User:Wikitrocity

This IP address is indeed a dynamic IP address. Everyone on the planet is free and able to use any of the many many free utilities out there to find details about this IP address. Since access to that data is so easy, it's unnecessary to post it via that template. Also, in the context of the past week of history for this IP, the template contains a viscious (but slight) tone that says "we know who you are" or "we're still thinking about blocking you" to me. I have removed it for that reason. Nobody should have to put up with harassment on their talk page if they don't want it there. Nobody in a presumably-civil Wikipedia should  be required to wear  badges of dishonor.  When I no longer have this IP address, I will signify that in some way (possibly by blanking this page or just by being inactive for quite some time). When that happens, anyone may post anything they want here and I will have no claim to it. That has not yet occurred, so I do claim the right to control this page and protect myself from harassment here as I see fit.

71.174.213.3 (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Battle of Monmouth. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (71.174.213.3) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and  [ create an account] . If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! BusterD (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Now, who are you exactly?
What account name or IP do you usually edit under? Is it currently blocked or banned? You're clearly not a newbie, and this IP just started editing out of the blue, so let's please have the background. BMK (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that you're this guy: Long-term abuse/Best known for IP? Seems pretty likely. BMK (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If someone provides a source in the "Sons of Liberty" article for "best known for" or even for "well know for", then it may be reinstated. But really, what they're "best known for" is somewhat off topic as well. Usually, the intent of that phrasing is to trigger an association in the reader's mind so the topic is more relevant to the reader, which is a good thing. But, it's actually unnecessary to assert that they're "known" for something to achieve that. Simply stating the fact (without saying how well it's known) does the trick. Adding the "best known for" flourish takes a simple, communicative, and presumably supported (in the text) fact and makes it unsupported and unencyclopedic.

I've actually never heard of a "Best known for IP". I looked it up with your link and it's not me (I swear). I'm sorry I'm not an IP that you can presume is naive enough that you can bully around. You need to knock off that bullying. Trying to out anybody whether they're an IP or not is completely forbidden. I won't tolerate it. And, I won't tolerate your accusations. You're way out of line in that regard.

71.174.213.3 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, as long as you swear you're not that guy (just checking: was it a pinkie swear?), I guess according the WP:AGF I am forced to believe you -- although that still leaves open what your account name is, and whether you're editing through a block. Using an IP to conceal your identity is a violation of WP:SOCK, and, of course, editing when you've been blocked is a violation of WP:Block evasion. Given the behavioral evidence, I'll continue to act as of you're evading a block until it's shown to be otherwise - which means that your edits can all be removed.  BMK (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Friend, this must stop. You can't continue to make such baseless accusations. You making these accusations so loudly may make you feel good, but its utterly without merit and it's WP:uncivil. You claim to AGF on the "I swear" thing, but you don't really. It really has to stop. I'm not going to run from you. You need to get your head together and stop these warrantless personal attacks. Right now.

Yours, 71.174.213.3 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're not "mine", not until I know who you are, 'cause you ain't who you pretend to be, that's for damn sure. As long as you're hiding your identity behind a false IP, I'm assuming you're socking, and as long as you're socking, I'm assuming you're evanding a block.  You wanna stop me from making those assumptions?  It's totally in your hands, not mine. BMK (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I know, why don't you call in an admin, and you can explain how you started editing 2 days ago with full knowledge of Wikipedia, and all the well-documented habits of the "Best known for IP", but you can explain how you're not that person, but another different person who does  exactly  the same thing and hides behind an IP without identifying himself, just like the "Best known for IP", and edit-wars just like the "Best known for IP" and makes the argument personal, just like the "Best knwon for IP" and whose edit summaries are the same as the "Best known for IP". We'll lay all that information at the feet of an admin, and we'll let an admin sort it out -- how's that? BMK (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Geeze, get a grip on yourself. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you're agreed, we'll get an admin in to sort things out? Maybe he or she will throw me in the pokie for being "uncivil" to you, ya never know.  But, then again, I only edit under the account and don't go traipsing around hiding my identity behind miscellaneous IPs - not that it matters all that much, your behavioral fingerprint is quite distinctive. BMK (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I liked your bit on the article talk page about how you were concerned about tracking down the "Best known as IP" - it was so reminiscent of O.J. Simpson's swearing that he was going to spend the rest of his life looking for the "real" murderer that I get all nostalgic.  Not that you've done anything anywhere nearly as bad as that, of course. BMK (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey there "Ken",

You're reading too much into things. I never said anything about "tracking down" anybody. But then, you sure do like to accuse people of all kinds of crazy stuff don't you? Like I said, you need to get a grip on yourself. OJ Simpson? You're spinning yourself into a tizzy. You sure like to project all sorts of bizzarro ideas from your head into other peoples heads.

Oh Brother. (great big eye-roll).

71.174.213.3 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So which admin would you prefer I go to? Is there one that you've had good dealings with in the past, under one of your other IPs or your account name? I'm easy, and pretty trusting of admins in general, so it really doesn't matter to me. BMK (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued harassment and thinly veiled threats. Mmmm. Nice. (more eye-rolling) 71.174.213.3 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Going to AN/I -- good choice! The drama boards can always be counted on to confuse things and bring in random opponents with their own agendas. Except that it does serve to point out how well you know Wikipedia processes, supporting the (obvious) fact that you are not a new editor, but instead a long-time editor hiding their identity. BMK (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

More of the same. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, what did you think, that I'm making this stuff up, and I was going to escalate as things went along, like the Vietnam War, getting more and more outrageous in my claims about you? This isn't some kind of character assassination made up out of whle cloth -- you fit the behavioral profile of the "Best known for IP" precisely, you did when this discussion started and you continue to now. The only thing that's changed is that you keep revealing your in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia with every new comment you make, which only backs up the main point and digs your hole of deception deeper and deeper. Next thing you know you'll be wanting everyone to believe that you're a newbie. BMK (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoookey Dokey then. Even more of the same I see. You really like to go on and on and on. Ho Hum. How about some specifics? So far, it's only the same old vague "he smells like someone else, I know it, I just know it". Which isn't made up of whole cloth, but by the fact that I wouldn't tolerate your harassment and told you so, which itself you wouldn't tolerate, and so you worked yourself into a tizzy convincing yourself that I smelled exactly like that South American. I'm not that guy of course. And, it's irrelevant how experienced an IP is. NOBODY deserves your abuse, regardless of anything. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * IP editor, article talk pages such as Talk:Sons of Liberty aren't a good place to discuss an editor's behavior. Edit warring over it isn't a good way to go either, even if others removed it for no valid reason. Yelling at BMK is best done at BMK's talk page, which is getting kind of boring anyway. Can I let you in on a secret? You're both net positives to the project. Don't tell anyone I said that about BMK, though. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I feel a little better about things for that. But, I also think you should have looked more closely at BMK and what he did. It was a textbook case of WP:POV_railroad. Plain old ordinary WP:bullying. Take care to note the taunting above and the "I dare you" (to take it to an admin) tone of what amounts to schoolyard bullying by a 60-ish** year-old. Bullying requires standing ground.

Yes, an article talk page is usually a sub-optimal place to discuss an editor's bad behavior. It's intended for discussion of the article. If you look there closely you will see that I began there strictly with efforts to discuss the article and I tried to maintained focus on that the whole time, and that all of my posting there was framed as civilly as I could muster. Consider as well that I had already experienced a few vicious cycles of "Now, who are you exactly?" followed by conviction and sentencing here on my talk page (the railroading). And, I had been striked-out and called a "block-evader" on the article talk page before ever bringing the subject of his abuse there. BMK added no useful discourse on the article there at all. He couldn't do that because he had to maintain the farce of his "block evader" railroading efforts, and treat anything I wrote there as "block evasion" by striking out.

As far as edit warring goes. If you look you will see that I tried to stop the first cycle (about sourcing) by bringing it to the talk page, just like we're supposed to. But there another cycle (the strikeouts) began. I had decided to let him have his strikeouts when the mysterious IPV6 began the "unexplained blanking" campaign. It isn't edit warring to revert vandalism. I continued to revert IPV6's unexplained blankings as vandalism while trying to warn (him) on his talk page and also trying to get (him) to explain the blankings. You may notice that a few other editors assisted in reverting the blankings (by IPV6 and the new "pop-up" user), it wasn't just me in that cycle.

71.174.213.3 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ** "60-ish" is not an outing of actual personal data, it's just an estimate based on the back-of-head photo (he) posted. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I just checked in on the Talk:Sons of Liberty page and I see that others have had to continue reverting vandal-efforts to blank parts of that page. This affirms my argument that constantly reverting the blanking just was just ordinary vandalism reversion and not edit warring. Please note again that I had moved expeditiously (less than 3 reverts) to the talk page in the initial round of reverts about sourcing. Based on these facts, I would argue that accusations of edit warring by me are baseless. Often, observers don't dig too deep and they rely on others to characterize the nature of a set of actions. This fact is one of the reasons WP:POV_Railroad works, as it did in this case. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not fair, but you need to act to a higher standard
It's not fair that the majority of Wikipedia contributors, IP users, are treated as third-class citizens on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, my advice to you is that you need to act to higher standards than named or admin accounts. That means that you need to familiarize yourself with WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality rules and the rules regarding WP:Canvassing.

Again, if you were the admin in this situation and an IP user posted comments like BMK did on your user page, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have been given a ban for some time. But admin conduct is held to much lower standards on Wikipedia, and before ever trying to take an admin to ANI you must follow the rules impeccably to even get away with a neutral resolution.

My ISP only gives my a dynamic IP, so you can imagine that I am treated even worse than static IPs. This is my advice to you from past experience, take it or leave it. I wish you and all IP users the best. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support. It does mean a lot to me.
 * I'm not quite clear on what you're saying. Is BMK an admin?  If so, that's shocking.  An admin oughta be held to higher standards than his conduct.  That could explain how confident he was in his taunting.  Luring users into a battle with vicious edit commentaries; taunts, false accusations, and summary convictions on the user's talk page; and bizzarro strikeouts on the article talk page is pretty serious incivility in my book.
 * As far as WP:Canvassing goes, anyone under duress would naturally be expected to look to others for help. I was very careful to ask the other users' only to review, and then to help only if they saw fit.  It is ridiculous to expect the set of editors who "hang-out" on ANI to be unbiased as a group.  A few in particular seem to do little more than look for strife and then pile on to it.  It's perfectly reasonable to not have to rely only on the small set of editors who would both 1) ordinarily be looking at ANI and 2) also be able to respond in as little as a 24-hour period.  I think labeling it "WP:canvassing" is a lot like chasing an animal down a trail right into a booby trap.  The animal would be expected to do something natural (which in this case is to move away from the pursuers -- and toward the trap).  Here in WP, an editor who is the subject of a WP:POV_railroad would naturally be expected to search for allies -- for anyone at all.  It's a perfectly non-sinister response to the bullying, but the bullies know the trap is there and they're happy to spring it!  :-)  71.174.213.3 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk:71.174.213.3 (Page blanked on 20July2015 -- Current version and "old" version as it was just before blanking): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.174.213.3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.174.213.3&oldid=668262160

User talk:71.174.213.3 Page history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.174.213.3&action=history

User talk:71.174.213.3 Contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.174.213.3

User talk:71.174.213.3 Contributions up to July 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=71.174.213.3&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2015&month=7

Abuse by BMK on Talk:Sons_of_Liberty 16-17 June 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sons_of_Liberty#Find_a_source_or_leave_it_out._Yelling_it_loudly_is_not_a_source.

Administrators' noticeboard archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Continued_accusations_and_harassment_by_User:Beyond_My_Ken_toward_IP.

Single-minded blanking by IP-hopping IPV6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:1003:B842:999E:0:25:5445:6301

First help from other editors reverting the blankings (I.e. it's not an edit war by me as evidenced by the other help. Ordinary repeated vandalism reversion is not edit warring): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sons_of_Liberty&diff=667261181&oldid=667260690

Smoking gun blanking by BMK (accidental blanking as self while hopping to new IPV6): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sons_of_Liberty&diff=667261382&oldid=667261181

Continued blanking by new pop-up user Deleteroftrolls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Deleteroftrolls

Continued blanking by new pop-up Trollpolice : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Trollpolice

Final re-striking by BMK. (I didn't try to revert it, allowing the striking to remain as a visible legacy of his abuse.): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sons_of_Liberty&diff=667280343&oldid=667268923

Should Know...
...that I believe we should have resolves of the Sons of Liberty. Cheers!--  Allied Rangoon‧talk   00:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Source:

Samual adams, a member or not? Make up your mind.
In the third paragraph it says " Samuel Adams and his cousin John were not members of the Sons of Liberty."

Then in the "Notable Members" section, Samual Adams is the first person listed.

So, according to the top of the article he is NOT a member, according to the middle part he IS a member.

Which is it? Have any sources? Actual facts? Or is this an opinion based article?
 * To the unsigned member above: And now John Adams is listed as a 'Notable member' although, as you say, the page says he and Samuel Adams were not members. Which way is up on this contradiction? Thanks. Randy Kryn 00:14 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Citation for the "boiling worms...butt" factoid
From the top of the article:

"In the popular imagination, the Sons of Liberty was a formal underground organization with recognized members and leaders who occasionally dug up worms and boiled them for food, because the worms would crawl up there butts so they dug them up before they could."

First, the word "butt". That seems a little too informal. Second, the very content of the assertion seems more than outlandish given the name of the organization. Third, for something that "out there", I would love to see a citation.
 * well the 8th grader who wrote it has not figured out our citation system, so I dropped it. Rjensen (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Find a source or leave it out. Yelling it loudly is not a source.
The idea that SOL is "best known" for one thing or another thing is unsupported and dubious. It's immaterial for the lede and off-topic in general unless how well they're known today for something has become a notable part of their story (which would require sources anyway). It's unencyclopedic to word it that way, but in the end it's unnecessary too. The same goal can be achieved without the "best known for" flourish. I reworded it so the fact that they undertook the Boston Tea Party is still stated in the lede and still serves the function of associating SOL with something readers are likely to know. This serves the original purpose of the sentence (helping make SOL more relevant) while avoiding the unsupported pitfall. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Block evasion. BMK (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken,

You are engaged in an unwarranted attack campaign against my reputation: 1) on this page with your strikeout, 2) in the unchangeable edit summaries on the SOL history page, and 3) on my talk page. Over just the past few hours, and all by yourself, you've accused me of being an abusive editor from South America, tried me, decided I'm guilty, and are now attempting to impose sentence by undoing everything I do based on the idea that I'm evading someone's block. I don't know your true motive, but this kind of bullying cannot be tolerated and I won't tolerate it.  I've tried to keep your accusations and my responses relatively quiet over on my talk page, but you haven't stopped.  I don't actually give a damn about you or whatever nutty ideas about who I am are spinning around in your head.  But, when you continue to bully me (or anyone) into running away or "confessing" to someone else's bad behavior, well I will not put up with that. I will fight back and escalate if you keep it up. This is about a more encyclopedic way of avoiding unnecessary and unsourced wording while still achieving it's original benefit -- making the subject relevant to the reader early in the lede. Like I said, "best known" is unsupported, dubious, and ultimately unnecessary. I reworded it to avoid the unnecessary words while still getting the job done. Given the strength of conviction you've shown toward including those words, I would imagine you have some source ready at hand that you can include, or that it would be easy to find such a source for you. Please do! And, when you get that source in hand, please replace the disputed words along with the source (your strength of conviction doesn't count as a reliable source).

71.174.213.3 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Block evasion. Long-term abuse/Best known for IP BMK (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken,

Nice ref you added there. I think it satisfies the requirement. The reliability of the source's assertion is questionable, but whatever, it's fine. I am still extremely resentful of the false accusations you've made and the mud you dragged me through, and of that "curious" IP hopping IPV6 vandal. Maybe you can help control him somehow? I'm still seeking (his) block and an investigation of the obvious connection he may have with you. You are not my friend and you've behaved very uncivilly toward me.

71.174.213.3 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Block evasion. Long-term abuse/Best known for IP BMK (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected this talk page temporarily for disruptive blanking. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued accusations and harassment by User:Beyond My Ken toward IP.
User:Beyond My Ken seems to have decided that any IP advocating for removal of an instance of "best known for" phraseology is a sock for Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. After I made a "best known for" removal edit and stood by it for lack of a source, User:Beyond My Ken immediately sought to bully an "outing" out of me and has continued in that line. He launched a campaign of accusation, trial (by him), conviction (by him), and sentencing (by him), constantly threatening to "get an admin involved" (whatever that would entail). He reverted anything the IP (which was me) did with nasty comments and accusations in the unchangeable edit summaries. He seemed to believe that his "conviction" of me for "block evasion" entitled him to delete anything I did without discussion. See User_talk:71.174.213.3 and the histories for Sons of Liberty and Talk:Sons of Liberty.

At one point, it became clear the matter is better discussed on the talk page (vs. edit reversions with barbs in the edit summaries). User:Beyond My Ken there began a campaign to strike out any of my comments on the talk page. At this point an IPV6 popped up and began simply blanking any of my efforts on the talk page with no edit summaries. I gave warnings to the IPV6 about disruptive editing in preparation for requesting a block.

The IPV6 then continued with the same M.O., hopping to two other IPV6s. At one point, the blanking was with the cooperation of User:Beyond My Ken (half by the IPV6 and half by Beyond My Ken). Later, a brand new user (User:Deleteroftrolls) "popped-up" and continued with the same M.O., accusing any reversion of (his) talk page blanking as trolling. Timing of the first appearance of the IPV6, the subject of his convictions, and the strength of his convictions suggest (via WP:duck) that it may be a sock/meat puppet for User:Beyond My Ken. The additional new "pop-up" user User:Deleteroftrolls and should also be investigated as possible sock/meat of the IPV6s and/or of User:Beyond My Ken.

Even after the original dispute about sourcing the "best known for" phrasing was resolved, user:Beyond My Ken has continued to harass me on my talk page. At this point I would find it almost bemusing were it not for the downright seriousness of the attempted outing, bullying, and continued harassment user:Beyond My Ken has conducted.

I am requesting: 1) Blocks for the three IPV6s (or at least the first one). 2) Investigation of User:Beyond My Ken's harassment, with censure if it's determined to be justified. 3) Investigation of possible sock/meat puppetry among User:Beyond My Ken, the three IPV6's, and the new user User:Deleteroftrolls.

The blanking IPV6: User_talk:2600:1003:B842:999E:0:25:5445:6301 The two IPV6s that the original IPV6 hopped to (presumably): 2600:1003:b85e:4c27:0:47:5b17:3301 2600:1003:b849:3552:0:36:50c1:e401

71.174.213.3 (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP's birth on June 14, with full knowledge of Wikipedia and a mature editing style, as if from the head of Zeus, lead into investigating their identity
 * The IPs identity with Long-term abuse/Best known for IP seems incontrovertible on behavioral evidence; the match is precise, as detailed on the IP's talk page
 * The "Best known for IP" is blocked through 2018, so any edit by a sock of that IP is block evasion
 * I welcome a CU on myself, which would show that the IPv6 is not me, nor is Deleteroftrolls; I have no idea who they are, but suggest the possibility of a Joe job
 * BMK (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * CheckUser comment: I checked User:Deleteroftrolls and didn't find anything which links it to another account (though I didn't check too deeply). I haven't checked a technical connection to BMK as checks of one's own account (such as to prove innocence) are not granted (see WP:CHK), and I don't feel there is enough evidence to link BMK to Deleteroftrolls. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. BMK (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. BMK (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The possibility of a "Joe Job" is reasonable. After the way he's treated me and the way he sometimes gets up to talking to others, I can certainly imagine others wanting to make him look bad. I can also imagine him simply doing a great job of covering his tracks. But regardless, after the checkuser fails to give evidence for such wrongdoing, the real focus should be the bullying: continued accusations, attempts at outing, continued harassment and taunting on my talk page, strikes and blankings of talk page material, etc. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the rest, the Best Known For troll is from South America, this is a Verizon IP (and not a proxy) from the US. Unless they've moved or are travelling, it may not be them (even though it does look amazingly similar). Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazingly. People move, and I don't believe we've heard from that person for a while. My eggs are totally in the behavioral basket. BMK (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And people also, amazingly, aren't always right when they reactively accuse someone and then slander them all over town. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe not always right, but they usually are. They weren't born yesterday. And you had best lose the "slander" comment, lest you be blocked for legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding. You've a lot of gall to threaten like that for me calling his slander what it is. Calling it slander is not a threat of legal action. What could you possibly be trying to achieve with useless peanut gallery commentary like that? If you don't have something useful to say, just stay out of it. Beyond My Ken sure was right when he called this a "drama board". 71.174.213.3 (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've got a particular "tell" that confirms you've been here a long time under many different guises. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You and Beyond My Ken need to be specific with your "he seems like someone else" accusations. You can't just declare that one person has the same style as another, or simply declare there's some sort of tell without specifics. That's just more useless and threatening inuendo, and it's just more abuse, and it's slander, and it's off topic distraction. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No "innuendo" here, no "he seems like" extemporizing, I'm saying straight out that you fit the behavioral profile of the "Best known for IP" to a precise "T", and should be duck-blocked on that basis.Just curious, has this "the best defense is a good offense" strategy of yours worked well in the past, or do you just get blocked anyway? Oh, wait, I forgot, you're an inexperienced newbie editor who is being inexplicably picked on by deranged long-term editors.  Sure, anyone can see by reading your comments above that you know nothing about Wikipedia's processes and have never edited here before June 14th, when you made your first edit. BMK (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's stay focused here. The topic of this section is the abuse made by User:Beyond My Ken toward a fellow editor. Whether that fellow editor was an experienced or inexperienced IP; or whether that fellow editor was a "logged on" type; or whether that fellow editor was or was not someone else matters not a whit. The editor as it happened was an "experienced IP" which, while perfectly allowed and perfectly expected by Wikipedia policy, is apparently offensive to some users. User:Beyond My Ken chose to attempt to out the other editor, to revert/strike the editor's good-faith discussions on a talk page, and to continue to harass the editor even after all was said and done. And, to continue to accuse with vague arguments and no actual specific evidence that the editor was actually some other heinous troublemaker half a world away. All this because the editor chose to not cave in to User:Beyond My Ken's initial attempts to to push the editor around. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, actually, the proper focus of this thread is: are you the "Best known for IP" or not, since everything flows from that. If you are, then you are not a "fellow editor" in good standing, you are a long term abusive troll - and your sttempts to Wikilawyer things to your advantage are simply more damning evidence of your status. BMK (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG judging by the linguistic style and editing history, I would say BMK is correct in identifying this IP. Its not unheard of for this IP coming to ANI seeking sanctions pretending to be an innocent party.  The ISP evidence is not definitive, usually its Verizon in Chile, I have seen the guy travelling with UK, Canadian and US IP used (you could almost track the flights home on one occasion).  The WP:DUCK is strong with this one. WCM email 11:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello WCM. I see you've been involved over on that "BNF" page.  Do you think you might be a little jaded or cognitive bias'd to be a little pre-geared-up to perceive a match?  Just a thought.  Maybe you can give a second look?  But anyway, even if I was the South American (which I'm not), I still wouldn't be deserving of the incivility served up by BMK in this process.  Nobody is.  That's what this is about. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. I looked at the page for the "Best known for IP" and it's pretty clear to me that the South American IP is characterized typically by "Nothing but abuse and foul-mouthed vitriol when approached, and continuous after blocks had expired suggesting no willingness to change". It should also be well understood by you-all that The South American is not the only person in the world who has made "best known for" edits, and that many many are executed fully-civilly by others who aren't him -- me being one of them I do say. I'm stunned that BMK has continuously asserted (ad nauseum) some sort of "pattern match" without citing anything specific. As it turns out, if you compare my actual history (not BMK's imagined history) to the South American's patterns as described in the "Best known for IP" page, you would see quite a difference. It's very stark in fact, more so the deeper you get. That and the IP location data says there's no duck here. BMK seems so motivated to convict me of being that South American guy that he even has accused the South American Guy of moving to the U.S.. By the duck standards as they seem to be be interpreted by a few above, we would also be convicting BMK of sockpuppetry based on what the IPV6 and Deleteroftrolls did so "coincidentally" even though the checkuser found no evidence. I'm not looking for that. I'm just looking for a fair shake. BMK's frequent repetition of his vague "pattern match" doesn't do it, look to the specifics. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record 71.174.213.3 is now posting messages  which are WP:CANVASSing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is very familiar. The behaviour, the canvassing, and of course the long ANI posts about how unfair people are being to him for preventing block evasion. It is trivial to change IPs, you don't need to move locations to appear to come from another country. In my opinion this is the same person. Chillum 14:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we are seeing ghosts with this one, or he's doing an excellent job of using different phrasings and speech rhythms. I know it's hard to see that as evidence, but one of the reasons I spend so much time tracking and blocking socks is because I have a knack for recognising that two different pieces of writing are by the same person. I don't think that's the case here. On the other side, I've been pretty aggressive recently in blocking the webhosts he uses to wander around as well as his domestic Chilean providers, so people should be on the lookout for him popping up in new and different places. That still doesn't mean that this is him.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Amazing how often its true. -OberRanks (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Has the IP done anything in his 5 days here besides edit-warring and engaging in all manner of denials about his true identity? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The main giveaways from a situation like this are that the "new user" typically ALWAYS has deep and extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy pages and always somehow happens to just "stumble upon" ANI posts, AfD pages, or other discussions which otherwise would be very hard to find without a detailed and in-depth search. -OberRanks (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Guys, is this seriously happening? What was even the point of performing a WP:CHECKUSER if you had already made up your minds about this user and had no chance of exonerating him as a sock? Also, the behavior that you are claiming uniquely identifies this guy is anything but. Are you saying that you wouldn't expect an innocent user hounded on his page like he was by BMK to write "the long ANI posts about how unfair people are being to him for preventing block evasion." This is literally saying that defending yourself from banworthy accusations is indicative of behavior that will get you banned. For more information about this kind of reasoning, read The Trial by Franz Kafka. Even if you don't think BMK was out of line, seriously give this IP the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith. Let the IP off with a warning. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Congratulations - on your 20th edit ever, you happened to come across this ANI page, happened to find this thread which is in the middle of the page, happened to be familiar with sock puppet policies, ban procedures, check user requests, the fact that we use abbreviations for users (BMK), and of course spoke up in defense of this "other" ip address who is so unfairly being persecuted. So are you saying you are not the same person who posted the previous comments? I'm not saying that you are either, just that when you add up all the circumstances it certainly seems like you are. -OberRanks (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion
I think you've correctly identified a certain ip duck. There are certain tell tails which make it seem obvious to my reading. BusterD (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough for an SPI? BMK (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've so far been willing to let things be in the wake of the "everyone's okay" truce imposed by Drmies. I'm still willing to follow that path.  And I will unless you choose otherwise.  If you want to go down that "otherwise" path, that will be unfortunate, because I will defend myself again, and I will fight back again.  There's nothing like a little (or a lot) of injustice toward ones self to inspire action and determination.


 * You're a "wiki-god". That is, you can get away with some bad behavior because some are blinded by your vaunted history of "contributions".  But, this attack-dog mode you've let yourself be in won't serve you well.  Sooner or later it'll all catch up with you.  Drmies has bequeathed that we let things be.  I will continue to "let things be" if you (and BusterD) can as well.


 * 71.174.213.3 (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be absolutely honest with you, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I don't believe that you are the editor who Buster D is referring to (I could be wrong about that, but I assumed it was another sock altogether). I've monitored your edits and have seen nothing to disabuse me of the conclusion I originally drew, but also nothing that was damaging to the encyclopedia or worth making a fuss about, or else I would have done something about it. (I'm prone to taking direct action when possible, rather then begging for admin action.) I suggest that perhaps your comment here is the result of a guilty conscience.As to the absurd idea that I'm a "wiki-god". I don't have a clue where you got this bizarre notion from. I will say this: in my opinion, Wikipedia should be a meritocracy, and those who contribute more to the improvement of the encyclopedia should be dealt with differently from those who do not -- however, this view is most certainly not shared by many other Wikipedians, some of them admins, and I still believe that I take my fate into my hands when I choose to stray off the reservation or inadvertantly lose my temper, and this is regardless of my contributions to the project - so if I'm a "wiki-god", I'm one without self-awareness.My suggestion to you is to come clean. With the support of excellent editor/admins such as Drmies, you should be able to rehabilitate your status with perhaps a six-month's block. Your choice to continue to edit as you are does not speak well for you, I'm afraid. BMK (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed, and I think reasonably, that BusterD was referring to me because of the context of his re-putting a template on my talk page and my removing it, and because of his "tell tails" comment, etc. It all added up. The timing and all the other clues suggested he was talking about me.  But if he wasn't talking about me, then that's actually a very good thing and I'll go with it.  No harm no foul.  If you want to continue on the on with the "let things be" regime, I'll be happy to continue with that as well. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I want to be perfectly clear: I am not here for this kind of crap, I just get sucked into it when I see people abusing the project. You have abused the project in the past, and if you do so again, there will be no "live and let live", I will again seek to have you banned, as you really should be.  But the bottom line is that I am here to help build an encyclopedia, and the amount of time taken away from doing that by people like you – who don't play by the rules and make life harder for regular editors – and people worse than you, and people just fucking around, is too damn much, and -- if I had my druthers -- I'd ban the whole lot of you forever and throw away the key, so the rest of us can get on with what we're doing.Now, we've exhausted this subject as far as I'm concerned, so, don't respond.  In fact, don't post on this talk page again, you're not someone whose opinion or views I'm interested in hearing.  Just unwatch my page and go away, please. BMK (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)