User talk:Bentheadvocate

IF YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS ABSOLUTELY HAS TO INTRUDE UPON MINE, LEAVE ME A MESSAGE:

Archive 1

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)[reply]

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[1], Neutrality only requires that an article be written from a neutral point of view, not observed from a neutral point of view. -BETA 21:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bentheadvocate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Short version: The accusation does not amount to socking, because magnonimous has not edited article or article talk space in 3+ years. At it's worse, the evidence may suggest alternate account. Blocking is not meant to be punitive, but preventative. Why prevent socking, when socking is clearly not going on.

Long version:Hello. My Nickname is BETA or Bentheadvocate. I'm currently blocked as a 'sock' of Magnonimous. Unfortunately, the spi case came back as likely, though I don't know how. I don't know if maybe we live in the same city, or if it's because I might be on the same ISP, Or if we're both running up to date chrome, I don't know. I've looked at their edits and it looks like they haven't edited for years, even though they were recently unblocked. I'm sorry that this happened to them because of these recent altercations, which I'll admit I was partly to blame for. But the indefinite blocking is unwarranted.

For the sake of argument, were I really an alternate account of Magnonimous, I don't think it really proves that I've done something wrong with regard to socking, because we haven't crossed paths in three years. The checkuser clerk stated this fact:

Likely enough that I wouldn't lose sleep about blocking one or the other. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Administrator note: They seem to be using Bentheadvocate now, so I've blocked Magnonimous. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The administrator notes indicate they both agree it warrants the blocking of "one or the other" But atama has further blocked me with effect that both of our accounts are now blocked.

Bentheadvocate is active in edits, Magnonimous is not. (unless there's private arbitration or something)

I think the principle can be found here:

[2]

If you look at this objectively, even if you buy into the premise, it's still just someone in a content dispute who happens to have an alternate account. It's a major assumption of bad faith to say "that because he's a bit disruptive, AND.. he has an alternate account, It proves he's a sockpuppeteer". That would be the very definition of Original Research and a BLP violation in one.

So I respectfully request that the indefinite restriction be removed from my account, And If magnonimous reading this, I am sorry. BETA 01:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with Jclemens' conclusions - there is a very strong technical match between this account and Magnonimous. I also don't see that unblocking you would be any benefit to the encyclopedia whatsoever. From what I've seen, you are a highly contentious edit warrior who does not appear to understand the concept of consensus or even reasoned discussion. "IF YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS ABSOLUTELY HAS TO INTRUDE UPON MINE, LEAVE ME A MESSAGE:" - really? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)[reply]

Well wp is not a parole board, and this section is normally for administrator use. thank you kindly. --BETA 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --BETA 05:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) 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. Mtking ^(edits) 06:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnonimous. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk)

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. --BETA 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I could have just put  Confirmed, 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)[reply]

You've accused an innocent person and you expected less anger? I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.--BETA 01:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. --BETA 02:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see little evidence that you are "working for the encyclopedia." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Atama頭 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bentheadvocate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm making this request again for two reasons: 1. Hersfold made a good argument for why I should be reprimanded for recent editing controversies. And I have been reprimanded by both formal methods (the 31 hour block for example), and informal ones (a herd of angry people following me around like little ducklings picking at everything I say, and arguing on talk pages of other articles to oppose my edits there). However, if you look at my contributions to article space, you'll see that I really have tried many good faith edits. I've found sources for other's statements, helped in AfDs. I've tried adding material of relevance. The fact that some of them were removed does not mean that I haven't contributed. It also proves that I will try to contribute in the future. And regarding my message on my talk page, It is a joke, everyone whose been on this site has the occasional grumble. If I really meant something by it I would have wrote "Go away, and i'm not going to read what you write anyways so save yourself the trouble." And not once in all my edit history have I ever berated someone for leaving a message, So it is what it is, and what it is is a joke. It's no skin off my back if some don't find it funny. Unfortunately some people seem to have taken a rather subjective approach to dealing with this situation. The fact remains that the block was put in place for a specific reason, and as I've explained below, this block, for it's intended purpose is unwarranted. In genera(no it's not mispelled), an alternate account is not a sock, especially when it hasn't been used in years. 2. I cannot appeal this decision to ArbCom unless all avenues of recourse have been exhausted. I thank you for your time. Sincerely, Benjamin. BETA 23:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Ben, this is a checkuser-endorsed sockpuppetry block (run by a member of ArbCom, no less). Also, you are incorrect - an alternate account is a sock if it was created to avoid a previous block - which this one apparently is. If you wish to be unblocked you must now email ArbCom at [email protected]. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.