be revised, not revoked. Let's not fall headlong into outright splitting here, shall we? Again — in the spirit of Ikanreed's statement — show me Laurogeita breaking the rules (ignoring the sockpuppet rule) and I will support acting. Unless evidence of that can be displayed, I consider this entire vote indicative of precisely one thing — again, that the sock puppet penalty inheritance rule needs to be revised. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deport PB3 to Mexico! Just kidding.-President Donald J. Trump (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

A question: How do you know LH is a sock?-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

~~I don't have enough energy to go through his edits right now, but I wish I or someone else could.~~ (see below) It wasn't even me who brought it up. Someone else did in the Chicken Coop awhile back, and clearly they have a lot of evidence to support it. Could this person please step forward and help contribute to evidence? PBfreespace (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you've jumped the gun, so to speak. "There's proof around here somewhere, but I'm not up to finding it" is not a very persuasive ground for your accusation. In fact, considering that you've already vandal-binned this user, but have failed to provide any remotely concrete evidence, it appears to me that your actions are more coop-worthy than LH's. Jagulard (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm compiling the evidence right now, and as such, will cross out my previous comment while still leaving it visible. PB (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Rational people compile evidence and form arguments before making accusations. At this point, you're only setting yourself up for ridicule as someone who bears grudges. Why not delete this page, gather more evidence, and then ask for judgment. Jagulard (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to gather evidence right now. I'm really not concerned with being perceived as someone who bears grudges. He was vandal-binned, and he should not be able to escape that sentence by pretending to be someone else. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine, then prove they are the same, and then bring the coop case. At this point, your "charges" don't even have decent hearsay. Jagulard (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"You see, first the prosecution must prove to everyone the man was the killer, and only then the person can be arrested, go to trial, and convicted". PBfreespace (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"You see, the prosecutor arrests anyone he or she wants and then keep them there until he/she can build a case against them" Jagulard (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you have your proof now.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It's strange that he's going through the edits rather than finding the supposed relevant information in the alleged coop case. At the moment, we've established that there may be more than one person in the Dresden metropolitan area (pop. 1 million+) who A) strongly disagrees with PB's support for a controversial group in Yemen, and B) likes trains. Personally, I find the last one too close to be coincidence: whoever heard of a German person liking engineering or technology? Jagulard (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys! I live in Georgia, prefer Sanders to Clinton, and is very interested in Syria! Jrweirdplace7 (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and wish to post in RationalWiki pages where Pbfreespace3 liked to! See my point? PBfreespace (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No, but I suspect that's because you haven't made one yet. Jagulard (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jrweirdplace7 might have been made by me to show that circumstancial evidence does matter in a case like this. Jrweirdplace7 demonstrated a lot of traits similar to me, and probably is me. If I get banned, should Jrweirdplace7 be able to edit freely? PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So your point is that people can make socks? Go back to my original reply. First, you should bring the evidence that they are the same user. I suggest starting with those old coop cases you mentioned, but are too confusing for you to go through. Maybe the evidence you seek is there, after all. If it is, then bring your case. You've already binned the user twice– without cooping first (congratulations on breaking an important rule yourself) –and the best you can come up with is "they both like trains"? IF you can bring convincing evidence, then I'll be happy to say I was wrong to oppose you. Jagulard (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I already pulled what I could get from the coop case. Here is the link of the last diff if anyone's interested. PB (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Then you have nothing. In fact, in that thread, you're the only one who appears to buy into the assertion in the first place. And the edits you link to above are very weak, and do not support the claims you make about them. If they really are the same person, then they'll either make the same mistakes again, in which case I have no doubt you'll be there. On the other hand, it's possible that they'll avoid the sort of behavior that resulted in a ban in the first place. If that's the case, then what's the harm? It's up to you: do you err on the side of fairness, or do you err on the side of vindictiveness? Jagulard (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have a ton of evidence already listed. Location is the same, edit pattern is the same, views and interests all the same. It's all there for everyone to see. This case will continue despite what you might say. PB (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw this in the recent changes and couldn't resist. These 2 users look very similar, to the point where they are probably the same person. The older one looks like he made another couple of sock accounts before to evade the "vandal bin" category, so there's precedent. It seems pretty clear to me. Applesauce (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahh.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Boy, the Goat is filling up fast. Anyways, Pb, I would say that you should've done two things before you started this coop case. First, you should've questioned this user about their disagreements about our pages. Secondly, you should've found other reasons for this user to be binned than sockppuppetery.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Privacy: Our Comunity Standards page under privacy state: "Personal information about other RationalWiki users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site. This includes IP addresses, and even where an IP address is volunteered, discussion of the user's geographical location, place of employment, or other private information based on their IP address (even if publicly available) is frowned upon."--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This information was willingly volunteered by the user. Here the user posts on the page of their IP address, saying "I have chosen a name". By posting their IP address, the user volunteered their location. PB (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This includes IP addresses, and even where an IP address is volunteered, discussion of the user's geographical location, place of employment, or other private information based on their IP address (even if publicly available) is frowned upon--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not volunteer either my present location or my location at any point in time. And I won't now. I ask you politely not to speculate on my whereabouts. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Apart from removing single words or categories in Israel related articles, and being an alleged sock puppet, what editing or conduct policies have been violated here? Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This user violated ban evasion. Avenger was banned from editing all but once every 30 minutes. He is now breaking that policy by editing under a new account. In addition to being rebinned, I think both accounts should be blocked for a short time as well. We'll vote on that later, though. PB (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your last remaining shreds of credibility called. Asked what they'd done to deserve this. Robledo (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Aside from your comment not making much grammatical sense, I'd like to ask what your problem with my credibility (is that even a thing?) is. PBfreespace (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes and No are at a tie now. -(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware. A lot of the usual suspects are coming in and voting on the side that they want to. No one else is, for now, bothering to vote yes, despite the fact that Weaseloid thinks it's a sock. Where are you, Weaseloid? PBfreespace (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess he weaseled out of it.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

May I archive this[edit]

Without any wailing and gnashing of teeth? The vote is 3 for, 10 against. (Mine is a postmodern vote.) It's been >48hr. FuzzyCatPotato of the Pretty Furry bits (talk/stalk) 22:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to let PB make a closing argument of some sort. But I'm not in charge; the time limit is passed and the vote seems conclusive. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

11 now. Let's close it.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's still 10 though, isn't it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing Argument[edit]

Laurogeita Hamabost is a sockpuppet of AvengeroftheBoN. In the following months, he will continue the behavior that made Avenger so insidious, and you will all see that this was the wrong decision. When this happens again months from now, the decision will be different. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing statement made. Let's archive.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)