User talk:Gingeraleking

Come on by! Grab a drink! Get comfortable!

Gingeraleking, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gingeraleking! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with a user dispute and conflict resolution. I'm requesting admin help first because I'm afraid I will never get this resolved if I notify Binksternet on his talk page. I'd like some advice as to how you think I should deal with this user/situation - if I took this issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents, would they hear it out?

I've noticed a much more powerful editor than me by the name of Binksternet has taken a disliking to my edits. Binksternet seems to have a very similar nature to an account created in 2021 by the name of FMSky. They have recently started coming after my edits, in very similar ways.

I've added various music genres with already identified American cultural origins to the "American rock music genres" and/or the "American styles of music" category pages (). He has reverted these edits, inexplicably, multiple times. He also has a particular hatred for this edit, despite it being sourced, and from a neutral perspective. Why is this worth deleting?

He seems to routinely make accusations of "pro-American/anti-British" posting whenever a user alters an article that has an obvious British bias, or even when a user merely adds an American perspective to various cultural pages. This has happened on the Shock rock page, where he routinely reinstated a citation and edit that violates NPOV, an addition that was also made by a sockpuppet AC Armstrong, as can be seen here: . Looking further into his history, he also repeatedly reverted Scene (subculture) back to a British revisionist version of the page that has since been corrected - this behavior can be observed here:. He also reverted the Street style page back to a version that cited Tom Ford as a British fashion designer under the "London" sub-section (while leaving the New York sub-section that Tom Ford should have been cited under egregiously underwritten, might I add). I should note that FMSky, his possible burner account, has made similar edits: .

Binksternet also seems to delete any topic on his talk page that is critical of his behavior, including deleting any kind of ANI-notice left. He regularly makes accusations of Sockpuppetry, despite upholding Sockpuppet edits he personally agrees with, whether unsourced or not, as I indicated above.

To offer some context regarding my personal view of this situation: I've noticed that a lot of cultural Wikipedia articles are written from a British perspective, and this seems to result in a strong British bias on the website, ie: , - a version of this page that stuck around for a while saw Nike added to a list of British fashion designers, by two users, while others deleted the entire list of American fashion designers on the page for being "overlong". It's also so incredibly common for the United States to be deleted as a cultural originator of various music genres while the United Kingdom is added to any and every music genre possible as a cultural originator - these alterations are often made without scrutiny and left to stand - it's only American cultural perspectives, of really any kind, that are met with any kind of reduction, deletion, or scrutiny.

Almost all of the decadal fashion pages (ex: 2000s in fashion, 2010s in fashion, 2020s in fashion) are or were at one time written mostly from a British perspective, even when describing an American trend (Grunge, Hip-Hop). Typically, the lack of cited sources will be named as an excuse to revert any alterations to this Anglocentrism, even when the Anglocentric information established on the page isn't cited itself (as can be displayed on the 20th century page, see the previous edit and then mine). Even when information is altered or added and cited, though, it will still often be deleted. Even a page that discusses Stereotypes of the British devotes numerous sentences trying to deflect negative British stereotypes onto Americans (note: a previous version of the page attempted to cite an article in which a man expressed an opinion that "British music was better than American music" as a "stereotype of the British", which ironically echoes the exact biases Binksternet seems to be trying to reinforce all across the musical pages of Wikipedia), and has a long history of some of the most egregious bias on this site, with the page usually coming across as a pro-British/anti-American disputation of British stereotypes rather than an objective, unbiased, and basic list and description of British stereotypes: .

I will offer more cited evidence of Binksternet's aggressive and undemocratic editing behavior if this advances beyond this stage, but for now, I'd appreciate some advice on how to deal with this. I feel there is a very distinct bias problem, and I think it is, at least partially, being facilitated by Binksternet's undemocratic and odd behavior on certain corners of the site. Where others are penalized, banned, essentially strong-armed off Wikipedia, it seems that Binksternet is mostly accountable to no one. He breaks all the rules he demands other people get banned for, and works to stigmatize various ideas on Wikipedia through constant accusations of block evasions and sock puppetry, sometimes affiliated with near decade old accounts. I feel helpless to do anything about it. Even adding a music genre to a category page gets deleted by him under suspicious circumstances, for absolutely no reason. It's not like I'm trying to delete edits that add a given genre to the "British rock music genres" category - so many are added to that category, without issue - or like I'm trying to delete British contributions from a given music genre page, but that's all Binksternet and certain others appear to be trying to do vis a vis the US - then they're saying the attempts to even offer an equivalent American perspective to the overwritten British one is evidence of a "pro-American/anti-British" bias, as in the deliberation on Anti-fashion, where the notable American involvements in anti-fashion are just erroneously deleted and labelled "anti-British". That doesn't make sense to me.

Binksternet's behavior towards me and other editors appears to reflect WP:9STEPS to a T and I have heard that he's a bully from various forum and social media users off Wikipedia. I do not want to engage him, so I honestly do not know what to do.

Gingeraleking (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No one is going to read such a lengthy personal attack, either here or at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

References

SPI

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98 and the Dcasey98 archive. Same topics, tone and style. Binksternet (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Dcasey98 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)