For starts, it's a fact. After I hollered about his linking some lame comment by amberglow in my own outraged purple and florid callout of dhoyt last week, I got sent the names highsignal and ahll of robots. I Googled same and found the ruckus in aisle 10450. And there put two and two together there and in my lamely worded post.
Except for the dhoyt being jenleigh part. That seemed a little too rich. However, upon my email sent upon Matt's closing closing my callout over the amberglow link--because of, uh, dhoyt's report that his account had been, um, hacked--which went something like Hey! But what about the highsignal part, huh?. Matt then went back and checked the ISP's of the acoounts under discussion and found out all originated from the same place. He then asked a few questions of dhoyt. Who admitted to Matt that he was all four members. As Matt put it, he knows what he did was totally fucked up and says he won't do it again--that is, should dhoyt wish to make a fresh start and return again under a new name some day in the future.
Be that as it may, all four aforementioned accounts are closed for now. posted by y2karl at 10:11 AM on November 15, 2005
You may ask, Really, what is the big deal ? Is it really fair to ban anyone simply for using a sockpuppet to call out a long time arch enemy--especially if one was kind enough to use yet another sockpuppet to wonder if anyone else had let said arch enemy know about said call out? Not that any sock puppet involved really bothered to actually do so--but so ? At least a sense of conscience was publicly displayed, was it not ? Well, your mileage may vary.
And why should it matter that jenleigh and dhoyt both got to weigh in on the subject of an impersonal etiquette post ? Those were merely two opinions expressed among many in a first Metatalk post made by an anonymous new member with no obvious ax to grind.
However, giving, in a post by Ms. Sockpuppet 1, a credit to Mr. Sockpuppet 2's blog is an act which might possibly be interpeted as potentially--in a tiny way--sneaking past the no self-links rule in spirit. Now, that will no doubt piss off a few. posted by y2karl at 10:12 AM on November 15, 2005
But notice how he stuck up for her in 10450. There sticking up for her meant sticking it to people who questioned her bonafides. Re-read the thread. Heywood Mogroot provides a detailed analysis of jenleigh--there's something hinky about her which he is trying to put his finger on. dhoyt responds by belittling Heywood Mogroot for being an obseesive little creep who does not have a life.
But this is all details. Look at the larger picture. There are only two accounts really in play--dhoyt and jenleigh. What were dhoyt's politics ? He never really said unless really pressed. For a clue, however, read his blog as highsignal. My impression is that the post on highsignal reflects dhoyt's politics in real life.
But then look at jenleigh's posts. Compare and contrast. Her's are some very provocative posts made against the grain of the likable lefty consensus by defualt.. And people got provoked. She got attacked. Was that the point ? If so, Mission Accomplished. Tiem to strut around the flight deck, taunting the losers. Were people being unfair or did she in fact set off bullshit detectors enmass ? Was this a matter of the wisdom of the crowd in action ?
She called Barrack Obama a golden boy in one comment in a thread I recall. Hat Maui bridled at that and asked heatedly who she was calling a black man boy ? Her reply? Hey, she's from Scotland--what does she know about American idioms ? Did Hat Maui go off on her a little too hard, too fast? Probably. Was she straight about being from Scotland and her knowledge fo American idoms ? Fuck, no.
But up on her User Page went a link to Hat Maui on the list she formerly kept there of every totally unfari and shitty thing said about poor innocent her. Here I got called a racist.
Remember that--she had a link to everyone who called her a name. Was it going to show everyone what a lynch mob we had on MetaFilter ? If so, it was by entrapment, or the evidence suggests. I brought up her link to that Hat Maui comment a couple of times until she wrote to me. I suggest that Hat Maui had called her a racist but, as she told me, We BOTH know what he meant.
But, um, No, we do not, I replied--suggesting that if she really wanted the benefit of the doubt, she might give the benefit of the doubt, adding that her User Page was a Loser Page which mades her look like a victim collecting insults. She actually thanked me for that, as it turned out.
She thanked me for what turned out to be good tactical advice and later lost the User Page Formerly Devoted To Belittling Other Members as being perhaps too obvious. But I gave her the benefit of the doubt that time and allowed to myself that it might a positive gesture on the part of a valued contributor But was it ? Fuck, no. posted by y2karl at 10:14 AM on November 15, 2005 [1 favorite]
I wonder if some members live in their parents basement, only coming out for occasional pizza and diet coke refills. posted by Dean Keaton at 10:16 AM on November 15, 2005 [1 favorite]
Jesus, Karl. Save it for your book. posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:17 AM on November 15, 2005
You been talking about this for days and fretting over this on e-mail and this is the result? I was expecting so much more.
In the end, who cares? Guy messes around with sock puppets and gets banned. They really all should. And that's the thing: the focus on this post should be "Sockpuppets are bad and should be banned" not "Watch as I prove that dhoyt had a sockpuppet." As far as I know the latter has already been resolved, but former is a good point of discussion. posted by dios at 10:18 AM on November 15, 2005
But don't take my word for it--look though her posts and her comments. And remember jenleigh was dhoyt all along. Read cllosely. You got played. And you who got shit for questioning her, re-read your run ins with dhoyt. And you who stuck up for jenleigh, re-read 10450 again at the very least.
Many people picked up on the falsity of jenleigh from the git go. It's funny how that works out--somebody sails under false colors and, as a consequence, gets called on it. But then some self-appointed voice of reason steps forward to run interference for the phonies and muddies the water. Well, for a number of people not so invested in being voices of reason, something about jenleigh just did not add up. Just as something with 111 did not add up for some, the TILT sign went off for others when jenleigh began posting, and, as a consequence she came under the scrutiny of some.. Both were regarded as malicious by many, defended by the few. And both turned out to be malicoously used sockpuppets. And both had their champions. But so it often goes. How can you be such a lynch mob ! He's such a decent fellow in his emails to me ! She makes valuable contributions !
Was she created to mousetrap a select few or was she created to air unpopulat opinions dhoyt cared not to publish under his own name ? Who knows ? H elet his feuds take over his common sense.
For example, see Heywood Mogroot's contributions in < a href=http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/10450" ">dHandeloyt's Messiah.
Mogroot had his eye on jenleigh's posting history, he'd gone back and looked at her record, and, in detached detail, he presents his analysis.
Now note the reaction of dhoyt. He hammers Mogroot in derisive comment after, in retrospect, ever more desperate derisive comment., insisting Mogroot has no argument while providing no argument to the contrary,, insisting that any fool can see what Mogroot asserts is full of holes, sneers that he is getting more and more pathetic with every comment and implies that all this proves is that Heywood Mogroot is a pathetic creep who needs to get a life. . Don't take my word for it. Re-read the thread. Perhaps your mileage may vary. For everyone else...
Can you say ironic ? ...I knew you could. /Fred Rogers
Now skip the torches and pitchforks, folks. Go back and read. We got played. And I see no need to express contmept for what is beneath contempt. Not for any of us. Such is my opinion.
Post the ironies. There's little we can do but laugh. It is funny the second time around. posted by y2karl at 10:19 AM on November 15, 2005
That way you can quote a page out of it using google books and make it look like gospel. posted by Dean Keaton at 10:19 AM on November 15, 2005
dhoyt was jenleigh? Oh you have got to be fucking kidding me. posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:19 AM on November 15, 2005
Oh, and one more thing, I am amazed you refer to usernames of people who are sockpuppets (in my best guess) for support in your screed about someone else using sockpuppets. posted by dios at 10:19 AM on November 15, 2005
My great aunt Betty says it's "hinkty" not "hinky". Hinkty is definitely more fun to say out loud. posted by zarah at 10:19 AM on November 15, 2005
I am left with one conclusion at present: dhoyt was not on dial up. posted by y2karl at 10:21 AM on November 15, 2005
Well, dios I thought he was (although a nice enough guy) totally off the deep end, and this apparently shows that he wasn't. Much to my surprise.
Plus jenleigh == dhoyt? How crazy is that? posted by delmoi at 10:23 AM on November 15, 2005
four user accounts? jesus christ how do you people keep your jobs. posted by spicynuts at 10:23 AM on November 15, 2005 [1 favorite]
$5 says dios is y2karl's sockpuppet. posted by aaronetc at 10:24 AM on November 15, 2005
This is comedy gold. Beautiful. Dhoyt, you magnificent bastard, you done Pwned Metafilter.
So how many actual regular posters does the site have? 3? posted by selfnoise at 10:24 AM on November 15, 2005 [1 favorite]
When I was about five or six, a teenaged friend of the family showed me his erection and asked if I wanted 'to touch it'.
For some reason, this thread brought that episode to mind. posted by Item at 10:25 AM on November 15, 2005
It's time to step away from the navi.. posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:25 AM on November 15, 2005
Well, if this was the same character, who, instead of merely arguing political points, posted personal information about members he/she didn't pack the gear to argue with, and also provided personal information about members to others so they could be attacked ad-hominem off site, it ain't too surprising.
I wish he/she well. Obviously there's some growing to do. posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:27 AM on November 15, 2005
Kinda puts this little gem into perspective now, no?
Many of us had many questions about jenleigh's games on this site all along. Some fools here were even defending her as if she were real (a certain hatwearer comes to mind). posted by amberglow at 10:28 AM on November 15, 2005
I think we should have all sockpuppet accounts outed. posted by five fresh fish at 10:29 AM on November 15, 2005
Wasn't jenleigh a co-admin? With deletion powers?
How did Matt let that happen?
I am fascinated by these revelations, and wish to subscribe to this Metatalk thread. posted by Balisong at 10:30 AM on November 15, 2005
y2: I guess I sort of owe you an apology, I may have claimed that you should just relax and stopped worrying, or something, I don't remember. I certainly thought that, and if I thought that, then I probably typed it.
The strange thing is dhoyt and jenleigh never seemed like that big of trolls to me. Odd. strange stuff going on in metafilter-land these past few days. posted by delmoi at 10:31 AM on November 15, 2005
What? Whoa. Really.
Okay, this is the kind of crazy delicious metatalk shit I've been craving.
First, independent corroboration. Somebody else confirm this for me. Lord knows I'm not up on sockpuppets around here. For all I know half of you could be Zeldman. But this is crazy.
Secondly, what was the deal with 111 that didn't add up? posted by furiousthought at 10:31 AM on November 15, 2005
As far as I know the latter has already been resolved, but former is a good point of discussion.
Until last week, I had no idea. I am tired of people knowing these things and not telling. I don't like the idea of people keeping secrets like these. If there is a sock puppet outing in the works, well, let it come out here. Let's get it over with. I felt a little set up to be sent clues from someone who'd been in the know for months. posted by y2karl at 10:32 AM on November 15, 2005
I wish I was Smeldyman's sock puppet, but, alas, I'm not. posted by Balisong at 10:34 AM on November 15, 2005
Wasn't jenleigh a co-admin? With deletion powers?
err, are you thinking of jessamyn? I can't imagine matt would give someone mods if he didn't know them personaly. posted by delmoi at 10:34 AM on November 15, 2005
Ah... OK... Nevermind... posted by Balisong at 10:35 AM on November 15, 2005
My only other sockpuppet factoid is that puke and cry is probably the member formerly known as Bob Sarabia. That is apparently common knowledge, from the comments I have read. posted by y2karl at 10:37 AM on November 15, 2005
As much as I loathe sockpuppets, this is all a bit obsessive, karl. Please recheck your med levels. posted by crunchland at 10:39 AM on November 15, 2005
Y2Karl's bestest Christmas ever! posted by LarryC at 10:39 AM on November 15, 2005
If there is a sock puppet outing in the works, well, let it come out here. Let's get it over with. I felt a little set up to be sent clues from someone who'd been in the know for months.
posted by y2karl at 10:32 AM PST on November 15
Well, karl, I can only assume you are referring to matteo who apparently has a giant McCarthyite list in the works to try to Out the Reds People He Doesn't Like As Sockpuppets. You have referred to him a couple times recently, but for some reason don't want to be explicit. I will be for you, though. If the guy wants to be McCarthy, he ought to be up front about it.
But the issue of sockpuppets should be resolved. I think they should all be deleted. The issue of particular sockpuppets (that is, dhoyt) seems moot at this point. posted by dios at 10:39 AM on November 15, 2005
How do you spot a sockpuppet, anyway? posted by Jon-o at 10:40 AM on November 15, 2005
You been talking about this for days and fretting over this on e-mail and this is the result? I was expecting so much more.
You've got to be kidding me. dhoyt == jenleigh is major fucking news. This is disgusting. posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:40 AM on November 15, 2005
(as a side-note, if we say "sockpuppet" enough, it'll stop sounding like a real word and deteriorate into a silly noise. Say, "furniture" a few times and know what I mean.) posted by Jon-o at 10:42 AM on November 15, 2005
Is it too early to 'Blame Bush'? posted by Balisong at 10:42 AM on November 15, 2005
Some fools here were even defending her as if she were real (a certain hatwearer comes to mind).
Yes, languagehat (presumably) certainly was a fool! After all, it was completely obvious that she was fake all along, eh, amberglow? You just wanted to let other people figure it out for themselves, being magnanimous like that, and the model of a good teacher. Christ. posted by kenko at 10:42 AM on November 15, 2005
If someone tells me Ethereal Bligh is actually MiguelCardoso I will just fucking snap.
If someone wants a fresh start on metafilter, and thus creates a new account, that's fine. I can think of at least two users who wanted to disassociate themselves from previous comments.
I can see the value of having a different AxMe and MeFi account, in order to be able to offer better, more frank advice. I've thought of taking a second account so that I could talk more about my job, in a semi-anonymous way.
But to have multiple, active identities, and to use them as dhoyt did, well, that's just basically dishonest. So I applaud the sockpuppet outers, and sockpuppet banners, for that matter. posted by MrMoonPie at 10:46 AM on November 15, 2005
How do you spot a sockpuppet, anyway?
Any two people who disagree with you are probably sock puppets. Every once in a while this proves to be true, validating all your other conspiracy theories. posted by LarryC at 10:50 AM on November 15, 2005 [1 favorite]
dhoyt was jenleigh?
no, but dressing like her got him all excited.
(truth be told, I'm embarassed that I ever stuck up for dhoyt. This was dirty pool.) posted by jonmc at 10:53 AM on November 15, 2005
If I ever create a sockpuppet I think I'll name him Billy Milligan. Seriously, how did dhoyt keep four different accounts/personalities straight? Wild. posted by yhbc at 10:57 AM on November 15, 2005
I'm just curious as to why it really makes a difference in terms of past interactions with them (him?). I mean, everyone here is anonymous anyways, and I thought that the whole idea is to respond to content, not to personalities. If I agreed with what dhoyt (or whoever) said before, I'm still going to agree now. Makes no difference if he was using sockpuppets or eating children while posting. Sure, defending the sockpuppets in hindsight was silly, given that they were presumably created to stimulate conflict, but who knew? I sure didn't. Looking back, I wouldn't have acted any other way given the knowledge I had at the time.
That being said, the whole episode is more than a little strange. posted by loquax at 11:01 AM on November 15, 2005
dhoyt was jenleigh? Seriously? Wow. Thats....wow. Not to be judgmental, but shouldn't dhoyt receive some banination? posted by unreason at 11:01 AM on November 15, 2005
Nobody from Dundee would ever brag about it on their profile page.
Seriously, I remember reading that after reading some jenleigh comments and thinking "Nah..." posted by fire&wings at 11:02 AM on November 15, 2005
I'll probably get banned for this, but ....for a long time, while metafilter was just getting going, there was a secret metafilter policy that we all have a sockpuppet account. Ideally, we were supposed to contradict our other persona, since flamewars and controversy breeds interest in online communities. Lurkers stay hooked when they can read that sort of stuff. Several people -- people with low self-esteem, like dhoyt -- used their alternates to stroke their own egos. This was privately frowned upon, but was expected.
Once we opened up the doors and let the unwashed masses in, though, the policy was pointless, and abandoned. The unwashed masses provided enough noise to make our bogus banter unnecessary.
So, it's maybe it's safe now to finally admit it. I was MiguelCardoso. What's more, before I started using this alias, I used this one. posted by crunchland at 11:04 AM on November 15, 2005
>Wasn't jenleigh a co-admin? With deletion powers?
err, are you thinking of jessamyn?
Yeah, jessamyn is my sockpuppet. posted by timeistight at 11:05 AM on November 15, 2005
dhoyt = jenleigh is certainly news, dios. Just because you hate y2karl or something doesn't change that.
Reading 10450 now is amazing knowing it was a sockpuppet defending a sockpuppet defending *head explodes*. posted by livii at 11:13 AM on November 15, 2005
*looks for pot & kettle* posted by brain_drain at 11:14 AM on November 15, 2005
Ignore the man behind the curtain. I am the great and powerful OZ. posted by chunking express at 11:15 AM on November 15, 2005
I am my own sock puppet. There, I said. It's been said. I have no more secrets. Please stop looking at me like that. posted by blue_beetle at 11:15 AM on November 15, 2005
Well, honestly, it's hard being an apologists for the bush administration.
Sometimes, you just need to astroturf. posted by Freen at 11:17 AM on November 15, 2005
note: the screwy pluralization above was fully intended. posted by Freen at 11:19 AM on November 15, 2005
I don't think it was ever his intention to create sockpuppets. He just had one account for each of the four internets. posted by selfnoise at 11:21 AM on November 15, 2005
He just had one account for each of the four internets.
Or one for each face of nature's harmonic simultaneous 4-day time cube. posted by eddydamascene at 11:24 AM on November 15, 2005
One thing I wonder is if jenlegh was actually dhoyt's wife, or if he was using his wife's name (and account) as a sock-puppet.
this comment by y2 in the November 4th thread indicates that there's a Jennifer Leigh, who might also go by Jennifer Hoyt. Is there? Was Dhoyt just using his wife's (?) name to cause havoc?
What's the deal? posted by delmoi at 11:26 AM on November 15, 2005
THE GREAT PURGE HAS BEGUN!
*scurries into nut-filled bunker* posted by sciurus at 11:27 AM on November 15, 2005
For what it's worth, after some initial shcadenfreude, I just felt flat upon finding this out. I didn't like dhoyt--he was always going after people in threads, he was always calling for people to be banned, he was hot tempered and had a hard time letting things go. I had it in for him having it in for so many other people, so I picked on him. And, well, duh, the whole projection concept is there for me, too. It's easy to hate in others what you hate in yourself. But, for a fact, I really do hate the name calling. I'm just as guilty of it as the next person but I really try not to go after people these days. I hounded crunchland for awhile for crunchland hounding Miguel back in the day but we got over it. I let Faze get on my nerves. I stalked hama7 through the threads back in the day. And I got on jonmc's case not all that long ago. Sure, I had my Gotcha moment but . I don't feel all that at ease in doing this. I've gone back and forth for reasons more ignoble than noble. I've told enough lies in my time to know how it feels to get caught out by people whose opinion mattered to me. So, I am not pretending my hands are clean here. But I decided people have to re-read those some of those comments. It's really unfair. Even so, it's a strange situation--I can see where he thought he meant well, as I can see how he got caught up in this stuff. Just as I am seeing some people get caught up in it here.
But let him come back as another. If he changes, he will go unnoticed. If he doesn't, we'll recognize him soon enough. I'm almost always for the second chance. I have made too many mistakes in my life to want to morally lord it over anyone else. I just don't like the name calling and labeling. Say what you want, one truth we all share is a maxim by La Rochefoucauld, which goes something like In their opinions of us, our enemies are sometimes closer to the truth of who we are than are our friends. That truth hurts us all in our turn because it's true. We are all more than the people who belittle us say we are and the same is true for those we belittle. Being here has been a wake up call for me. And right now I don't have anyone on my shitlist right now and I sure hope it stays that way. You know--the Bob Dylan about I'll let you be in my dream, if I can be in yours. That should be our tagline every little so often, no ? posted by y2karl at 11:31 AM on November 15, 2005
dhoyt was banned? Fuck, there goes my "People Who Link To Me" count. posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:33 AM on November 15, 2005
mathowie:
why are you leaving it to y2karl to make admin announcements about inappropriate commenting, fake accounts and bans? Clearly, the info he shares with us here derives originally from you: it would have been more authoritative for you to inform us, no? posted by dash_slot- at 11:33 AM on November 15, 2005
dios: But the issue of sockpuppets should be resolved. I think they should all be deleted.
Then we'd better find someone who can spot them, wot? Instead of just seeing them in the person of everone who takes an obsessive dislike to him and follows him around sniping.
Personally, I think sockpuppets are rude and dishonest, with a few obvious exceptions like Pot and Kettle. (Or back in my Plastic days, JesusOnPlastic and SatanOnPlastic.) But people who use them to count coup on other members are typically the kind of people who'll eventually start to lose sleep over the fact that they're not winning "clean."
As for how you keep them straight -- well, I wouldn't do it, but I've known people who could/would. I once dated a woman who claimed to be maintaining some huge number (accounts would vary from time to time) of personal profiles in different personae, ranging from a 13 year old punk chick to a middle-aged male psych prof at BYU. posted by lodurr at 11:34 AM on November 15, 2005
*scurries into nut-filled bunker*
AHA! You're squirrel's sockpuppet! posted by gleuschk at 11:34 AM on November 15, 2005
dhoyt was banned? Fuck, there goes my "People Who Link To Me" count.
It will be an Oscar-winning movie "The Four Faces of dhoyt" posted by Cranberry at 11:35 AM on November 15, 2005
I don't know which is more pathetic - creating four sock puppets and using them on a daily basis for about a year in order to your reinforce batshit arguments about post formatting guidelines, the Bushes and Israel, or tossing on a detective hat and writing a self-important, milkcrate preacher-style screed about said sockpuppets, taking the time to include, in bold print, every time the sockpuppet called you a racist.
That's a really hard decision... I'm going to go smoke a cigarette and mull that over. posted by SweetJesus at 11:36 AM on November 15, 2005
And there I was, setting up my acronym tags in jenleigh threads because I was certain it would be a long and glorious history of stupidity.
So, sockpuppets... are they hurting America, or what? posted by gsb at 11:37 AM on November 15, 2005
I bet Mathowie would find all users 15753 and under are sock puppets. With fraying gray threads and magic marker eyes. posted by ?! at 11:40 AM on November 15, 2005
Using sock puppets as an enabler for some personal vendetta is just sick. It sickens me.
Yes, languagehat (presumably) certainly was a fool! After all, it was completely obvious that she was fake all along, eh, amberglow? You just wanted to let other people figure it out for themselves, being magnanimous like that, and the model of a good teacher. Christ.
Thanks, kenko. WTF, amberglow? Will you think for two seconds before posting drivel? I'll stick up for anybody I think is being unfairly treated; as many people are aware by now, I do so without regard to political affiliation. If I had a crystal ball and knew that jenleigh was going to turn out to be a sockpuppet, yeah, I wouldn't have stuck up for her. Are you happy now?
