>>15484946
Your assumptions were incorrect OSS and your quick ban of this anon, thinking it was the BV you removed for posting RRN as a source, was not that same anon. This anon was literally following your lead and was attempting to learn what was considered good sourcing and appropriate for using as source.
But instead of doing your diligence, you banned this anon's IP.
This anon hasn't ever infil, nor steered digs towards other directions. Your attack, which was to call me the name of the BV you removed, is/was 100% wrong. So instead of comparing patterns of writing, my IP was banned and that made me alert that my trust in your new digs wasn't as you specified.
Congratulations, OSS, you managed to take someone who has been trying to learn and be a decent anon and convinced me that perhaps you pull the trigger without verifying the actual target.
This anon has survived much actual combat to allow that to go unnoticed or unannounced.