User talk:ImprobabilityDrive/Archive002

/Archive002

What's with the archiving and welcoming yourself?
Um, why did you archive ongoing discussion about your activity and the questions that you had previous accounts? I still would like to know how you learned to sign your name and learned all those tags within minutes of registering on wikipedia.

At least six other editors have issues with your POV pushing. Why did you remove ongoing issues?

Also why did you not only remove that information, but why did you welcome yourself to wikipedia? Arbustoo 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Arbusto. You will have to wait while I search for a search for A mentor, per some suggestions I received earlier. Infinite Improbability Drive 03:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Will a mentor know why you removed serious ongoing issues from your talk, then archived at User talk:ImprobabilityDrive/Archive001 only to use the smallest size on your talk? Arbustoo 03:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Arbustoo, I have given you answers multiple times. According to this, you still have not fixed the tags, as you stated you would.  If you would like, you may send me an email.  But until I get a mentor, you should, if you would, refrain from posting to my talk page.  Also, if you respond here, I will answer here.  But please be advised that I under obligation no obligation to answer questions, however I see fit.    Infinite Improbability Drive 04:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No you did not answer my questions. Also you removed information that you were blocked. The person who unblocked you thinks you are a sock. Arbustoo 04:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, why did you re-welcome yourself with other people's signatures? Arbustoo 04:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think ID was utilizing the template and signature from the original person who welcomed him. See the original welcome.  As a suggestion ID, you should put a comment in the  edit summary stating what you did, just in case.  Let's assume good faith with this editor.  Orangemarlin 05:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wondering why the welcome was so drastically changed, and why this user welcomed himself then changed the signature. Arbustoo 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know. Let ID answer that question if he so chooses.  I believe the meg template autosigns names, so that would be his mistake.  That's a wild-ass guess.  Orangemarlin 07:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I added the same exact template to my page, and it put my signature on it. I did this long ago, because I like the quick links to various Wiki rules and the such, I use it all the time.  Someone else placed another template on there, which  I didn't like.  Again, ID has done a number of things that justify suspicion, this isn't one of them.  Orangemarlin 07:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Various things
See WP:ARCHIVE for how to archive stuff. As to not recusing myself- since I was arguing with you, unblocking you didn't seem to require a recusal like blocking would. If you want, I can abide by the strict letter of the policy, reblock you and then ask an uninvolved admin to look at it. I don't think you want that though. JoshuaZ 04:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, thanks for unblocking me. I'll take a look at the link.  Infinite Improbability Drive 04:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice
You asked on my talk page for advice on dealing with your current situation. The advice I can offer is simple.

If you have used other accounts in the past, be open and honest about your other identities. (I'm going out on and assuming you have previous editing experience since as far as I can tell, we have never interacted before. If this is a mistaken assumption, please forgive me - it's not an accusation, just an assumption that you didn't pick my name out of a hat.)

If you have not used other accounts, just move on with life, but make sure you are civil and respectful of the views of others. Creationism is a highly polarized topic and you may find editing more enjoyable in a less-controversial area.

I hope that helps. Good luck. --BigDT 04:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your request
Hello ImprobabilityDrive, thanks for your comments on my talkpage. I have been reviewing your contributions and you certainly seem to be having a rough time of it. That said, I can also see why there are questions about sockpupptery. Empirically speaking, when a new user displays familiarity with the project and edits controversial articles (particularly ones that are popular with known sockpuppeteers), there is a very good chance that they are a sockpuppet.

Nevertheless, there are also those that are falsely accused that just happen to fit the pattern, so I'm willing to take you at your word on this issue. Though if I was to adopt you, and you do have prior experience of editing under another account, I'd prefer if you told me in the spirit of openess (of course, it could be done by email if you would prefer not to reveal that publically).

Just so you know, the adoption procedure is entirely flexible and you (or I) may terminate the relationship at anytime, simply by letting the other know. You are also entirely welcome to seek other mentors at any time, either in addition to or instead of me. I try to keep and eye on my adoptees contributions and will offer advice unsolicited where I can. I'm open to questions about pretty much anything - simple or complex - and will try and reply as soon as I can. I'm also happy to try to mediate if you get into any scrapes.