And I second dash_slot-'s question: why didn't mathowie explain this himself? Is dhoyt somehow so special he's allowed to slip quietly out the back door without having to undergo the indignity of the flashbulbs and the rude questions? I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a cabal after all. posted by languagehat at 11:44 AM on November 15, 2005
Fucking WEIRD. And I do feel like a tool for defending jenleigh as a "rational" conservative... How fucking bizarro world...
The only time I've ever had a fake persona was for a livejournal fake band, and I think anyone who saw it knew that it was fake... posted by klangklangston at 11:45 AM on November 15, 2005 [1 favorite]
What's the deal? I thought sister or girlfriend, too. Some sort of personal female acquaintance.
I was told, upon sharing my speculation, he was her.
With feather me knock over you could. /babyyoda
So, leave any real life she hoyt out of this.
Just read the sentences both have written. Read highsignal's callout taunts. Save hall of robots, all do that thing.
And really, what woman here has ever acted like that and at such lengths ? No one who I can recall. posted by y2karl at 11:46 AM on November 15, 2005
Does this mean there are really only 4-5 Bush apologists left?
Does it also mean that there are really only 3000 registered 'users' here, instead of 10K? posted by Balisong at 11:47 AM on November 15, 2005
AHA! You're squirrel's sockpuppet!
No, different species. posted by sciurus at 11:47 AM on November 15, 2005
Does this mean there are really only 4-5 Bush apologists left?
I think, if nothing else, this whole sordid issue demands that Matt deal with all of the obvious sock puppets he's aware of. In the past, he said he didn't think it was a big enough deal to warrant it.
How about now, Matt? posted by crunchland at 11:49 AM on November 15, 2005
We'll always have Paris.
*cues music* posted by Balisong at 11:50 AM on November 15, 2005
Why are we hearing this from y2karl? Shouldn't Mathowie be saying something? posted by unreason at 11:50 AM on November 15, 2005
any real life she hoyt
as in like "Dam, she hoyt, baby!" posted by jonmc at 11:50 AM on November 15, 2005 [1 favorite]
Best. Investigation. Ever. posted by Elpoca at 11:52 AM on November 15, 2005
Wow. That's uh, that's something there. 3 sock puppets? One has an ebay shop, one had a blog, and one was jenleigh? That's both great and crazy. posted by puke & cry at 11:53 AM on November 15, 2005 [1 favorite]
why are you leaving it to y2karl to make admin announcements about inappropriate commenting, fake accounts and bans? Clearly, the info he shares with us here derives originally from you: it would have been more authoritative for you to inform us, no?
Because, it's a touchy issue. It took a while over email to figure this all out and I was just as stunned as everyone else. But after banning the accounts, and ending the matteo-y2karl-dhoyt feud, they all knew and I figured the people most involved knew, so there wasn't much to gain by taking it public.
So now it is public, and I'm seeing what I figured I'd see. One person gamed us all, but a few people here are doing little sore-winner victory laps and dropping "I told you so's" to those they disagreed with.
I didn't really want to out people in a thread because I don't go around outing people's sockpuppet accounts. It's an unfair breach of their privacy and makes me look like I'll do anyting to send someone up the river. Of course, once you game a community all bets are off and it's probably ok to ban someone and make an example out of them, but I still feel uneasy whenever I have to mention IP addresses or private emails and other bits of evidence found offsite, in private spheres. There is an assumption that an administrator won't post your IP address to the world when you leave a comment on a site somewhere, and I was trying to respect that.
At this point, now that it's out, I'm not sure what more can be gained after this hit 100 posts or so. It's a crappy situation for all involved and I don't feel like there are any winners here. I got duped just like everyone else did.
Going forward, there's no way to block sockpuppet accounts. People can use different paypal accounts and keep their user details completely separate. This could happen again, though I hope to god it never does again. posted by mathowie at 12:00 PM on November 15, 2005
I think we need to separate the issue of stealth sockpuppets (bad) and blatant sockpuppets (not so bad). For example, Pot & Kettle are obvious sockpuppets, and that's not bad, because we know they're sockpuppets. We don't think we're dealing with unique snowflakes when we deal with them. Jenleigh, on the other hand, is a bad sockpuppet, because we think we're dealing with a discrete individual, when we aren't.
languagehat:"why didn't mathowie explain this himself? Is dhoyt somehow so special he's allowed to slip quietly out the back door without having to undergo the indignity of the flashbulbs and the rude questions?"
LH, I'm just going from memory, but I don't think I've ever seen matt start up a thread to announce a bannination. If someone spots a problem, he usually says "Yeah, I banned him/her". Assuming (I think it's a fair assumption) that matt occassionally finds problem accounts that other people haven't, that would indicate that in those cases, he usually kills them silently. So in this case, it isn't unusual that matt killed a user without explanation first. It isn't unusual that an explanation then came from another user. The only thing that's unusual is that matt hasn't popped in to comment about it. Again, though, I'm going from memory, so I may be wrong. posted by bugbread at 12:01 PM on November 15, 2005
On postview: Great timing, bugbread. "The only thing that's unusual is that matt hasn't popped in to comment about it", posted immediately after matt has popped in to comment. posted by bugbread at 12:02 PM on November 15, 2005
I'll stick up for anybody I think is being unfairly treated; as many people are aware by now, I do so without regard to political affiliation.
You have a good heart. But for you, too, the best thing to do is not respond personally to callouts, even for you. Don't squander your moral capital. Both callout and retort there were examples of human frailty. Remember amberglow was called out by dhoyt all the time when he had said nothing. Which explains but does not excuse that stupid MetaChat post he made. Jus the same, think about how he was treated and why he might resent your sticking up for someone who had it in for him via two accounts.
And the other thing is to remember sticking up for people vs. the concept of the wisdom of the crowds on another. People reacted to her very strongly because something about her seemed wrong. You got burned for being a trusting person. Making her was an abuse of your trust. There is no sadder but wiser here. It's just sadder and sadder. If people go after you, let them. Don't respond. Remember you haven't taken anything near the shit some people do. We know you are a good guy. posted by y2karl at 12:02 PM on November 15, 2005 [1 favorite]
I think we should have all sockpuppet accounts outed. - five fresh fish
I am five fresh fish. posted by raedyn at 12:08 PM on November 15, 2005
(Isn't it obvious, I'm always going on about what a cool Canadian dude he is) posted by raedyn at 12:09 PM on November 15, 2005
But seriously? I'd really appreciate hearing from Matt on this. y2karl isn't an official voice. Matt, is this true? posted by raedyn at 12:12 PM on November 15, 2005
See, this is why I always read MetaTalk.
Thanks everyone, for an enjoyable Tuesday afternoon! posted by rocketman at 12:12 PM on November 15, 2005
People reacted to her very strongly because something about her seemed wrong.
I've defended jenleigh, because with the exception of the recent "Selected images from Saturday's anti-war rally" post, I think, ummm, "their" posting history had some interesting stuff. If something was wrong, I don't think it was their FPP history. posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:13 PM on November 15, 2005
This is seriously the greatest MetaTalk thread in the history of mankind. posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:15 PM on November 15, 2005 [2 favorites]
We know you are a good guy.
posted by y2karl at 12:02 PM PST on November 15
Which makes amberglow's cattiness even more repulsive.
In amberglow's world, it's all about his politics. He is even more blindly "with me or against me" then the person he hates most, Bush. So in amberglow's world, languagehat's typical act of good faith and fairness was viewed as taking the side of an enemy. In amberglow's world, people who do such things are apostates and must be discredited. Because in his world, it's all about the message.
It is repulsive to see someone like that snipe at languagehat. There are plenty of people here who are deserving of amberglow's scorn (and I'm perhaps one of them), but languagehat is one of the most consistently fair people on this website. And note, fair has nothing to do with politics, but it has to do with the idea that you treat people fairly irrespective of their politics. Would that we all had his ability to fair.
I apologize; I know that I should amberglow's comment pass. But it really angers me. And while I think y2karl's comment was right, that languagehat shouldn't squander his moral capital in responding to it, it seems incumbent on people who disagree with amberglow to say so and not let such comments pass. I'm sure languagehat would prefer to have someone else do his defending. To that extent, I apologize to him for speaking up for him.
But amberglow's comment is just disgusting bitchiness that is too often accepted and is deserving of rebuke. posted by dios at 12:16 PM on November 15, 2005
didn't like dhoyt--he was always going after people in threads, he was always calling for people to be banned, he was hot tempered and had a hard time letting things go.
Is there a new style guide here that requires we keep everything completely impersonal or are you just being cute? Other than that, I'm with you 100%: I can't stand people who have a hard time letting things go.
This is way too much fun. Someone get me two socks and a magic marker. I'm playing "Metafilter: The Home Game". And is SchweppsGirl on the list or not? How about Carlos what's his name? Are we shocked by a user running multiple accounts only when it's not common knowledge?
In amberglow's world, it's all about his politics.
In the online world, perhaps. He's far less combative in person. posted by jonmc at 12:19 PM on November 15, 2005
Going forward, there's no way to block sockpuppet accounts.
Sure there is. But it would require you not having a life.
Until there's a sufficient commercial motivation to render ethics merely moot, "bad" sockpuppets will sort themselves out eventually. The tradoffs just aren't there to make sockpuppet-prevention cost-effective. You'd lose too much for the small amount gained.
Seriously: What does a sockpuppet circle-jerk cost us, how does it harm us, unless we determine the outcome of discussion by concensus? Theoretically, somebody with a good job could just buy $5 accounts until s/he outvoted "us"; but why should we care? I know my parents taught me that the fact that other people think something doesn't make it so, no matter how many there are. (Well, maybe if there's a lot of them. A whole lot.)
On prev: There just one thing that's bothering me [thanks, Ninja...]. dhoyt did seem to have a really inordinate fascination with sockpuppets....
On prev2: I'm beginning to suspect that davy is scarabic's sockpuppet. Or vice versa. No two real people would make such an effort to snipe at one another that much.... posted by lodurr at 12:22 PM on November 15, 2005
This War on Sockpuppets will consume us all! posted by Balisong at 12:25 PM on November 15, 2005
pssst, raedyn. Look a few posts above yours. - terrapin
Thanks, terrapin. I would have noticed eventually. I guess that's what I get for being so eager to yank fff's chain. posted by raedyn at 12:27 PM on November 15, 2005
Alas, dhoyt. A slave to his ISH. posted by maryh at 12:28 PM on November 15, 2005
matt:
Of course 'it's a touchy issue': and from past performance (justifiably) y2karl was likely to start this thread - and it would perhaps have been best if y2karl had given you advance warning of this thread, or asked you to post it in his place. You could have actually set the tone and moderated effectively by initiating the thread.
I understand where you're coming from. However, I'm not entirely convinced of your arguments: you haven't published the exact information - IP addresses, etc. - and so merely referring to them is not a privacy breach. You have indeed reinforced the mutual respect we all need to maintain on a site such as this, by your implementing a ban on the culprits.
Clearly there are other SP a/c's here. Being as how Mefi gets really catty on occasions - even some of our most articlate and literate posters resort to name calling at times - we can all keep our eyes peeled for mutually backslapping postings. Good sleuthing, y2karl. posted by dash_slot- at 12:29 PM on November 15, 2005
dhoyt was an asshole and a troll. This isn't news to most people, I think. jenleigh is a loss though. I defended her a few times because she made decent posts and seemed to be able to make rational arguments unlike other frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives here. A few of her actions were disingenious and she did pull some stunts but nothing too terrible. y2karl is right to out this, especially considering the beating he and Heywood took in the last dhoyt-jenleigh-matteo-y2karl-Heywood Meta clusterfuck. Well, c'est la vie.
As for sockpuppets, I still can't imagine any valid reason for them. Besides this extreme example it's not clear it's even worth the effort to bother hunting them down. posted by nixerman at 12:29 PM on November 15, 2005
This is seriously the greatest MetaTalk thread in the history of mankind.
This is good, but untill someone mentions their right-hand and electrodes and knives and other such things, it will never ever be the greatest metatalk thread ever. posted by chunking express at 12:29 PM on November 15, 2005
Many of us had many questions about jenleigh's games on this site all along. Some fools here were even defending her as if she were real (a certain hatwearer comes to mind).
posted by amberglow at 10:28 AM PST on November 15 [!]
Nice. Do you feel better being able to say that now, amberglow?
Next time there will just be a nice big pile-on on the person regardless of whether we have proof that he/she's a sockpuppet or not. Would that make you happy? I mean, I know how much you love pile-ons. posted by Stauf at 12:30 PM on November 15, 2005
You're full of shit, dios, and what languagehat did was defend jenleigh by bashing me--based on nothing but some unwarranted impulse of chivalry--for a sockpuppet--of a troll.
Repulsive goes both ways, darling dios, and you're just as repulsive as me, if not more so, for continuing to bash me here. Get the fuck over yourself--you're not any kind of moral arbiter here, and you have no standing at all to try to describe what others believe. You have no clue what i believe, and have never even bothered listening to what i say--either in MeFi or here in MeTa. If i have glee over the unmasking of a troll who was a total ass to me--both as dhoyt and as other people--i'm entirely allowed and justified in doing so. You, on the other hand, have nothing to do with dhoyt's games--you obviously have your own. Jumping in here shows your true colors, so i'd look in a mirror first next time before spouting off about how repulsive anyone else is. posted by amberglow at 12:32 PM on November 15, 2005
and yes, Stauf, i do feel better for saying that. next question? posted by amberglow at 12:33 PM on November 15, 2005
Good sleuthing, y2karl.
Well, if by "good sleuthing" you mean "well done at reading the email you received, disclosing two of the sock-puppets, and at finding out from Matt that their IPs matched those of two more users". posted by Marquis at 12:33 PM on November 15, 2005
you're all repulsive. Happy now? posted by jonmc at 12:33 PM on November 15, 2005
I like to pick boogers. posted by selfnoise at 12:34 PM on November 15, 2005
A few of her actions were disingenious and she did pull some stunts
Uh, linking to highsignal's blog, i.e., his own; dhoyt saying "great post" to jenleigh's post, i.e., his own; defending himself with four fucking accounts in one MeTa thread . . . and that's off the top of my head, I'm not even to the creamy center of all these links yet.
Good god, is there nothing so dishonest that someone somewhere will not say "no big deal"? posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:34 PM on November 15, 2005
I heard Rothko had a sockpuppet. I think a discussion of that would be helpful. posted by Falconetti at 12:34 PM on November 15, 2005
next question?
How about a nice tall glass of Shut The Fuck Up? posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:35 PM on November 15, 2005
I don't know if I'm neutral enough to defend LH, but I'll give it a shot:
Languagehat tried to give the benefit of the doubt. It turns out he was wrong. That doesn't mean he's a fool, any more than it makes everyone who believes in the "innocent until proven guilty" standard of US law a fool because some of the people they presume innocent at first later turn out to be guilty. Or, rather, if we use that standard for deciding who is or isn't a fool, then we're all fools, because we're all misled by others from time to time, and using that definition of "fool", sure, languagehat is a fool, and so am I, and so is amberglow, etc. etc., and being a fool is no longer a bad thing. posted by bugbread at 12:36 PM on November 15, 2005
Everybody plays the fool sometimes..
may be factual, may be cruel... posted by jonmc at 12:37 PM on November 15, 2005
>Going forward, there's no way to block sockpuppet accounts.
Sure there is. But it would require you not having a life.
