User talk:Joey Shaft

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion (2604:2000:E84A:4100:B548:5AEA:BFCD:5BDB for sure, who either was User:Daniel C. Boyer or decided to act like him). If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There are no standards at all here on Wikipedia, at least not any more. The so-called "duck" standard is just patent nonsense.  An editor edits, and he might edit like another editor (defined as vaguely as possible) or he might not, but saying there is anything "clear" about the duck standard gives garbage a good name.  All of this is meaningless.  We should block Ian Thomson, because he is a sockpuppet of Daniel C. Boyer.  --Joey Shaft (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're obviously that blocked IP editor. It'd be insulting to everyone else suggest that you're not.  That IP editor went through a lot of effort to restore material added by Daniel C. Boyer.
 * Instead of arguing backing up and arguing for the merits of these edits, you took to edit warring and calling the reversion vandalism -- The site has standards, you don't, which probably explains why you're so bloody obvious a sockpuppeteer. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing valuable illustrations for no reason is vandalism, period. Wild guessing based on nothing, I guess you can call it a standard, it's just not a particularly worthwhile one.  And I'm not sure that who added the material has anything to do with anything.  --Joey Shaft (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Valuable". Boyer's sock farm recklessly accused other editors of being socks when called out, treated any dispute as a deep-seated flaw in Wikipedia, and shared a disturbing focus on whitewashing content on racism. Someone would have to do some serious homework to impersonate Boyer this well. Oh, and the marmalade drawing was uploaded to commons by the original Boyer account less than 24 hours before it was spammed to an article. We would have to be complete idiots to treat this as a coincidence, but treating everyone else as an idiot is also a hallmark of this sock farm, so... Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, reference photos aren't "spammed" to articles, so there's that. And the "focus on whitewashing content on racism", I'm just not seeing that from Boyer, or at least not from the cites given; this sort of accusation is at least POV, and what is written doesn't read like what he writes.  I'm not sure where you're getting this part of it from.  --Joey Shaft (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)