User talk:Maxx Mountain Rock

August 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Momo san Gespräch 18:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on what exactly it was I did that constitutes vandalism? Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500
Just an uninvolved admin here: I suggest you add diffs to your statements there to help others make sense out of them. Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, a word of advice from another uninvolved sysop; take it easy and don't panic. You're not going to be blocked unless a CheckUser request goes through and comes back positive or you act in an inappropriate manner. Do your best not to stress, stay civil, and everything will be ok! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  19:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would if I knew how. Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As for how to insert diffs; Help:Diff explains it well. If you need further explanation, feel free to ask. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  19:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But why would someone accuse ME of being a sock, when I was the one who reported the sock/tag removal in the first place? Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user's reasons are their own; I don't have any opinions on the matter as to avoid being biased. I would suggest taking it up with the user on his/her talk page. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  19:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I just find it strange that when I was the one who brought up strange edits in the first place that I was then accused without any real reason. Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1+1=?
Some fun facts here...

1) I am apparently User:ECW500, a notorious vandal and sockpuppeteer.

2) I also have 6 sock accounts that have made numerous disruptive edits. It's been checked you know.

3) However, no one can verify that. You just have to have faith that it's true.

4) Now, none of my six "Socks" that I run are ECW500. Surely if I were ECW500, and those 6 accounts were me, it would logically follow that those 6 accounts are also ECW500?

5) Sadly, the check that "proved" those 6 accounts to be me is not able to be used on ECW500, because...well no one really knows why.

6) If anyone were to check my "contributions" page, they would see my only offense was asking why someone had REMOVED a sock tag from somebody who actually fits the ECW500 modus operandi.

7) I attempted to say this(and more) on the "investigation" page, but someone removed it, as the page had ALREADY BEEN ARCHIVED. Yup, BEFORE I had a chance to respond properly, and BEFORE any real conclusion could be reached.

8) After a helpful admin told me about the "investigation" page, I went there and posted a short reply. This was greeted with horror by some editors, as apparently, I'm not supposed to be even KNOW about it, and certainly can't RESPOND(see above)

9) After pointing out the above, ONLY THEN did someone "discover" that the same check had in fact revealed me to have "Several other" vandal socks, and that I had edited "a few minutes before or after" all of those socks, and the exact same pages! This despite having only created my account within the last couple of weeks!

10) The only explanation I've gotten for any of this, is "It's not looking good for you". My reply was to the effect of "it never looks good for someone facing hollow charges, who doesn't even get to make a statement in their defense, and all the "evidence" is hidden and secretive."

My only thoughts? If this is the way wikipedia operates, perhaps it would be best for everyone if I simply never used it for anything. ECW500 (whoever he/she is) will no doubt continue vandalizing long after I'm gone, and someone will tag me as being a sock of that.

I would however like to give my thanks and admiration to those admins who tried to help, actually informed me about the discussion and investigation pages, and were only ever polite and helpful. If only all wiki editors were like them, how much better would it be. Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.  Triplestop  x3  14:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate that you wish to preserve the discussion as archived, but I find it more than a little strange that it would be archived BEFORE either

a) I have had a chance to respond to what was somewhat of a personal attack

b) A logical conclusion has actually been reached

I apologize for breaking wikiquette by reverting the investigation page back to my version, but I honestly do not believe it to have been disruptive. Someone made some very serious (and somewhat slanderous) accusations. I was merely attempting to respond to them. Do you not think it would have been somewhat more fair to wait up on archiving the page until after my response? I realize this may been seen as potentially leading to a never-ending back-and-forth, but I feel I stated everything I needed to say in that one post, which has now been removed.

Anyway, here is a link to what I tried to add (after the archiving had taken place)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ECW500/Archive&diff=prev&oldid=307190414

As you'll note, my ORIGINAL innocent query remains unanswered, I remain tagged as a "suspected sockpuppet of ECW500", and there remains little to no chance that the User:ECW500 account will itself be checked to verify anything one way or the other.Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Socks and stuff....
Apparently I am a sockpuppet master. 6 accounts who i know absolutely nothing about have supposedly been "confirmed" as me! Check the mindless discussion linked to earlier on this talk page for more on that. I have attempted to remove the tags from these people's pages(and get this, they've all been blocked as me! That's actually kinda funny iin a sick sort of way.) But they were immediately reinstated by someone. So I am now officially a sockpuppet guy, with 6, count 'em SIX, "confirmed socks". Betcha can't beat that! Well, one guy can.... the infamous User:ECW500, who got me into this crap in the first place. See, he had been vandalizing articles using more than 150 different accounts!! That makes "my" 6 look poor by comparison, no? Especially since none of those 6 people are me. Anyways, one administrator kept removing a "sock" tag from one of ECW500's obvious socks. I kept reinstating it, breaking the 3RR yet escaping THAT one perfectly well thank you. I queried another admin about it, who immediately "confirmed" my 6 other "socks", and tried to prove that I WAS ECW500. Well, that went exactly as expected, I am not ECW500, which the check confirmed. Hmmmm. I then asked how exactly I am the 6 socks, and why THEY HAVE NEVER RUN A CHECKUSER ON ECW500. But, wait, the discussion had already been archived, and these comments were immediately removed, and I was warned for vandalizing an archived discussion page by adding new comments and questions. So, to those 6 people, whoever you are, I'm sorry, but hey, at least I showed that none of the 7 of us are ECW500! That's something I guess...

But something has happened now. Apparently ECW500 is now back AS AN IP ADDRESS. And that IP is from a totally different continent to me! Funny how things work out.

Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)