User talk:ENCRYPTMATRON
June 2011
[edit]Immediatly stop to vandalise the Anton Abele article. Or else you will face a possible block. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi BabbaQ, I cleaned up the page, and have most definitely not vandalized it. Please don't revert others edits under false pretenses. Read up on WP:AFG, WP:VAN and, in regards to your revert of my edits to the article in question, WP:RV. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- First of all you are doing the thing I was telling you not to do. And second you are not simply cleaning up you are removing content that are sourced in massive amount. And using word like "cant be arsed" arent appropriate. Stop immediatly and take a step back.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have now done a more appropriate reduction of material that could be COI.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- "You are doing what I was telling you not to" - sorry, but you're not an administrator, you're a user once blocked for sockpuppeteering who's failing to understand basic Wikipedia policies. I am happy to discuss editing conflicts with you but I do not take orders from you. Your tone is not appropriate, I'm not a newbie who's going to fall for the bossy admin-pretending ("you will face a possible block", etc). Please stop referring to my edits as vandalism, as it's completely inappropriate and obviously untrue. I've improved on the Abele article and added new reliable sources that actually support the statements being made. I have removed some facts that were either irrelevant or not actually supported by the sources provided. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- The difference is that I learned from my mistake. You on the other hand attack anyone that tells you anything. Your tone are definitly not appropriate and you need to learn basic manors if you want to last long here on Wikipedía, and yes im telling you all this in good faith. Nice personal attack by the way if you, if you want people to take you seriously you might need to learn what is notable and not for future mentions. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- "You are doing what I was telling you not to" - sorry, but you're not an administrator, you're a user once blocked for sockpuppeteering who's failing to understand basic Wikipedia policies. I am happy to discuss editing conflicts with you but I do not take orders from you. Your tone is not appropriate, I'm not a newbie who's going to fall for the bossy admin-pretending ("you will face a possible block", etc). Please stop referring to my edits as vandalism, as it's completely inappropriate and obviously untrue. I've improved on the Abele article and added new reliable sources that actually support the statements being made. I have removed some facts that were either irrelevant or not actually supported by the sources provided. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have now done a more appropriate reduction of material that could be COI.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- First of all you are doing the thing I was telling you not to do. And second you are not simply cleaning up you are removing content that are sourced in massive amount. And using word like "cant be arsed" arent appropriate. Stop immediatly and take a step back.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK, let's start over. What about my edits on Anton Abele is it that you find so objectionable that you find it reasonable to revert every change I've made? ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually your improvements now are acceptable with some finishing touches. Lets move on because it appears quite clear that neither you nor me will bend and apologize. but the current version are OK even though im more questioning your way of handling and reacting to any criticism .I have however come to the conclusion that you will have to live with that yourself and face the consequenses in the future if you dont change. Its not my problem and honestly I dont care. For example you are personally attacking me over sockpuppeting, and claim that you are better than me because of it. But on the other hand I am the creator and the responsible user for about 6-7 "Good Article"-standard articles in my few months on Wikipedia. So come back when you have achieve even close to that and we might be able to compare our achievements and our good deeds for Wikipedia, because you have a long way to go;) Happy editing. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Babba, it's you who have behaved quite aggressively, accusing me of vandalism when it must be quite obvious to you that I've done no such thing (why would you otherwise say now that you think my changes are acceptable, with a "few finishing touches"? what type of vandalism is acceptable with a "few finishing touches"???). I have replied to you with great restraint, while you have time after time accused me of something you know isn't true, and threatened me with a block even though you certainly are not in a position to administer such punishments (which is why I found it ironic to find out you had instead been at the receiving end of this punitive measure). Even in your last reply, while I attempted to bring focus back to the article, you responded with one sentence letting me know you don't mind my changes, and six sentences on how I'm a horrible person and must repent... then when somebody else RV's me on the same article, you immediately let them know how you've tried discussing with me, to no avail? Colour me unimpressed, mate... ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Im not surprised that you continue to accuse me of aggressive edits, while you yourself in a very aggressive tone tells me whats right and whats wrong. As I stated before you are obviously not even close to admit anything wrong and I am certainly not in anyway apologizing for any of my very justified posts to you about your inappropriate behaviour over the last few days. You might want to see it as a sign that your edits has been reverted or re-edited by two different users over the last few day. Anyhow, please come feel free to contact me in the future when you have actually learned what Wikipedia is all about and guidelines etc etc... And also when you yourself has accomplished about 7 Good-article standard articles and about 10 or so DYK standard articles, then we can talk and compare which of us has actually done good things for the Wikipedia. Until then bye! (and just so you know this is my very last post to you I have much more important matters to take care of. So I will not respond to any insult or outburst from you, no matter how aggressive or insulting, not until you have proven yourself capable here on Wikipedia). From the bottom of my heart.. Happy editing mate!--BabbaQ (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Babba, it's you who have behaved quite aggressively, accusing me of vandalism when it must be quite obvious to you that I've done no such thing (why would you otherwise say now that you think my changes are acceptable, with a "few finishing touches"? what type of vandalism is acceptable with a "few finishing touches"???). I have replied to you with great restraint, while you have time after time accused me of something you know isn't true, and threatened me with a block even though you certainly are not in a position to administer such punishments (which is why I found it ironic to find out you had instead been at the receiving end of this punitive measure). Even in your last reply, while I attempted to bring focus back to the article, you responded with one sentence letting me know you don't mind my changes, and six sentences on how I'm a horrible person and must repent... then when somebody else RV's me on the same article, you immediately let them know how you've tried discussing with me, to no avail? Colour me unimpressed, mate... ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually your improvements now are acceptable with some finishing touches. Lets move on because it appears quite clear that neither you nor me will bend and apologize. but the current version are OK even though im more questioning your way of handling and reacting to any criticism .I have however come to the conclusion that you will have to live with that yourself and face the consequenses in the future if you dont change. Its not my problem and honestly I dont care. For example you are personally attacking me over sockpuppeting, and claim that you are better than me because of it. But on the other hand I am the creator and the responsible user for about 6-7 "Good Article"-standard articles in my few months on Wikipedia. So come back when you have achieve even close to that and we might be able to compare our achievements and our good deeds for Wikipedia, because you have a long way to go;) Happy editing. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Accounts
[edit]Hi ENCRYPTMATRON,
could you explain to me why you chose to use multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia? If you want you can write me privately per e-mail, though you may have to enter and validate your e-mail address in your preferences first.
Amalthea 21:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Amalthea, I'm not using multiple accounts, so I don't know where this accusation comes from at all. That said, this isn't my first account, but I haven't ever been banned, blocked, or even warned for any behavior whatsoever. Why do you ask? I have never used this nor any other account in tandem with another account - as for the recent conflict edit I'm in, on the opposite, I have seen a suspicious new user revert my edits, while the only person restoring my edits have been myself. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to check out if there is any sock-puppeteering going on, please check out User:BabbaQ and User:Keepvm. BabbaQ is obviously not being quite honest here, while he posts on Bender235's talk page saying he thinks my edits are OK ([1]), he changes his position after User:Keepvm suddenly and mysteriously reverted to the same version BabbaQ has been reverting to, asking for the page to be protected [2]. Also note that BabbaQ has previously been blocked for sock-puppeteering, so it wouldn't be a first. If you would please not just listen to BabbaQ's claims but instead look into the edit conflict at hand - I've improved on the article immensely (replacing dead links, adding additional material, removing weasel words, etc), while BabbaQ seems to have become slighted at my response to the way he accused me of vandalism, and is now holding a personal vendetta against me and is hell-bent on not letting any of the improvements I've done stay. Just look at the bizarre way the discussion above transpired, or his arguments on Anton Abele's talk page. BabbaQ has made no effort to discuss what exactly it is that he doesn't approve of in the article. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not accusing, I'm asking. On a first glance I noticed you used four different accounts during the last months, which does raise questions. In general, the community asks that every person stick to one account only. While (again on first glance) I don't see any typical inappropriate use of those accounts (no overlap in the edit times or pages), I also see no reason why you should discard your account regularly; note that systematically avoiding scrutiny through use of multiple accounts is considered inappropriate, and to use of multiple accounts legitimately (even if you don't use them at the same time) you must have a good reason. That's why I'm asking you to explain. Amalthea 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't think I've used 4 accounts over the past months, though I did log into my old timer account to have a look at the edit count. I agree that attempting to avoid scrutiny through the use of multiple accounts would be inappropriate, but do you actually think that I'm avoiding scrutiny through the use of multiple accounts..? Has any of my accounts been warned? Do you even see the contours of anything that could be called an "agenda" about how I've deserted a couple of accounts? Also, where is the policy/guideline/whatever that says "In general, the community asks that every person stick to one account only"? It was my understanding that Wikipedia:Clean Start is the applicable policy in this case. I mean, I certainly don't mind answering the question, but I strongly believe there should be an actual reason for it being asked. If you think I hvae done something inappropriate, I'm happy to answer for it. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Btw, could you please tell me whether Wikipedia has any policy on when an admin is allowed to check the IP of a user and compare it to other user accounts? I was under the impression this was only allowed when a user was suspected of inappropriate behavior (this was a long time ago so I might of course be wrong). ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is this the applicable policy? Wikipedia:Checkuser#Grounds_for_checking. If so, I'd be happy if you could direct me to the appropriate forum for lodging a complaint with your use of the Checkuser privelege. (this is in "good faith", I obviously have nothing to gain from this personally, but I think what you've done goes against policy and should be vetted).ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Btw, could you please tell me whether Wikipedia has any policy on when an admin is allowed to check the IP of a user and compare it to other user accounts? I was under the impression this was only allowed when a user was suspected of inappropriate behavior (this was a long time ago so I might of course be wrong). ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't think I've used 4 accounts over the past months, though I did log into my old timer account to have a look at the edit count. I agree that attempting to avoid scrutiny through the use of multiple accounts would be inappropriate, but do you actually think that I'm avoiding scrutiny through the use of multiple accounts..? Has any of my accounts been warned? Do you even see the contours of anything that could be called an "agenda" about how I've deserted a couple of accounts? Also, where is the policy/guideline/whatever that says "In general, the community asks that every person stick to one account only"? It was my understanding that Wikipedia:Clean Start is the applicable policy in this case. I mean, I certainly don't mind answering the question, but I strongly believe there should be an actual reason for it being asked. If you think I hvae done something inappropriate, I'm happy to answer for it. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
← The audit is taking its time it appears. If you want, I can describe to you what prompted my check, but in the meantime I'd like to continue our discussion.
I believe you are misunderstanding the applicable policies here.
- Since you asked: the "in a nutshell" summary of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry explicitly says "The general rule is one editor, one account."
- The "avoiding scrutiny" part of WP:SOCK is not restricted to any problematic behavior. "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions". Starting a new account every few weeks, even if you work on different articles, can be abused, which is why the community decided it to be inappropriate. This is, again, independent of whether there is actual abuse.
- While WP:CLEANSTART is an exception to the above, three CLEANSTARTS within two months is gaming that exception, and not appropriate (and it is quite apparent that you have used more than the four accounts I've noticed).
So, I believe I do have a reason for discussing this with you, and I must strongly advise that you stick to one account from now on. If you do decide to do another WP:CLEANSTART in the future, I also advise that you disclose this to an arbcom member, as per WP:CLEANSTART#Disclosure in confidence. Amalthea 10:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Courcelles 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Report from the AUSC
[edit]The Audit Subcommitte (AUSC) has completed an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the checkuser of your account.
We find that the CheckUser run on your account was justified based on evidence provided on the English Wikipedia to CheckUser Amalthea, and was carried out within the criteria outlined in the privacy policy. Therefore, no further action is taken on this matter.
For the Audit Subcommittee;
Courcelles 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)