User talk:Stimpy3

Hello

Hi. Stimpy3. What's your main account? (Are you User:Stimpy?) Would you consider linking this account to it? You've only made one edit from this account, and that one was a little strange. What made you think Quack Guru was blocked in 2011 — a block that "for some reason" wasn't recorded in his block log? The AE thread you linked to was inconclusive at the point where you took it; here's the whole of it. As you can see, it was closed with a one-year topic ban from pseudoscience and chiropractic. There's was nothing in it about a block, I don't think it was even considered at any point.

Well, I don't feel you need "welcoming" to Wikipedia, as you're obviously not a new user, but I wish you happy editing. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, I am not a new user and am not the same as user:Stimpy. I created this account to be involved in the discussion without revealing who I am as a regular editor. You can see that QG has a group of editors who strongly support QGs editing because of his POV, regardless of his anti-collaborative approach to editing. Since many of those editors are admins with a lot of clout (DocJames, Guy, RoxytheDog, jps, etc.), I am not foolish enough to reveal my true identity for this discussion. I have seen this bite many an editor with the 'wrong' POV who got involved with trying to make this a better editing environment.

That all said, I disagree with your assessment that QG was not blocked in 2011. I edited the same pages as QG for years and saw him blocked 2 times over that period (one of those was 2011) Why dont you ask user:EdJohnston, he was the admin who notified QG of his block at QGs talk page here in 2011 and then QG was inavctive for 1 year....seems like he was blocked to me. I think there was a mistake made in the block-log. Stimpy3 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I will stand corrected....QG was given a topic ban for disruptive editing in 2011, not a block. Stimpy3 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of insistence and a lot of links that actually contradict your claim. Thank you for finally reading them yourself. I'm rather sorry I wasted so much time digging out the link to the full AE thread for you, and wasted further time arguing with the random claims of a sock. I have blocked this account, it violates WP:SOCK. But I don't suppose that'll bother you much, since you make no conscience of creating throwaway accounts when you want to say something you daren't use your main account for. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

As far as I can tell, editors have the right to remain anonymous and since this account is not supporting any edits for another account, this is a fully apppropriate use of a sock account. It is too bad you inappropriately blocked this account before I finished learning how to strike a comment; I would have struck my claim that QG was blocked and changed my claim to that he was 'Only topic banned from all pseudoscience topics for 1 year'. That said, your actions confirm that I made the right choice to remain anonymous. You spent sooo much time desperately trying to show that it was ONLY a 1 year topic ban for disruptive editing in 2011, not a block for QG and now you feel it is worthwhile to 'hunt' and block this account....lol. I provided diffs so people like you could fact-check my claim, but I notice that this is not enough for you to AGF. Now you use my post to try and distract the entire discussion away from QGs behaviour...lol. I note that you did not bother to post at the talk page of the Sock account that was 'anonymously' supporting QG at his talk page, only this account, which took the opposite POV. Interesting.... Stimpy3 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed talkpage access for this sock. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC).