User talk:Aunt Entropy - Wikipedia

Hi, Welcome to my talk page. If you leave me a message here, watch the page; I will respond here. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gardasil&diff=next&oldid=297365405
(I hope this is what you meant by "leave me a message here"!) Anyway, it's no big deal, but if you could look at the above link and let me know a bit more about what you meant I'd be grateful.

You said: (rv:youtube is not a reliable source, and the cdc is not Merck).

Quick notes:
(1) My source wasn't Youtube, it was CBS. Youtube is simply the repository for the CBS footage.
(2) I wasn't suggesting that the CDC was Merck in any way and it couldn't be construed as such, but the text as it was, said "with NO evidence the vaccine has caused serious adverse effects" was a corporate point of view written as fact and needed clarification or at least 'levelling'.
Anyway, it's all mute as the article has been revised hundreds of times since then, I'm just trying to understand more about Wiki editing.
Cheers, matthk BFB "Will it to be and you have of it" (talk)

That is exactly what I meant (by the way I did not know who made the case). Also I feel that as MK was inocent of what he was accused of some kind of appology would I think have eased the tension.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I only apologise if I do something wrong. The case was made in good faith, had what I believe was reasonable evidence for an investigation. Considering that, especially this statement by Mk, I don't feel I erred. I made the case to clear it up one way or the other. Mk3584 got what he wanted, he was vindicated. But he wants more, apparently. His attitude is not helpful. He fails to see how he is not civil, while at the same time accusing me of bringing deliberately false charges just to "railroad" him due to his beliefs. Auntie E. (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

That you have endorsed a CU, not giving me any chance to reply, and that within minutes therafter, a CU being run is unacceptable. The question has flipped from me being possibly this Hetoum to me not having the right to use alternative accounts. Why then this account was not blocked? Rather a CU was endorsed! Admission of alternative accounts in no way can be used as evidence whatsoever that I am user Hetoum. No evidences have ever been provided, behavioral or otherwise that I am Hetoum yet a CU was endorsed over the admission of the uses of an alternative account. Please explain. What prevent me now to request a CU on any new suspicious users to check that user with a banned user and just having to show the user is suspicious without having to provide any evidence which link that user with the banned user in question. Behavioral or otherwise. Ionidasz (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The complainant stated that Hetoum had pursued him in wikispace similar to the way you did. Also, the fact that you did not use this account in project space, but only in wikispace suggests that the account is being used to avoid scrutiny. It's unusual for an account to only be interested in someone's edits without actually editing alongside them in project space. There is some difference of opinion whether socks are allowed to comment in wikispace, but I am of the opinion it is not fair to create a sock simply to comment about another editor's behavior. Editors should have a right to face their accusers. Auntie E. (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you have actually read this account comments. Nowhere did I comment on his behavior or him, I commented on the relevancy of having a specific template in an article on the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts on the Administrators' noticeboard subsection. After an edit or two on that, I was asked to be checked because as a new user have found my way through. But how could I have not, he announced it here in one of the most heated subject in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The allegation of Grandmaster that I was harassing him was taken at face value and the CU was endorsed without checking that my edit was not even personal, please read them. Nowhere did he feal harassed, check his reply here. We were writing about content. There was absolutly no reason to run that CU. While he was answering me and argumenting, in parallel, he asked that I be checked (WHY??), and after it came negative, he requested another CU with another user. At no time he provided an evidence which would justify a check with either of those users. One or two edits about a template inclusion or exclusion, take it anyway you want, can in no way justify a suspicion to request a CU. Ionidasz (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

WT...? Come on! Creating a sock to comment on other editors? I can't believe you can take words at face value without checking the actual edits! An account created to make a comment on the relevancy of a template. Ionidasz (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your first comment came off as hostile, emphatically calling someone's arguments "nonsensical." Now, whether that is a personal attack is borderline. But it just seems unfair for someone to create a sock to use that tone against another. It smacked of SPA socking that is not considered a legitimate use of an alternate account. This was one of those borderline cases that, after reviewing the rules on SPA and good hand, bad hand socks, in hindsight it would have been better not to endorse. I apologise for not showing you more good faith in this case. But do consider the CU's note: the number of socks you do have has him concerned. It can look like avoiding scrutiny to divide one's edits among more than a couple of accounts, so please consider that in future. Auntie E. (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but the evidence was very misleading. And there were innacurate info after checking the diffs. For example: and protested being checkusered, what can be found from that account was this, not a CU protest. It was a clear cut case of attempting to link me to others, with such evidences that, he protested like user y, he must be that user. You can't then accuse me to check his contributions after the request to find out that about the time that he requested a CU on me, he filled a report about another user here, when it would have taken about 10 seconds to tell that only the last edit was a revert. It should not be acceptable to fill CUs at the first edit of an account, or bogus claims of reverts when such reverts there is not against editors who do not agree with his positions. Besides, with the email I have sent you, you should have known the users he accused to be me could not have been me, since he requested CUs previously at the same time I was contributing with my primary account and that account would have come during the check. As for the socks, they're very occasional, and most of the time, I don't keep their password. In any case, I am busy, and won't contribute much, but I think Grandmaster should at least be warned to not jump to the guns like this. Ionidasz (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Without comment on Grandmaster making sock reports, allow me to just explain briefly to you the reason why you were checked, and how such things are managed, which will hopefully go some way to allaying any concerns you have over the whole incident.   You are running alternative accounts, and as such, the account you are editing under at the moment behaved in a manner that signified it as someone who is familiar with wikipedia, which couldn't be helped, since you are familiar with wikipedia, you also (by coincidence) happened to be behaving in a manner that a previous sockpuppeteer has done, hence why the case was endorsed for checkuser. The privacy policy makes it clear that certain users (checkusers) have access to private information. When you signup for an account, you agree to the privacy policy, and you agree to let checkusers see your IP. However, the privacy policy does have limits on what information checkusers can release and in what circumstances. Technically, a checkuser looking at your IP is in no way a violation of the privacy policy, but releasing the information might be. In this particular circumstance, the information has not been released, as there is not a valid reason to do so. You may wish to see m:Privacy policy#Access to and release of personally identifiable information. Also, please take note that the number of alternative accounts you are running at the moment is excessive, sticking to one account may be best in future (by the way, if you had been using only one account then the case probably wouldn't have been marked for CU, as it would have been clearer that you are a long term contributor, rather than just appearing as a single purpose account). Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is my last reply regarding this, Spitfire, I think you are giving arguments to Grandmaster to fill another bogus request. He will probably use your reply if someone show this case because he too would be victmin of a bogus request. The alternative account claim does not make sens, as I was in no way behaving in such matter which would justify from Grandmasters part to request two different check. You claim I have behaved like those Grandmaster claimed I possibly was. How so? Note that the issue of the alternative account was not even raised then, and I have commented on a matter touching history and Grandmaster announced that request for opinion in an article talkpage which is subject to a heated discussion. Could I have been a new user who edited Wikipedia for the first time? Sure! That's the important thing here. Had I not said it was an alternative account and attempted to defend the position that I was a new user there would have been no argument for a CU to begin with. Because Grandmaster would be needing to explain why it was not possible that I would have found that request for an opinion regarding history as a new user, when he provided it's link in a heated article talkpage. The endorser now admitting there was no clear substance and even apologizing, the blaim remain on the filler of the request, who also at the same time attempted to have another user on indefinit restriction by attempting to pass edits as reverts. Clerks should be careful when endorsing checks, and even checking the accounts requested when in presence of several accounts. If for example someone add accounts on Hetoum_I CU page, other users which were unconnected to him from prior checks should not be added. That would be fishing at best. On this I conclude. Ionidasz (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Aunt Entropy, just dropping you a quick note regarding this, which I assume is the result of the recent GC issue (which we have discussed at some length, so I won't go into details). While I am sorry that you have decided that you need to take break from clerking (presumably) due to this, the decision is, of course, entirely up to you. Once you feel that the matter has been settled or is no longer of concern you should be more than welcome to return to clerking if you still want to (and any appearances in the meantime will be gladly received). As a clerk you have been progressing well, and I look forward to seeing you around SPI again once the matter is resolved. (Of course, if you're just going on holiday I'm going to look like a total nitwit now  ).
Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't think the issue will be resolved to my liking. I don't see any reason why this was done privately...unless we protect underage sockpuppeteers from making themselves look like themselves. If we do that, I don't feel I can continue work at SPI. I already have concerns that the wiki is more reform school than editing environment, and giving children more right to evade scrutiny than adults is IMHO a major step backwards. That plus the smug attitude from the CUs that responded (Amory showing such AGF by assuming my desire for justice was just vindictiveness) just made me want to back off of SPI.

Maybe this is me showing bad faith, however; not putting my absolute trust in the powers-that-be without any checks and balances in the system. I'm well aware that corruption exists among the wiki elite. Who governs the governors? (Usually when someone asks, you end up in an archive box with the legend "This is going nowhere. Archiving")

I may have to e-mail some people who I trust and see if I can either confirm or allay my suspicions, then we'll see what happens in the future.

Thanks for all of your help, though, and I'm very sorry if I've disappointed you, or you felt you wasted your time: at least Brian and Kevin got some of what I learned from you (plus some stuff I figured out on my own) so I believe it was not all in vain. Cheers, and good luck :) Auntie E. (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Saw your comment on Jpgordon's talk page. So far as I'm concerned, the provision against "Editing project space" in WP:ILLEGIT covers it. It's not permitted to create a sock to edit project space divorced from your mainspace edits. I think we could probably get a consensus to make it more explicit if you think it's necessary.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply