Kumioko (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

11 May 2014

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 6minuterun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2607:FB90:1808:BDC6:DB8B:AA6F:3CA9:E6B7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Kumioko identified himself in this edit and edit summary and confirmed it in this edit summary, which refers to my complaint to Writ Keeper about K. breaking the voluntary IBAN between us. No Cu necessary - please tweak the filter. BMK (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to K.'s statement below, the community ban is a matter between K. and the Wikipedia community in general, the voluntary IBAn between us was between two people, myself and Kumioko. I have scrupulously upheld my end of it since it was instituted. I did not participate in the community ban discussion, and I have not commented in any place on K's rampant socking antics. I am a man of my word, as much as humanly possible. Kumioko, however, appears to be a man with no honor. His deliberate comment on my talk page and on AN break the IBAN from his side, releasing me from my word and my obligation not to comment on or interact with him.

The IP above, which is now clearly identified as Kumioko's, has been blocked by Writ Keeper, and the IP below should be as well. BMK (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And has been. BMK (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has the IP identified by Ian below. BMK (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The honorless and shameless banned editor is attempting to flex their muscles. Based on this edit to my talkpage, I added "6minuterunner" to the list. However, they were blocked in minuted. The banned editor continues to shame himself with his behavior. BMK (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me, we should be careful not to glorify and enable banned editors who try to circumvent the will of the community by calling the "puppet masters" or "puppeteers". What they are are banned editors, and as such are pitiful people, without honor and without shame at their behavior. They should ask themselves: if my parents knew how I behaved on Wikipedia, would they be proud of me? If my borthers and sisters were aware, would they pat me on the back and congratulate me? If my children saw what I do, would I be setting the best example for them? Perhaps if more banned editors were to actually think about what they are doing and how they are behaving, there might be less socking. Maybe not, if they are mostly self-centered egotists and sociopaths - but some of them must be normal people, simply led astray by circumstances and carried away by emotions. BMK (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• Just to be clear I didn't violate my IBAN, my IBAN was invalidated when the community voted to ban me indefinitely from Wikipedia for advocating that admins should not be exempt from policy and should be held to the same standard (if not a higher one) than the rest of the community. But when BMK tells editors to fuck off and then calls them an asshole in his edit summary like he did earlier today, with no comments from any admins, I left him a comment. Furthermore, I don't want to create alternate accounts but I am being forced too. I do not and will not recognize my ban for a variety of reasons. It doesn't matter how many comments you revert or accounts or ip's you block, I am going to continue to comment when I feel compelled too until you realize I am not just going to run away and hide and I am not going to be bullied off the site by a few abusive admins. Kumioko 172.56.3.15 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, we can include the above IP and 172.56.2.154, judging from this. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments