User talk:Woodgridge

Sockpuppet investigation
Dr.  K.  00:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexyflemming, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Dr.  K.  20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You make a sockpuppetry accusations and do not read the defence at all. Look what I wrote just at the beginning of my defence:
 * 1st I emphasize that I will answer only the accusations till now. I'll neither respond nor accept any further accusations. Continuously accusing someone by creating new allegations at each time is not accepted in any normal law system; even the claimers are requested to present all of their proofs at the beginning of the case. Any further proofs are not accepted unless the defender accepts them.


 * Worst than that you are not reading the edit summaries as well! You wrote in the edit summary: "do not remove content from pages on WP without giving a valid reason for the removal". Read read read! Read the edit summary: "I specified at first: I will answer only the accusations till now! No to never-ending new accusations. Let the decision be made first.".Woodgridge (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexyflemming. Dr.  K.  21:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr.K., you are not allowed to continuously accusing a Wiki user by bringing newer and newer accusations. I said at the beginning that "I am closed to any new accusations". You should respect the defence of the defender and the judgement of the ones who will judge on your first accusations.Woodgridge (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop your never-ending accusations Dr.K.! You are clearly trying to drive to an infinite loop of defence/accuse helix:
 * new accusation; my warning; new accusation; new accusation; my 2nd warning; new accusation; my 3rd warning...
 * At each time I am emphasizing that "I am closed to never-ending accusations!", and at each time Dr.K. is trying to bring forward new things.Woodgridge (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Users are allowed to present whatever evidence they deem appropriate at SPI. Rest assured, if they are unfounded you will be exonerated and have nothing to worry about. Do not remove others' comments from the SPI again or you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks for your understanding &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  22:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not oppose whatever the users present as "evidences" they deem appropriate at SPI. They can even bring tens of accusations at first. What I oppose is the bringing forward newer and newer "baseless" (known by themselves as well!) never-ending accusations intentionally. Look, in my case, Dr.K. diverted to block me via forcing me violate 3 Revert Rule this time. See his edit summary: Rvvx2.Woodgridge (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

↑disruptive editing↑ 24.15.68.186 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, sockpuppet!
24.15.68.186 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will keep IP24.15.68.186's distruptive [sic] editing here so that when IP24.15.68.186 are [sic] investigated for this and any other distruption [sic], the others will know the misbehavour [sic] of the IP24.15.68.186 very well.Woodgridge (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IP24.15.68.186 belongs to [Chicago, Illinois/USA] from here and here.Woodgridge (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * lol 24.15.68.186 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

 * Here, Bbb23 states "Behavioral evidence is persuasive" for the reason of blocking. This is very blurring reason. I kindly request Bbb23 to specify what sort of behaviors he observed. I will then request unblock based on the given reasoning.Woodgridge (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 11 September 2016: I am still waiting clarification for "Behavioral evidence".
 * 06.07.2016: Sock allegation was raised.
 * 28.08.2016: Banned by the statement "Behavioral evidence is persuasive" without any further clarification.Woodgridge (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)