When I'm convinced you are up to speed on WP (not that you can't carry on learning, of course), I will let you know and offer to "graduate" you. However, does not mean we have to terminate our relationship, as you will be welcome to remain an adoptee for as long as you wish, until you feel ready to graduate. Even then, I will always be available to offer advice as a colleague. If you are happy with this arrangement, then let me know and I can "do the paperwork". If after reading this you decide you don't wish to be formally adopted, thats cool also - I'm still available to offer advice on an ad hoc basis. Let me know. Rockpock e  t  05:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, great. Good to have you on board. I not quite sure where to start though. I guess the more important question is what would you like me to help you with. I also note there is a RfC on you recently opened. Are you aware of what the purpose of this is and are you planning to comment on it? Rockpock  e  t  06:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First thing is to watch me contribute to less controversial articles, and if my good faith is questioned, to let me know how to approach it. Thanks.  Infinite Improbability Drive 06:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. I'll try and keep an eye on things, but if you find yourself in a delicate situation, feel free to draw my attention to it. Rockpock  e  t  06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did - and have replied. Rockpock  e  t  07:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't a limit to the evidence linked, though it tends to settle down after a while. I'd wait for that to happen before replying, to avoid confusion. Remember, though, that it isn't a court, but simply a forum for the community to offer its opinion. I like to view RfC as a mentoring process, where one can get feedback on how to improve oneself in the future, by learning the lessons of the past. If you can enter it with that mindset, the whole things becomes less combatorial and the outcome can be positive for everyone. Rockpock  e  t  19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks.  A user has also alleged yet again that I am a sockpuppet.  I already responded to that, but I have much more information in my defense on that.  What is your adivce there? Infinite Improbability Drive 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd)? I'm not overly familiar with the technical aspects of IP triangulation, but if you claimed ownership of an IP edit used by a known sockpuppeteer with a prior interest in the same subjects as you, then I can understand why someone would use it for the basis of a checkuser. I appreciate that no-one enjoys being accused of misdeeds, but if you are not evading ban or operating a sockpuppet account, you should have nothing to worry about from these requests for WP:CHECK. My advice to you is to let them pass without comment. I'll keep an eye on them to ensure that the outcome is not misrepresented. Rockpock  e  t  23:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. The IP is not VacuousPoet's.  OM is an MD, and some of his assertions are incorrect in that case.  Infinite Improbability Drive 00:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If accepted, the checkuser clerk will do the analysis and give a report based on their unique knowledge. The interpretation of person making the request will not influence the result. Rockpock  e  t  01:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I do hope that this interpretation is also applied retroactively to all sockpuppet charges OM has brought, for consistency's sake. Creative problem solving is important, if it is decided to allow this fishing expedition to continue  Infinite Improbability Drive 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Retroactively? I know your view of the world is skewed to your personal POV, but those sockpuppet charges were not only confirmed by checkusers, but also by other evidence.  I can't wait to watch happens here.  By the way, I'm adding the above uncivil remarks to your RfC.  This will be amusing.  Orangemarlin 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, retroactively. In fact, a chart showing the users you have filed check users against versus your comments about them being Evolutionists, Intelligent Designers, Christian Fundemantalists, etc. is going to be a most interesting project.  Rather than attacking users who seem to you to be pushing POV, you should be engaging others to mediate, and help those users become productive members of the community.  But I suppose whispering in ears is just in your blood.  And Elvis is in the building.  Infinite Improbability Drive 02:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC has been opened
I have opened an RfC and will be adding more links as time permits. Please leave your comments: Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The offer of mediation by Rockpocket looks to me like a more constructive way forward, and the RfC seems rather premature. Take advice from Rockpocket before rushing into this, .. dave souza, talk 05:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Others voiced that an RfC would be a good way to move forward. See this discussion for details. If I were the only editor to mention an RfC, I would agree it is premature. Yet, that is not the case. Arbustoo 05:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think ID needs to mend some fences, state clearly under what names he previously edited, act civilly under all conditions, and build consensus for major edits.  His comments on my talk page allow me to assume good faith as long as he abides by the conditions set forth by the offers of mentoring.  I'm not going to add any comments to the RFC at this time.  I'm wiping the slate clean. Orangemarlin 05:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * AGF is one thing. The POV pushing and personal attacks is another. Arbustoo 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't like it either. But I'm willing to give ID a chance to move forward with a clean slate.  it seems like Dave souza is willing to give him a break too.  It is the right thing to do.  Orangemarlin 07:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, he's consistently ignored community input which is never a good idea, so it's best to let the community have its say about his methods. FeloniousMonk 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please understand, I am concerned about what he has done, and his motives herein. I remain convinced that he's a sockpuppet of User:Gnixon, but the checkuser failed.  He hasn't been disruptive since all of this crap hit the fan.  I guess I'm willing to give one more chance to be a member of the community.  But certainly, if the community thinks he should be tossed on his ear, I'm with it.  I am really trying to be nice to this guy, but I know what he's done--I am hoping he has learned his lesson. Orangemarlin 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An RfC isn't a banning, and can't result in a banning. A banning/"tossing one out on their ear" is for ArbCom, and is another process. An RfC allows the community to comment on the user's behavior. That's all it is. If you don't want to voice your opinion on the RfC fine. However, the RfC lets everyone have a formal say in this user's actions. Arbustoo 18:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw all of my positive comments. This user is a sockpuppet of the following banned individuals: user:Kdbuffalo and user:VacuousPoet, both of whom have been permanently banned by Wikipedia administrators. I will post my case in a little bit, and attach the link herein. Orangemarlin 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ImprobabilityDrive, many of the claims you have put in your RfC are false. This will not look good in the future if your response is based on incorrect claims. Arbustoo 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. Your claim that you contributed more than 100 times to an article that has less than 100 edits will look even better, since you filed the RFC.  I updated the RFC to to demonstrate that in fact it is your claim that was false, to the best of my knowledge.  Infinite Improbability Drive 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's really no point in continuing this. You are so clearly and utterly wrong. Anyway, good luck. Arbustoo 02:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Please note the following: Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd). I have also tagged the user page with the charge. This editor may reply to the charges at the Sockpuppet page. Orangemarlin 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Other users seeing the above, please AGF, I am confident that the associated RFCU and the Suspected sock puppet case will vindicate me once again. Infinite Improbability Drive 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)