User talk:InkSplotch/Archive/Archive-Jan2007

Hoy to the prodigal...
Welcome back.

While I'm here, can I ask a petty indulgance, one that I'll soon be passing around a great deal? The automatic talk page archiving seems sub-optimal to me. It's arbitrary, just as my "fifty sections or having a wiki-fit" method is, so no differance there. But it seems obfuscatory: Stuff just vanishes, and while it is possible to dig it out, it's not easy. It's even hard to see if the person hasn't been around, as a blank page tells no tales. So anyway, the indulgance is to consider the pros and cons of the automatic archiving, and reach your own decision.

brenneman 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
InkSplotch, in connection with your sudden reappearance at the ArbCom workshop page (as unexpected as your earlier appearance with the ArbCom submission), I am asking you whether you can give me the other username(s) which you used before registering this account. If you prefer to not do it in public, feel free to do so privately. You may as well refuse of course. In the latter case, I would like your refusal simply be noted for the record. TIA, --Irpen 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been noted for the record several times before, and a Checkuser was even recorded in the previous ArbCom case. I do not and have never had any other accounts on Wikipedia. --InkSplotch 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

InkSplotch, I am aware of the Checkuser result recorded in the previous ArbCom case. I, as well as you, am also aware that Checkuser negative result is not a proof of anything since remote computers can be easily used by the same person to post from different accounts. See Bonaparte case as the best proof. My opinion that your account was not new is based on your edit pattern as I outlined here. While circumstantial, the evidence seems to me pretty strong, especially since the sockpuppetry is not something that can ever be proven fully by IP check and editing pattern is often the main evidence.

With your edit pattern from the start, with your familiarity with how Wikipedia works from the onset, and with your being quickly greeted by the editors not exactly known for greeting newcomers with welcome templates, the evidence, although circumstantial is as strong as there can be. This is just my opinion of course. I don't believe I am mistaken here but if so, nothing prevents you from editing using this unidentified account as you did before. If I am right, which many people also think, it would be easier for all of us if you disclose you previous and/or current accounts purely for ethical reasons if for no other. If you prefer to avoid any conclusive answer like you just did referring me to the ArbCom page of which I am already aware, this is also an answer of sorts. --Irpen 22:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I was early here with the same questions and this has been addressed mutliple times. With regard to being greeted by editors I did not see too much of that and this talk page has been on my watchlist for a while. All I saw were interactions that were instigated based on inksplotchs good comments, in, admitedly, controversial topics. S/he appears to be a voice of reason so i see no reason to pursue this issue. I will add we have disagreed on serveral issues but the ability to engage this editor in a civil conversation  is an assett to any discussion. Let's not drive them away. David D. (Talk) 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The funny bit about the welcome messages is that it stems from a comment I made in a discussion over Karmafist's manifesto. I mentioned I'd never gotten a welcome message, and numerous folks suddenly appeared on my talk page in sympathy.


 * That you say I have a remarkable familiarity with how Wikipedia works is a compliment. I never gave this site more than a glance before the Webcomics arbitration waaaay back when.  I like webcomics, although I'm not terribly fanatical about them.  When I saw an article on Websnark about Wiki, I decided to come over and check out how things worked.  The arbitration case fascinated me.  I stuck around and watch some more, and yes, mainly the ArbCom pages, AN and AN/I.  When I did start sticking my nose into things, it was always with the firm intent to improve things...usually relations between editors.  Although I never did Dschor much good, did I?  So maybe my familiarity isn't as strong as you think.  Perhaps I'm just part coder, part writer...perhaps I just make it look easy.


 * It bothers me to hear you say, "if you want to avoid a conclusive answer" I'm not sure how much more conclusive I can be.  I'm not a sock, a reincarnation, or anything else.  How much clearer can I be?  How can I make it conclusive?  If there is a way I can prove this to you, please tell me because I feel like the prisoner tied to a chair.  "Tell us the secret formula!" my captor shouts, and I don't know what to say.  There is no secret, there never was.  --InkSplotch 22:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just send him a photo of a part of your vacuum cleaner. It worked for Alec Guiness. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the "avoid a conclusive answer" quote, it was made in connection to your previous response. I asked a direct question and you pointed me to the lack of checkuser evidence which I was already aware of. Right above your answer ("I'm not a sock, a reincarnation, or anything else") is totally clear and I am not going to bother you with repeating the question.

As a side note, your comparison of my asking you a question at your talk page with a torture chamber is off the mark, I am afraid. While I admit that I was indeed asking until the clear answer is given, I asked you civilly and politely and laid the reasons of my suspicions clearly. Whether I was correct with my suspicions or not, the mere fact that I was not alone is raising them shows that they were not due to some sort of my personal paranoia. --Irpen 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The torture chamber comparison does not fall squarely on your shoulders. It's more symbolic of the entire conversation.  As I mentioned above, this question has been raised before and answered before.  You point to my first response where I referred to the Checkuser...but that wasn't really my answer.  My answer was the next sentance, I do not and have never had any other accounts on Wikipedia.  It often feels like my denials fall on deaf ears.


 * You even note that, If I am right, which many people also think, it would be easier for all of us if you disclose you previous and/or current accounts purely for ethical reasons if for no other.  What hurts me most are the sideways suggestions, the throwaway comments that suggest, "oh, we know you're a sock but we don't care."  The simple fact that some people have decided I must be a former user colors their perceptions.  Somewhere, in the back of someone's mind, they're wondering who I might be.


 * I actually appreciate that you took the time to come here and ask me directly. You've been very civil and polite here, and I apologize if my exasperation spilled on to you.  It still feels like a shadow that hangs over me, that I can't seem to escape no matter what I do. --InkSplotch 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)