User talk:Piccadillysquare

SPI 30 September 2018
I have opened an SPI here: Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette Mztourist (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Request for Comment and Context
I am based around a number of different countries in Asia as part of my day job in journalism, and based for extended periods of time in communist and authoritarian countries which actively monitor foreigners for using Wikipedia and will not risk getting my visa revoked. Why would it be a crime itself, to use a VPN? I don't really get how you can see that anything I am writing is disruptive, go ahead and look at the reporting users' edit history or reasons why he would edit pages on war crimes, atrocities, and so-on. They are almost entirely edit attempts to delete things, obscure things, and so-on. I mean just look at his recent edit calling Stanley Karnow a communist here. Piccadillysquare (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Second question, I don't see the logic of why a registered user would use a VPN, exclusively as being evidence of being a sockpuppet. It serves absolutely no purpose since the account is tied to the edit, not the IP, and the edit isn't made through the VPN IP. There is no second IP edits, being made here to try to support my edits which is what constitute sockpuppeting. I also don't see why some guy in Canada which I allegedly am just doesn't make an account and continue using his canadian IP without a VPN. The VPN part isn't necessary for sockpuppeting, especially multiple, different VPN IPs logged into the same account. Piccadillysquare (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Last point I am making. But I neither have the time, energy or care to put in to obsessively patrol edits on a selection number of topics obsessively but you should honestly considered why a user is making a second request to delete a page after it was restored here, delete it from an infobox alongside another one here , and distort it as mentioned above. I had a dispute with said user over the summer regarding distortions of AP and Reuters articles, which had poorly and out of context ripped parts of an article to try to disprove the very same massacre page. User has also inserted a non-neutral term of "purported" to literally every page, and reversing every single other person removing it, such as here . This certainly reeks of agenda. I have better things to do with my life then get into arguments on the internet, so I am going to consider this as retirement and don't want to deal with pathetic behavior indicated from the above edits. I will just point out that there is very clear agenda-setting going on by this user. Piccadillysquare (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)