User talk:Epistemologicalbiker

Welcome!
Hello, Epistemologicalbiker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Sethia000 (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As you've already been made aware of these sanctions by Doug, I suggest you stop edit warring to restore that tag. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this sanction notice means. If you could explain what relevance it has to your removal the Political POV warning tag prior to the conditions for removal being met, it would help me understand the situation better.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Political_POV states to "Place this template on articles where you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view in regards to political parties, politicians, events or governments, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article." There is no mention of requiring others agree before this warning tag is placed. Indeed, on controversial subject matter where bias may easily go unnoticed and unquestioned, or at least tacitly upheld and denied, such a thing would be unlikely. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Doug, could you help me understand what this notice means? Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Behave. Follow our policies and guidelines very carefully, we enforce them more in this area. Doug Weller  talk 19:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits and being a Single purpose account pushing a disruptive POV, wasting good faith editors time. This is visible throughout the majority of your edits, but of note is this edit and the resulting talk page discussion where you, invertedly or not, prove you misrepresented a source to promote your own POV. I am not sure if this is your first account, as your arguments read similar to several other blocked accounts in that talk page's history, but no matter. You can appeal this block using, if you believe I am wrong. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Sock?
et al, you might want to compare this one to the Benjiboi sockdrawer: SPI Especially the edits of the indeffed sock Both made the same arguments on NAMBLA and related articles, have a similar voice and style (gaslighting, tendentious editing, dramaboard shopping) etc. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @CorbieVreccan I don't think I know the history of that user as well as you do, so I can't say for sure. I personally thought, if this account is indeed a sock, that it is from one of the various blocked editors that can be seen in the Nambla talk archive. To me, it feels like they all speak in a similar way, repeating the same non-arguments. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's either of those accounts and I don't know that it's worth digging into and giving it more attention at this point. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @CorbieVreccan@Moneytrees@Praxidicae I can see that the account is globally locked. Doug Weller  talk 06:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily think it needs more attention, but something of note that we found in the Gleeanon investigation is the odd editing pattern: The user didn't seem to sleep. The round the clock editing pointed to either an ongoing bout of mania or, more likely, a shared account. A group of accounts shared by a small handful of users would also account for the shared voice, repetitive arguments, as well as the occasional odd inconsistencies. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)