Really? Discuss in:re AOL users who might share an IP address at some point during their account lifetimes? See also: two members who work at the same location. posted by yerfatma at 12:39 PM on November 15, 2005
p.s. amberglow, I defended jenleigh and don't regret it at all. Looking over her FPP history and comment history, I think jenleigh was a net positive for the community. I like(d) many of her FPPs and her comments were also good, for the most part. I've no idea why dhoyt felt the need to play this silly game or what he thought he was really accomplishing--but he did. The lesson here isn't 'I told you so! S/he's evil!' The lesson, which some will learn hopefully, is to not take this place so seriously. Like mathowie said, there are no winners here. And there are never any winners. This isn't a battle or a war, and when shit like this happens we all lose. posted by nixerman at 12:39 PM on November 15, 2005
Amberglow: If your problem with languagehat is that he bashed you unfairly, then it probably would have been better to say that, instead of saying that his problem was that he was a fool for defending someone who turned out guilty. posted by bugbread at 12:40 PM on November 15, 2005
Matt-
I understand your impulse, and in general, I think that your stance toward personal violations like this is a good one. In this case, however, I think that the outing is important because this is clearly a violation of the community norms, which you have the largest hand in enforcing. Letting other members know that this is not only a bad idea, but will not be tolerated as behavior, is, I think, a good enough reason to overcome your scruples in this case.
Plus, the gossip is outrageous. posted by OmieWise at 12:41 PM on November 15, 2005
Discuss in:re AOL users who might share an IP address at some point during their account lifetimes? See also: two members who work at the same location.
The latter would be a regrettable but necessary loss. The former would be a bonus. posted by crunchland at 12:41 PM on November 15, 2005
*dons fool's cap, jingles* posted by languagehat at 12:41 PM on November 15, 2005
Hey, it could be worse. loquax's count just went down by three.
I am the 5th dhoyt sockpuppet. posted by loquax at 12:42 PM on November 15, 2005
*whispers in OmieWise's ear*
I heard WolfDaddy is Gay! posted by jonmc at 12:42 PM on November 15, 2005
The latter would be a regrettable but necessary loss.
The latter would result in losing yours truly. posted by jonmc at 12:43 PM on November 15, 2005
I haven't kept up with exactly what jenleigh wrote (to be honest, the name never registered on my consciousness until this debacle). However, a lot of people are defending jenleigh's comment. I find that kind of interesting: the usual sock puppet approach is to start with a core account, and then later add accounts for flaming and uncivil behavior. I'm gathering that in this case, the order was reversed: the sock puppet was (it seems) more civil than the core account.
Not trying to make any point in noting this, I just found it interesting and unusual. posted by bugbread at 12:43 PM on November 15, 2005
I always liked dhoyt for consistently going against the flow, even if he got a little vindictive and petty as time went on. This is pretty surprising, and really makes me wonder about motive. Was it all just to be able to buttress his own arguments in threads, or was it an enormous, elaborate joke? Would there have been a punch line eventually?
I mean, this seems like an awful lot of effort to go to just to be able to log in with different names and agree with yourself. posted by COBRA! at 12:43 PM on November 15, 2005
Jonmc, you work with/at the same place as dhoyt? posted by bugbread at 12:44 PM on November 15, 2005
We're all getting distracted from the real question, which is: is dhoyt a Zionist, and did he order the killing of Eduardo Agnelli? posted by selfnoise at 12:45 PM on November 15, 2005
I think we need to roughly interrogate the user that dhoyt and highsignal both claimed to have met. posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:45 PM on November 15, 2005
dhoyt == Jenleigh
GOD DAMN IT FUCK!!
Well, there goes the engagement.
Do you think I can get my credit card company to refund all the money I spent on plane tickets, hotel bookings and wedding paraphenilia?
If it wasn't for that meddling y2karl I'm sure that the wedding would still be on, dhoyt would have magically transformed into the cute redhead in the pictures I was sent and that we would have lived happily ever after.
*calls lawyers to prepare emotional damages lawsuit against y2karl* posted by loquacious at 12:45 PM on November 15, 2005
no bugbread, but I do work at the same place as another mefite. So, if theoretically, she got banned, I'd be SOL, too. And Metafilter can't have that, as I'm sure you realize. posted by jonmc at 12:46 PM on November 15, 2005
loquacious: call me crazy, but the penis shoul'dve tipped you off. posted by jonmc at 12:46 PM on November 15, 2005
no bugbread, but I do work at the same place as another mefite. So, if theoretically, she got banned, I'd be SOL, too
If worst came to worst, you could always post outside of work hours. posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:47 PM on November 15, 2005
This is seriously the greatest MetaTalk thread in the history of mankind.
I disagree. This is really disappointing. It turns out that a lot, or at some portion of the meta-drama was being artificially fomented by one person for god knows why. I mean what dhoyt was doing, ultimately, was defacing the site and making people pissed off at each other and hateful.
This War on Sockpuppets will consume us all!
Hehehe. I can just imagine Metafilter taking a turn for the ugly with people trying to out all sock puppets, invasive IP log analysis, with an elite core of sock puppet hunters with jessamyn like powers and the ability to see 'potentials' based on a TIA-like algorithms and interrogate them via email. posted by delmoi at 12:48 PM on November 15, 2005
yerfatma: Really? Discuss in:re [trivial example of why it would entail not having a life deleted]
Lighten up, Francis.
... though I guess that's what i get for assuming that people will assume a basic level of knowledge in a discourse on technological matters... posted by lodurr at 12:50 PM on November 15, 2005
I disagree. This is really disappointing. It turns out that a lot, or at some portion of the meta-drama was being artificially fomented by one person for god knows why. I mean what dhoyt was doing, ultimately, was defacing the site and making people pissed off at each other and hateful.
You know that scene in Pulp Fiction, where Vincent Vega is talking about how his car got keyed less than a day after being taken out of storage?
"Boy, I wish I could've caught him doing it. I'd have given anything to catch that asshole doing it. It'd been worth him doing it just so I could've caught him doing it." posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:52 PM on November 15, 2005 [1 favorite]
loquacious: call me crazy, but the penis shoul'dve tipped you off.
I don't believe in sex before marriage, you godless heathen. I was saving myself. posted by loquacious at 12:54 PM on November 15, 2005
I spent some time reading this funny little thread and I am still confused: what did the person who was dhoyt/jenleigh/etc do wrong? posted by xmutex at 12:55 PM on November 15, 2005
I'm not exactly certain what this post is about but Hall of Robots is a real person who lives in my hometown. Just thought I would clear that up. Perhaps there's more to it than that, but I don't feel like reading this topic. posted by cloeburner at 12:56 PM on November 15, 2005
johnmc- So, if theoretically, she got banned, I'd be SOL, too.
You are Steve@Linwood?!?!
Oh, sorry... posted by Balisong at 12:56 PM on November 15, 2005
what did the person who was dhoyt/jenleigh/etc do wrong?
apparently they annoyed y2karl.
which is funny, because in his time y2karl has annoyed a lot of people himself.
not funny in a ha ha kind of way, though. posted by andrew cooke at 12:57 PM on November 15, 2005
raedyn, please stop stalking me.
why didn't mathowie explain this himself?
Because... duhduhduh! Y2K is Matt's sockpuppet account! posted by five fresh fish at 12:57 PM on November 15, 2005
You're trying to tell me that dhoyt was/is jenleight? I'll bet you think that soylent green is people, too. posted by Godbert at 12:59 PM on November 15, 2005
I spent some time reading this funny little thread and I am still confused: what did the person who was dhoyt/jenleigh/etc do wrong?
posted by xmutex at 12:55 PM PST on November 15
Is there a new style guide here that requires we keep everything completely impersonal or are you just being cute?
I'm being very conflicted. I don't feel vindicated. I knew someone was going to make a post and I didn't want--.I didn't want it posted ugly. No, honest. And it's so very strange and there is no with whom I can talk about all this. I didn't want to put it on anyone else. I didn't want to hide behind someone else. I 'm not mad, I'm sad. I don't know what else to say.The ironies keep coming when I go back and re-read things. It's so weird. Like cognitive dissonance, man.
