"

 WP:SPA / sockpuppet accounts 

Admins: Please note that per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher, accounts which have the single purpose of editing this article and its talk page may be considered as a single editor, are restrained from making disruptive edits, and may be banned if they do so.  Current single purpose accounts are:   

This is how Leuko typically tries to deal with editors who don't agree with his point of view when editing this article, he tries to silence them rather than hash it out in good faith. You can see that my account in not single purpose since I have a number of edits (minor, but still edits, I'm more of a WikiGnome in other areas) in other articles. You will also notice that even though  

Actually 75% of the contribs from this IP address are related to this article, so considering other people may have made some of the non-related edits, that indicates that this is a WP:SPA for editing this article. I grouped the SPA's together because as the ArbCom case said, they can be regarded as a single editor using sockpuppets when editing disruptively. I'll add the other one too if it makes you happy. I try and WP:AGF too, but it's hard with the history of abusive sockpuppetry and personal attacks perpetuated in the past, which still continues.  

75% means that 1 out of 4 edits has been on articles outside this area, that's not a terrible ratio, and certainly shows this is not a WP:SPA. Also, if you look at the quality of the edits you will notice that the majority of that 75% are to rephrase comments I have made or simple/minor spacing or formatting issues. It may be your opinion that the edits by the users you listed were ""disruptive"" but I doubt you will find a reasonable person that will agree with you on this. I agree that it's unfortunate that some biased editors continue there attacks and campaign of disinformation but it seems that some people just can't help themselves.  

Demanding that information be removed because other editors would not provide you with a physical copy of a newspaper article which is cited is definitely not productive.  Now I had to look up what a buckytube was, but I don't think this comment was very supportive of the nature of the edits on this page: .  

Well, that's your opinion. Actually, since you were able to prove the existence of the article without a physical copy demonstrates that it was rather easy to obtain verification. I don't think asking for verification for information that is included in an article in what is supposedly an ""encyclopedia"" is asking too much. Without verification Wikipedia would be no better than any other garbage out there on the internet. Do you really think that even basic verification to prove that material even existed is unnecessary?  

Yes, it was rather easy to obtain for someone who had the desire to actually re-verify a source which has been there for a year. I don't know why it needed to be such a difficult process.  

You tell me, you were the one that was complaining about it being so difficult.  

  indefinitely blocked as WP:SPA exhibiting same behaviour as editors sanctioned above. Guy () 
  indefinitely blocked as WP:SPA exhibiting same behaviour as editors sanctioned above. Guy () 
  indefinitely blocked as WP:SPA exhibiting same behaviour as editors sanctioned above. Guy () 
 {{userlinks