User talk:Bentheadvocate

This Is Benjamin Hartaub
IF YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS ABSOLUTELY HAS TO INTRUDE UPON MINE, LEAVE ME A MESSAGE:

Message Archives
Archive 1

Kingston University
How should you, Lorifredrics and I work together to make sure the wiki web page on Kingston University best reports on the issues at the place, rather than have them air-brushed out by reputation managers ? KingsonRules (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Cherrypicking In Your Allegations
Please refrain from covering up your personal attack by repeating cherrypicked comments I made. Yes I did say "I believe that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk". But as I said, in the exact same post, this is mitigated by the fact that "Information I intend to add is supported by sources, and contains information only gathered by sources. It is relevant to the encyclopedic understanding of the subject."

Much like a book is written from a first person point of view, Neutrality only requires that an article be written from a neutral point of view, not observed from a neutral point of view. - BE  TA  21:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that your username is easily read as "Bent Head Vocate"? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RfAR
You could save yourself some time by removing your request for Arbitration, as it won't be accepted because (a) it's a content dispute (b) you haven't gone through the dispute resolution procedures - WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, WP:RFC. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 14:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Theory: The consequences don't match the arguments

 * Neither WP:BLP nor WP:OR are relevant - they apply to article content, not to sockpuppet investigations. You seem also to be rather inconsistent in your arguments too: you say you aren't Magnanimous, but even if you are, you didn't do anything wrong... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well wp is not a parole board, and this section is normally for administrator use. thank you kindly. -- BE  TA  02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the problems not being addressed here is your pattern of editing. You were blocked initially because of edit warring, and the majority of your mainspace edits since your return have been reinstating material against consensus. I respectfully request that any unblock request address that, and perhaps an 0RR to prevent further disruption. Dayewalker (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are valid, but they've also been addressed by the 31hour block I was just given. Clearly if my edits were as contentious as you say, I would have been given an extended block.... However that is not the topic at hand. -- BE  TA  05:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is was mooted by both me and another editor in the recent ANI. So if you were to voluntarily agree to to accept, say a three month 1RR or 0RR probation that may go some way to persuading the reviewing administrator that you are here to contribute positivity. Just a thought. Mt  king  (edits)  06:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Ben. Your edits are exactly the topic at hand. If your edits hadn't been so disruptive, you wouldn't have been taken to ANI, and the sockpuppetry wouldn't have been noticed. If you had made a clean break as a fresh account and been productive, it probably would have never come up. That's an issue you'll have to address if you want to edit here. Dayewalker (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Using the terms "vandal" and "vandalism"
Please be careful when you describe another's edits as vandalism. Wikipedia has a very specific definition of what constitutes vandalism and it's surpisingly broad narrow compared what you'll find in many forums. The WP:VANDAL article covers it, but a key part is "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Calling an edit vandalism when it doesn't meet the WP definition is often interpreted as a personal attack, leading to a more hostile environment for everyone. If you disagree with the edits, call them that, but don't call them vandalism on Wikipedia unless they meet the definition used here. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * EDIT - please note my correction to something Richwales spotted. Oops - narrow was what should have been there, not broad.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet_investigations/Magnonimous
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Magnonimous. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk)

Response To SPI investigation
This is getting ridiculous. I'm not magnonimous, and I'm not a sock. As I stated in the ANI, I did have a connection to magnonimous because I agreed with his reasonings. I did not condone his behavior. Though I personally don't remember exactly how I learned of this coral calcium debacle, I do remember that magnonimous was blocked due to his behavior. I don't quite see the logical leap here though. Don't socks create brand new identities to escape detection? Why would a sock, that's made to distance from the main account, ever try to associate with it's master in public view? wouldn't that tarnish it's identity? I mean I don't exactly know how a socker would think, or how this all works, but something doesn't make sense in your reasonings. I was editing over IP before I registered. And when I wrote, "I am not a new user......" I was referring to my edits over Internet Protocol.

Anyways I told you all of this in the ANI over a week ago. Why are you just bringing it to SPI now. When I'm blocked. It seems like you're trying to get me indefblocked by telling people I'm this or I'm that, until someone with power believes you. I'm not trying to be difficult, but show me another way to look at it.

Also, this website was founded based on collaborative editing, and everyone has something that failed here. So just because there are a couple of things that you personally can put together to support your arguments doesn't mean they're right. I mean, I bet there's more between you and me than there is between me and this guy. -- BE  TA  01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You have GOT to be kidding me!!! Likely? That's not even possible. Someone payed someone off or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentheadvocate (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:AGF re that last comment. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I could have just put ✅, if it would make your life easier. You're protesting too much, which makes me suspect you're upset you were caught and want to know how to avoid getting caught in the future. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You've accused an innocent person and you expected less anger? I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. -- BE  TA  01:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is Crazy
Not only am I gonna hear about this forever, now you've blocked an innocent account just because you "wouldn't lose sleep", this is exactly what's wrong with this site. The people here are peons working for the encyclopedia, getting stepped on by the work they're all trying to do. -- BE  TA  02:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see little evidence that you are "working for the encyclopedia." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now blocked you indefinitely. If you wish to continue editing, make a request at your main account, but that's highly unlikely. You were only unblocked there under the pretense that you had gone for years without using additional sockpuppets, however that is clearly not true. --  At am a  頭 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)