Upon review: I mean what dhoyt was doing, ultimately, was defacing the site and making people pissed off at each other and hateful.
I disagree. He was being human, all too human. He fucked up. There but for fortune... That's how I see it. posted by y2karl at 1:01 PM on November 15, 2005
Well, you're attracting fruit flies, brother. Your cherry's gone bad. posted by jonmc at 1:03 PM on November 15, 2005
waittasec... is this the preggers raedyn that I shared fetal jokes with? In that case, the stalking is wholly justified. You may continue. posted by five fresh fish at 1:03 PM on November 15, 2005
For some reason, it's the askme record that's really skeeving me out about all this. There were a lot of questions being asked there by all four of them - mostly about guitars, granted - but a lot of pretty personal stuff as well, and now I'm not sure I believe any of it. Ick. posted by mygothlaundry at 1:04 PM on November 15, 2005
Is that what all the talk about hot gay sex is about? Dadgum, you learn something new every day. posted by OmieWise at 1:06 PM on November 15, 2005
Someone should work with mathowie to produce a warning when two different usernames successively log in from the same IP.
By the way, my sockpuppet has a profile that says "HELLO THIS IS A PRETTY_GENERIC SOCK PUPPET". posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:06 PM on November 15, 2005
Delmoi has a point. What hurts this place is not sockpuppet accounts per se; rather, it's why people use them.
I'm kind of a sporadic user, here. I come in for a while, go through a use-cycle, and take a vacation. Not uncommon for six months to pass between cycles. But I've noticed names persisting over time. I have a general impression of a lot of people and their intellectual styles. I'll snipe about this not really being a community, but a lot of you think of it that way, and that's an important fact. But I digress...
I do believe that I've gotten acquainted with people's personalities -- enough to notice a change. I'd be hard put to commit to when it happened, but sometime after September of 2001, and I'm quite sure there was a hard turn in summer/fall of 04.
What's been most striking to me has been that people I'd previously thought of as bastions of stability and wit and often actual bona fide wisdom were getting mean. Tired-mean; worse than just cranky. Worse than being a curmudgeon; more like becoming cynics. "The cynicism of the failed romantic," to filch from Peter Weir.
Matteo's been one of the most striking examples of this. I don't know him, but I know what he writes, and he writes like a man who's just gotten tired of dealing with the world. At least, with this part of it.
Others, I've seen get meaner, but in a different way: As though they'd developed a taste for red meat and been taught where to find it.
And then the great influx brought in all those $5 Bob!bies, and the great coup-counting contest started all over again. Only now, there was more blood in the water, and so the feeding frenzies were more frenzied. We had enough critical mass to sustain a chain reaction. To blantantly mix a metaphor or four.
No prescription, just my view: It's definitely gotten meaner in here. And to jessamyn's earlier point, the only remedy for that is to stop fighting. The problem is that the people who recognize that, are the ones whose input is most needed, and in the words of their best selves, to keep the place going. posted by lodurr at 1:08 PM on November 15, 2005
fff - Sorry, are you serious? No evil intent here, so if I'm freakin' you out, 100% apologies. posted by raedyn at 1:08 PM on November 15, 2005
I mean what dhoyt was doing, ultimately, was defacing the site and making people pissed off at each other and hateful.
Oh bullshit. We are almost all adults here, we are individually and solely responsible for our own feelings and behaviours.
There aren't many fresh fish on this BBS. Most of you didn't have to take the bait Dyoht dangled. You're not cold-blooded automatons with little capacity for decision. You chose to play Dhyot's games. posted by five fresh fish at 1:10 PM on November 15, 2005
raedyn: s'alright, we're cool. I'm always a little unnerved when I appear to have attracted someone's attention. posted by five fresh fish at 1:11 PM on November 15, 2005
lodurr- I'd be hard put to commit to when it happened, but sometime after September of 2001, and I'm quite sure there was a hard turn in summer/fall of 04.
It's called the presidential election cycle. posted by Balisong at 1:15 PM on November 15, 2005
No. we didn't choose to play his game. Taking things at face value, we were playing by a different set of rules. Even in this thread, the confusion is obvious ... people are still referring to janleigh as "she." posted by crunchland at 1:16 PM on November 15, 2005
*licks lips, leers at five fresh fish crosseyed* posted by loquacious at 1:17 PM on November 15, 2005
It's definitely gotten meaner in here.
Yeah, it has. Used to be you could avoid it by staying out of political threads, but now politics infects everything and people drag it everywhere and beat up on whoever doesn't toe their particular line.
As for sockpuppets, I agree with whoever made the distinction somewhere up there between obvious sockpuppets created for fun (Pot, Kettle) and evil sockpuppets like dhoyt's. I think Matt should ban the latter ruthlessly, but allow the former as long as they're used strictly for purposes of everyone's amusement. posted by languagehat at 1:17 PM on November 15, 2005
Jeez, the least you could have done was post a spoiler alert. posted by robocop is bleeding at 1:18 PM on November 15, 2005
y2karl: I applaud you. Seriously.
Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that jsavimbi is insane for believing insomnia_lj and I are the same person.
Thank you, that is all. posted by odinsdream at 1:19 PM on November 15, 2005
And what marquis said. I didn't go looking for this. It was handed to me. I figured out a couple of things and thought out loud in a thread and ended up gaming the gamer into outing himself by default. I'd just as soon as have somebody else put it together. I'm damaged goods on this one. On the other hand, nobody held a gun to his head and made him do all this. That part pisses me off. I can feel only so sorry.
And, I'm not opening his emails to me today. He should write someone else and speak his piece in public if he wants. Or not, if he doesn't. posted by y2karl at 1:21 PM on November 15, 2005
Most of you didn't have to take the bait Dyoht dangled. You're not cold-blooded automatons with little capacity for decision. You chose to play Dhyot's games.
You'd be surprised.
People are actually predictable. One of this site's biggest problems is the constant fighting and noise. It really turns people off. Yes, it would be nice if people could control themselves, but if you poke someone often enough they'll poke back. Or try. This guy was going around needlessly inflaming the site, making it worse for people who don't like all the acrimony. posted by delmoi at 1:24 PM on November 15, 2005
loquax: I mean, everyone here is anonymous anyways,
Not true! There is a large minority of users who reveal their real names - I would guess that most of them would prefer it if everyone would.
KevinSkomsvold: there goes my "People Who Link To Me" count.
I have heard this mentioned several times in the last week or so. It always surprises me that anybody actually uses the feature. It isn't hard to figure out what it is for, but maybe somebody could link up a conversation where its importance is being discussed.
mathowie: So now it is public, and I'm seeing what I figured I'd see. One person gamed us all, but a few people here are doing little sore-winner victory laps and dropping "I told you so's" to those they disagreed with.
As you say, a few people are being sore-winners, and not that sore really.
This situation stinks, I'm glad I know about it, and I doubt I've ever had an exchange with any of the 4 dhoyt accounts. posted by Chuckles at 1:28 PM on November 15, 2005
And, I'm not opening his emails to me today. He should write someone else and speak his piece in public if he wants. Or not, if he doesn't.
posted by y2karl at 1:21 PM PST on November 15
dhoyt please feel free to email me :) posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:30 PM on November 15, 2005
No. we didn't choose to play his game. Taking things at face value, we were playing by a different set of rules. Even in this thread, the confusion is obvious ... people are still referring to janleigh as "she."
So dhoty et. al was banned for having more realistically fleshed out sock puppets than everyone else? Banned for creativity! posted by xmutex at 1:31 PM on November 15, 2005
delmoi, is there anybody who likes the acrimony? I know Mefi has a long tradition of penis measuring contests and it's all good fun, but the personal feuding is a different animal. Personally, I'd like to see the admins be more free with the timeouts for those persons who can't even make the effort to strike a civil tone. posted by nixerman at 1:31 PM on November 15, 2005
What I'm tired of is all this hand wringing and washing of hands being spouted by various longtimers who should know better.
This thread is, in a way, one long mea culpa by y2karl: I found this out/was told this, and I'm partly responsible. For that - much kudos, sincerely. I except you from this particular complaint of mine.
Here, today, several posters are saying they wish this place hadn't taken a turn towards the mean, in say 09/2001, or in 2004 sometime. That's BS.
There's always been a mean streak here - and many of those complaining of it now are responsible for it themselves. Check out your own posting histories: then, get over yourselves.
If you can seriously resolve not to attack members personally, throwing petrol on the flames, do so. It ain't hard, it ain't that clever, it ain't big. But it is a small step you can make to improve Mefi. Why not? posted by dash_slot- at 1:34 PM on November 15, 2005
Not true! There is a large minority of users who reveal their real names - I would guess that most of them would prefer it if everyone would.
Well, even the act of having to click on a username provides a level of anonimity. The only times I've ever done it is when I've wanted to email someone. It's a layer behind what you see in the threads, and personally, I've always responded to everyone as they present themselves through their words, not their flickr accounts. posted by loquax at 1:41 PM on November 15, 2005
Can we post GIFs yet? posted by fire&wings at 1:42 PM on November 15, 2005
So dhoty et. al was banned for having more realistically fleshed out sock puppets than everyone else? Banned for creativity!
posted by xmutex at 1:31 PM PST on November 15
Since we're all talking about acrimony now, let me say this: you are stupid. Just for starters, he used his little system to SELF-LINK TO THE FRONT PAGE. Read the thread, goddammit. posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:45 PM on November 15, 2005
Since we're all talking about acrimony now, let me say this: you are stupid. Just for starters, he used his little system to SELF-LINK TO THE FRONT PAGE. Read the thread, goddammit.
So, if I understand you right, dhoyt was banned for having a sock puppet? Is that what you are saying? posted by xmutex at 1:50 PM on November 15, 2005
Metafilter:$5 Bob!bies,
Well Lodurr, as one of those I have to say this is exactly like a community, family even. This is what Christmas is like with my in-laws. You know in advance it is going to be a train-wreck, you you still watch in fascination as a group of highly intelligent people tear each other apart.
OK so now I'm prolly rubber-necking as the fire service would say.
So what other trash cliche am I, I wonder, Hmmm, you know what? I'm part of this community too.
Dhoyt's SP history is bizarre and sad, but Y2Karl's terrier-like inability to let go is equally sad.
Just a normal family Christmas then! (Is this what Thanksgiving is all about? cos it sure sounds like a family Xmas fiasco to me, and does that mean this will continue until January, HELLLPPP!!!) posted by Wilder at 1:54 PM on November 15, 2005
xmutex, I assume you're being disingenuous, but, as far as I can tell, dhoyt was banned for having multiple sockpuppets, which he used to deliberately mislead and lie to the community. posted by MrMoonPie at 1:54 PM on November 15, 2005
Mebbe dhoyt just needs a vasectomy. posted by xmutex at 1:55 PM on November 15, 2005
As for sockpuppets, I agree with whoever made the distinction somewhere up there between obvious sockpuppets created for fun (Pot, Kettle) and evil sockpuppets like dhoyt's. I think Matt should ban the latter ruthlessly, but allow the former as long as they're used strictly for purposes of everyone's amusement. - languagehat
I agree that it's a valuable distinction. posted by raedyn at 1:56 PM on November 15, 2005
It ain't hard, it ain't that clever, it ain't big.
I don't know about the It ain't hard part but otherwise, what he said. The sharpest tongues here should relent from excess lamentation and think about it. Even the I'm trying to make this place more civil type venerable statesmen have gotten disappointingly meaner. And they have as easy a time copping to it as those with no such pretensions. Which is to say not at all. All hands are dirty. Talking about walking off disheartened in light of such a predicament is a pose. The getting nasty part is always easy to condemn in another. Stop bringing up people by name. Stay out of other people's fights. Your good intentions do not erase your malice. It's not them--it's us.It's not him--it's you. You are the person you can control. Pick up your socks. Go put the tools away. Stand up straight. posted by y2karl at 1:57 PM on November 15, 2005
...and furthermore: clean up your room, do your homework, leave the damned cat alone, stop picking on your little sister and get your fingers out of your nose.
And that goes for YOU, too!!
(Don't MAKE me stop this blog!!!) posted by Floydd at 2:04 PM on November 15, 2005
In your dreams.
I dreamed I was a lady editor… posted by timeistight at 2:05 PM on November 15, 2005
I know what my next novel will be about now. posted by cortex at 2:14 PM on November 15, 2005
All I know is that I feel even better for having called dhoyt a prick when he accused everyone of not feeling sufficient rage and grief over the Beslan school hostage crisis last year. posted by scody at 2:19 PM on November 15, 2005
shit that came out of a bull posted by cortex at 2:20 PM on November 15, 2005
/passes the dutchie to left hand side
What if we're all sock puppets? posted by mullingitover at 2:26 PM on November 15, 2005
I wonder if that was all of his accounts? posted by edgeways at 2:27 PM on November 15, 2005
Whoa, that's really dee--
Man, my hands are huuuuge! posted by cortex at 2:28 PM on November 15, 2005
Nobody from Dundee would ever brag about it on their profile page.
Well said that man.
i vote dhoyt can come back - but he's only allowed to use the jenleigh account . posted by sgt.serenity at 2:29 PM on November 15, 2005
Take enough errant swings, y2karl, and you're bound to hit the ball eventually. posted by Kwantsar at 2:31 PM on November 15, 2005
Most of you didn't have to take the bait Dyoht dangled. You're not cold-blooded automatons with little capacity for decision. You chose to play Dhyot's games.
You'd be surprised.
People are actually predictable. One of this site's biggest problems is the constant fighting and noise. It really turns people off. Yes, it would be nice if people could control themselves, but if you poke someone often enough they'll poke back. Or try. This guy was going around needlessly inflaming the site, making it worse for people who don't like all the acrimony.
posted by delmoi at 1:24 PM PST on November 15 [!]
I guess that I hold enough respect for the people I desire to read on MeFi that I believe that they should be capable of controlling themselves.
If Dhoyt can be banned for being incapable of being a git, then so should those people who participated in his bizarre vignettes. They are equally culpable.
I think the people I respect and read can meet the challenge of participating in these forums in a manner that is pleasant, respectful, honest, and well-argued.
Here is my commitment: I am actively trying to reduce my use of conventionally vulgar language. I don't want to use "fuck" and "shit" and suchlike in my writing any more. It is unnecessary and I suspect it drives away some interesting and intelligent people who would be a source of enjoyable reading and debate.
So call me out on it from now on. Drop a little badfish! into whatever it is you are writing, and it'll startle me into realizing that I slipped up again. You can help me break my bad habit.
I think I've broken my previously bad habit of being suckered into unreasonable debate with a troll. But if I fail, call me on that one, too.
Subscribe
Except for the dhoyt being jenleigh part. That seemed a little too rich. However, upon my email sent upon Matt's closing closing my callout over the amberglow link--because of, uh, dhoyt's report that his account had been, um, hacked--which went something like Hey! But what about the highsignal part, huh?. Matt then went back and checked the ISP's of the acoounts under discussion and found out all originated from the same place. He then asked a few questions of dhoyt. Who admitted to Matt that he was all four members. As Matt put it, he knows what he did was totally fucked up and says he won't do it again--that is, should dhoyt wish to make a fresh start and return again under a new name some day in the future.
Be that as it may, all four aforementioned accounts are closed for now.
posted by y2karl at 10:11 AM on November 15, 2005