WPSPA  sockpuppet accounts   Admins Please note that per WikipediaRequestsforarbitrationStChristopher 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   and  Also  has few edits outside this area but does not share the same agenda as the other SPAs    This is how Leuko typically tries to deal with editors who dont 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 Im more of a WikiGnome in other areas in other articles You will also notice that even though  also qualifies as a Single Purpose Account under his definition he didnt list that editor because this editor agrees with his point of view in the current discussion When dealing with Leuko I try to WPAGF but you easily see how that is rather difficult when he only singles out the editors that disagree with him but not the editors that do agree with him    Actually  of the contribs from this IP address are related to this article so considering other people may have made some of the nonrelated edits that indicates that this is a WPSPA for editing this article I grouped the SPAs together because as the ArbCom case said they can be regarded as a single editor using sockpuppets when editing disruptively Ill add the other one too if it makes you happy I try and WPAGF too but its hard with the history of abusive sockpuppetry and personal attacks perpetuated in the past which still continues     means that  out of  edits has been on articles outside this area thats not a terrible ratio and certainly shows this is not a WPSPA Also if you look at the quality of the edits you will notice that the majority of that  are to rephrase comments I have made or simpleminor 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 its unfortunate that some biased editors continue there attacks and campaign of disinformation but it seems that some people just cant 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 dont think this comment was very supportive of the nature of the edits on this page     Well thats 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 dont 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 reverify a source which has been there for a year I dont 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 WPSPA exhibiting same behaviour as editors sanctioned above      indefinitely blocked as WPSPA exhibiting same behaviour as editors sanctioned above      indefinitely blocked as WPSPA exhibiting same behaviour as editors sanctioned above     userlinks