It is not correct to characterize a POV dispute as "vandalism". See WP:VAND, which says, among other things, "Note: Do not use [the vandalism] templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement."; see also WP:VAND#What vandalism is not. Calling POV disagreements "vandalism" as you do is a misleading edit summary. Please stop. --lquilter 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." WP:VAND

Please stop.

70.23.199.239 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity" -- deliberate assumes intent. WP:VAND specifically says several times that differences of opinion are not vandalism. I don't know how much more clearly I can put it than that. A good faith disagreement is not vandalism. It's against WP:AGF and it's a POV itself and verging on a WP:PA to continue to describe good faith edits to the content, made in order to improve the encyclopedia, as vandalism -- even if, in your opinion, they lessen the value of the encyclopedia. Moreover, your idea of the appropriate content is currently against the weight of every other editor who has weighed in on the issue; so anybody who does edit out the content is doing so after considerable discussion and with support of all the other editors who've looked at it. --lquilter 05:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were in a highly charitable mood, I might think you kept repeating such obvious blarney to try and convince yourself of your own virtue, as opposed to seeking to fool administrators unaware of your shenanigans, that you are acting in good faith.

1. You made it clear with your first vandalism of this article, which also included your first personal attack on me, that you were not motivated by good faith or a desire to improve Wikipedia. Therefore, I would be a fool to assume good faith on your part. “AGF” does not require that one proceed as if lobotomized;

2. “A POV itself”: As I have previously noted, you are merely seeking to impose your own POV;

3. “PA”: as I noted above and previously, your first salvo was a personal attack, even if you did word it in a disingenuous way, in order to game the system (just as you do with your phony “POV” complaints);

4. “… your idea of the appropriate content is currently against the weight of every other editor who has weighed in on the issue; so anybody who does edit out the content is doing so after considerable discussion…” That’s not merely one lie, but tantamount to a whole batch of lies. Nine, to be exact. You misrepresent the situation, in order to make it seem as if I had come along and added information to an article (not that I don’t have the right to add information to an article, and I did add a quote that would have clarified and justified the paragraph to any honest, fair-minded person), when in fact, over a 14-day stretch, no fewer than nine previous editors had either typed in or clarified a variation on the paragraph you later censored, or worked on another section of the article while respecting the paragraph. And in restoring the vandalism, I had merely reacted to a previous person’s shameless, POV-driven censorship;

5. Similarly, you fabricate “considerable discussion” that never preceded the deletions. User: DianaW appointed herself censor without any discussion. Once I restored what she had censored, you and a couple of other people joined her to gang up on me, based on your sharing the same politics, and endlessly repeated the same talking points and misrepresentations (i.e., you operated in bad faith). In any event, for you, "discussion" means you and your political allies giving orders, and those who disagree with you having to say "Yes, Sir!," salute you, and follow them;

6. You insinuate that Wikipedia is a democracy and that I am outvoted by your party. Nowhere does Wikipedia enumerate a majority-rule principle. It is clear that it is extremely important to you and your allies that no one ever find out that Nadine Gordimer was robbed and beaten by black men, so important that you are prepared not only to engage in censorship, but to lie about, and seek to cover up what you are up to. You know darned well that you would have had no problem with the paragraph, had the criminals been white; and

7. You and your political allies have initiated a flame war. You’re nothing but a bunch of bullies with pretensions. I hate bullies, and censors are a pedantic, self-righteous, deeply dishonest type of bully. 70.23.199.239 05:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I take it that User:70.23.177.216 and User:70.23.199.239 are the same person? Based on description of "reversing ... for the umpteenth time" and the same language used to describe actions ... --lquilter 00:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that I am signing off with a different IP address. No subterfuge is involved on my part. My pc stroked out on December 5, and although I am still using the same machine, and even the same hard-drive, I am showing up as a different IP. (Truth be told, my pc has been acting in such a way that I wonder if it weren't abducted by computer engineers, and replaced by an impostor.) However, my wiki posts should allay any fears anyone may have. I am no kinder nor gentler than before, I still take my irony supplements, and if I am not the same person, I do such a bang-up impression of that person, that it really doesn't matter, anyway.

70.23.199.239 01:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(I just retrieved the foregoing as a wiki "preview" file from my hard drive. I had posted it right after the section by User:John Broughton. Apparently, I failed to properly save the page back then.) 70.23.199.239 00:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied and pasted the foregoing from User talk:70.23.177.216 70.23.199.239 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. However, the links/content you added may not be a good fit for the article. If you would, please use the article's talk page to explain your rationale for adding the link. Also see the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks! AuburnPilot^talk 17:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "links/content" on what page? 70.23.199.239 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If you're a registered user, I'll respond where the conversation started; if you're an anonymous user, I'll only respond on this page"

From User:AuburnPilot talk page.

Well, aren't you special? Since you started this little "conversation" by vandalizing some literature I added, and could not be bothered to tell me where you had vandalized it, thus forcing me to hunt down your offense, I don't think I'll be following your orders, oh Great and Wonderful Oz. By the by, I see that you first vandalized my link, then suggested it was "spam," and then suggested further that I "explain [my] rationale" for adding the link.

You claim to put a lot of stock in what you call "civility," so I've got some news for you. Walking up to a stranger, stomping on his foot, and then suggesting he not walk so closely is not civil. Same difference with what you did, Buster. The phony sweet tone is an insult to real manners, just as counterfeit money is a crime against the real thing.

Let's try a thought experiment from a parallel universe. User "AuburnPilot2," for some inexplicable reason, is less than fond of a link an editor inserted. And so, rather than vandalizing the link, he "use[s] the article's talk page to explain [his] rationale" for disliking it.

Since the article in question, on Racial Profiling, is one dominated by links promoting the racial profiling hoax, there is nothing spammish about the link I inserted to a classic article on the subject, and one of the many wikisophistry strategems employed here is for someone who abhors the facts contained in a linked article to denounce it as "spam," I am going to conclude that you used the charge of "spam" as cover for political censorship. But feel free to try and mount a defense; perhaps you can come up with a new wikisophistry strategem to cover for your previous one. Thanks! 70.23.199.239 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your rant above, I have responded on my talk page. AuburnPilot^talk 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this your final warning. If you continue to add SPAM to Wikipedia articles, then revert other editors who remove it, labeling them "vandals", you will be reported to Wikipedia administration. AuburnPilot^talk 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never added, or had anything to do with spam in my life. Stop lying. You are simply a bully, a liar, and a censor who manipulates and misrepresents Wikipedia rules, in order to impose your politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.199.239 (talk • contribs).

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. AuburnPilot^talk 03:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. ²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I began writing the following statement (excepting its two postscripts) before I was blocked. I suspect that User: AuburnPilot had me blocked, in order to prevent me from complaining to administrators about his misconduct. Although I was directed to request an unblock of User: Physicq210, who had blocked me, requesting such of the latter would require that I censor myself, and write as though User: Physicq210 had acted in good faith, and was one of the good guys. That would be surreal, and would give User: Physicq210 a moral legitimacy belied by his actions. And so, the following request for unblocking is directed at any administrator BUT User: Physicq210, but since I’m not a devious sort, I have nothing against the latter reading this. Indeed, I want User: Physicq210 to read it. For if I can be banned from Wikipedia for standing up to censors, then it is vastly preferable to go down fighting, than to go down the long dark road of self-abnegation and self-censorship, including the use of bad English. After all, if I wanted to be a lackey, I could go to graduate school.

WIKI Administrators’ Notice Board Incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

User: AuburnPilot

A few days ago, User: AuburnPilot began stalking me, checking wherever I had made edits, and going to the articles in question and vandalizing them. He or she has been manipulating Wikipedia rules as cover for what is clearly political censorship. User: AuburnPilot cannot even stand for Wikipedia readers to find out about factual material that upsets his political applecart through footnotes. Zero tolerance!

He claims of any source he politically dislikes, that it is either “spam” or a “blog” (or “POV,” another favorite dodge for those at Wikipedia seeking to censor those who fail to conform to their own POV), even though the one source is a previously published, classic magazine article otherwise unavailable on the Web (http://geocities.com/nstix/waronpolice.html), which the author has seen fit to publish on his Web site, and the other source is the longest, most thorough exposé yet published on the Duke rape hoax (http://vdare.com/stix/070113_duke.htm).

Note that I am not even talking about censoring writing within articles, since I hadn’t done any writing on the articles in question: Crystal Gail Mangum, Michael Nifong, 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal and Racial profiling. I’ve been involved in edit wars before, though I have never been the aggressor, and have never initiated an elective edit war, though given the self-assurance that aggressors such as User: AuburnPilot exude, perhaps I ought to reconsider that position. It seems that aggressors rule here.

The reason I am making a formal complaint is that User: AuburnPilot has tonight upped the ante, threatening to have me banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.23.199.239&redirect=no), if I do not surrender to his censorship. Should you find for me, please serve this individual with the wikiquivalent of a cease-and-desist order. Should you, however, find for the censor, please provide an Index of banned publications and a list of official wikicensors.

P.S. January 19, 2007 115A EST. Since beginning this complaint, I see that User: AuburnPilot has in fact succeeded at getting a crony, User: Physicq210, to block me, thus not only getting administrative support in censoring me, but preventing me from responding to his thuggery. (And no, I am not going to use cutesy, euphemistic language. If I were into such deception, I would have become a liar, er, lawyer, and would be worthless as an encyclopedist.) And I was unable to e-mail User: Physicq210 because I am not logged in and “You must be logged in and have a valid authenticated e-mail address in your preferences to send e-mail to other users.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Physicq210)

If this isn’t cyber-Stalinism, I don’t know what is! So, let me get this straight. Stalking and censoring an editor while using the equivalent of smiley faces (User: AuburnPilot’s penchant for saying “Thank you” after vandalizing one’s links) is “civil,” but complaining about such abuse counts as “spam, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks.” If that is verily so, then 2 + 2 = 5.

P.P.S The message here says that I was “temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits.” What the heck is that supposed to mean? For restoring footnotes and links that User: AuburnPilot had vandalized? If that constitutes “disruptive edits,” then you’ve utterly given up on honest English and all human decency. Sorry, but I don’t have any sympathy for the Devil.

Nice polemic, complete with fallacious personal attacks. Let me validate my block reason one part at a time. We are not stalking you, and we are not censoring you. We are trying to get to you that you are violating our policies, including WP:SPAM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ATTACK. If you were to discuss your edits, you won't be in this position right now. Don't go around whining to others if you know that you were in the wrong. If you want to add the link, discuss on the article's talk pages first. Don't start stupidly attacking others (as you have done to me and AuburnPilot) for your own mistakes. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know that I’m wrong; in fact, I’m quite certain that you and AuburnPilot are in the wrong. You can censor me and block me all you want – you’ve got the power – but you can’t make me confess to wrongs of which I am innocent. Not yet, anyway. And you can’t make me say that you’re right, when you are as wrong as hell. It’s about time somebody talked back to you.

“If you were to discuss your edits, you won't [sic] be in this position right now.” (Since I had already discussed my edits, physicq’s statement above is a case of “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”)

That’s funny peculiar, because wikicensors with the correct politics somehow never have to “discuss” their “edits.” They just go and censor people with whom they disagree, and then demand that the censees justify the worth of the censored passages or links or footnotes. And guess what? The censees’ explanations, no matter how well-founded and eloquent, are never sufficient to make the censors change their minds. Once an editor realizes that nothing he says will have any positive effect on the censors (or should I say, "commissars"?), he would be a fool to waste his time and energy trying to change that which cannot be changed. That the censors continue demanding such arguments is because they have a sadistic glee for wasting other people’s precious time and energy.

In case an open-minded (but perhaps less experienced) reader should suspect that I am just engaging in bluster, I had already made my argument in my previous entry on this page (which AuburnPilot has archived in a handsome tan box at the bottom of User_talk:AuburnPilot under the uncivil category, “spam”) for why the footnotes and links I inserted were legitimate, but physicq aka physicq210 derided those arguments as a “polemic, complete with fallacious personal attacks,” and mocked my criticism of his abuse of authority as “whining.” In one case, I pointed out that the external link that AuburnPilot defamed as “spam” and censored, was a classic magazine article related to the Racial Profiling Hoax.

(Speaking of which, Wikipedia's Racial profiling article is hopelessly POV through the censors’ deleting of links to articles debunking the hoax, and inserting of links to fraudulent “literature” such as thoroughly debunked work by the ACLU.)

In the case of a footnote that AuburnPilot also defamed as “spam” and censored, he cut the longest, most thorough exposé yet published on the Duke Rape Hoax, which was published by the most brilliant, reliable magazine on the Web, VDARE.

BTW, AuburnPilot asserts that the sources in question are not “reliable” or “verifiable,” and do not maintain “neutrality.” Aside from the fact that thousands of Wikipedia articles are transparent political propaganda, or no more than love or hate letters to certain public figures (particularly entertainers or athletes), AuburnPilot has misrepresented the Wikipedia rule on neutrality. There is no requirement that every source be neutral (as opposed to reliable and verifiable), only that every Wikipedia article be neutral.

WP:NPOV

“All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.”

As for “verifiablilty,” the VDARE source has over 100 hyperlinks to supporting documentation from newspapers, magazines, TV and radio news organizations, and legal filings; if that isn’t “verifiable,” then nothing is.

Now, I ask you. If I have already made my best argument for including the aforementioned links and footnotes, and physicq aka physicq210 responds by misrepresenting what I said, claiming that I have made no attempt at supporting my position, and referring to my defense as “whining,” what possible reason could I have for continuing such a charade?

Plus, why should I be on the defensive? If I were dealing with fair, reasonable people, that might make sense. But fair, reasonable people would not do as AuburnPilot did, and first censor my edits, and then demand I justify their value on the talk pages. (And physicq would not have responded to an edit war by throwing in with AuburnPilot, immediately blocking me, and charging me with “disruptive edits.” That alone is proof of physicq’s unfitness as an administrator.) No, AuburnPilot would not have censored my work, but would have asked me on the talk page why I thought it belonged. No, strike that. He would have hit the links and read the articles in question. If the articles in question cannot justify themselves in the reading, then nothing I can say can justify them. (What am I supposed to do, write a 20,000-word article justifying why I should be permitted to insert one lousy footnote to a 10,500-word exposé, which in turn is linked to supporting material that totals over 100,000 words?!)

Did AuburnPilot or physicq take the trouble to read the articles in question, before censoring them and blocking me? That’s highly unlikely. And if they claim otherwise, and you believe them, I’ve got a great deal for you on a slightly used bridge. Because had they read the sources, they would have had specific criticisms of them. But they didn’t, and that was because their minds were closed from the get-go, and they never bothered to read the sources. (Actually reading sources would also require w-o-r-k.) They are like the preacher who supported banning James Joyce’s Ulysses without having read it, who said, “I don’t need to read it!”

Two of the most common ploys used by wikicensors are to claim that material lacks “NPOV” (i.e., “is POV”) or that it is “spam.” All that means is that the material does not conform to their POV. And their POV is leftwing. I’m not a lefty, or I wouldn’t be having this problem.

If you look at the attacks on me by AuburnPilot and physicq, you’ll see references to WP:SPAM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ATTACK. But they never justify their charges. They don’t understand that simply charging someone with something is not the same as showing that he is guilty of said infraction. Rather, they throw up some links to the wikirules they’ve misrepresented, and act as though the mere indictment is the same as a guilty verdict. That’s not giving reasons; that’s the Wiki equivalent of a show trial (or to be more current, “Nifonging”). If you read the sources to which I linked, you’ll see, I believe, just how ludicrous the charges of “spam” are. As for “attack,” I only responded to their attacks. I had never heard of either of them before they began attacking me, in particular, until AuburnPilot began stalking me, and censoring my work. (Just go to my user page, check the last few articles I worked on, and hit the links. Then, at each article’s “history” page, look for AuburnPilot’s entries after mine. Tell me that’s not stalking behavior.)

As for “civil,” that’s just another dodge. According to the censors, anything they do is “civil,” and any criticism the people they’ve done it to make against them is “uncivil.” Thus, they use “civil” in the same way that university Stalinists use “collegiality” – to make it impossible for those who disagree with them to work in higher ed. Who is “civil,” and who “collegial”? Their comrades, no matter how vicious they are. (AuburnPilot’s m.o., which is supposed to show how “civil” he is, is to vandalize an editor’s work, demand that the censored editor justify the work that he has already censored, and then say “Thanks!” That’s like the highway patrolman who ruins your day, writes you a ticket, and then says, as he leaves, “Have a nice day.”)

I’ve had this same problem with other wikicensors, who would demand that I “discuss” my edits and gain their permission, after they had censored them. (At one point, I got those censors to admit that there was nothing I could say that would change their minds, though they later engaged in revisionism, and denied that they had ever made any such admissions. Just like the professors at Duke!) But nowhere in the wiki rules does it say that certain editors are the elect, and not only get to unilaterally vandalize other people’s work, but that the people whose work has thus been vandalized must then beg for the vandals’ permission to do any work. I guess Wikipedia’s rules are just for “the little people.”

Any honest person who spends any amount of time reading and trying to edit controversial Wikipedia articles (or any that touch in any way on race) will know that there are political enforcers here who censor facts and sources that they do not want the public to know about, and that they then stalk editors who have inserted such facts and links, continuously vandalizing their work. (Since bad faith is involved, if this isn’t vandalism, nothing is.) I’d list some of the political enforcers, but physicq and AuburnPilot would just use that as a pretext for banning me again.

Censorship and vandalism may not be as satisfying as shooting dissenters in the back of the head, but they’re working on it.

Physciq: I wrote the following words today, before reading your latest attempt at rationalizing your misconduct.

An encyclopedist who would permit himself to be humbled and intimidated would be as worthless as those who, while pretending to be encyclopedists, work through humbling and intimidating others. 70.23.199.239 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked User: AuburnPilot and User:physicq210 if they will accept mediation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.199.239 (talk • contribs).

• Decline mediation as there is nothing to mediate. AuburnPilot^talk 18:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat; that was a formality I had to go through, prior to climbing the ladder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.199.239 (talk • contribs).

Ok then. I have no intention of participating in any further actions involving you or the link you've continued to add to articles. "Climb the ladder" if you wish, but I'm not climbing with you. It's time to move on. AuburnPilot^talk 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline mediation per AuburnPilot above. Wikipedia policies are non-negotiable. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. That's why you oughtn't to have violated them with impunity. 70.23.199.239 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove I violated policy? I can prove you did, though. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already proved it. And anyone who doubts that is welcome to read my arguments above. I am not going to let you rope me into wasting more hours and 1000 or so words repeating the arguments I already made twice. You, conversely, can prove nothing of the sort against me. You have power, but no reason.

In your shameless arrogance, you do not seem to comprehend that your continued harassment of me reflects terribly not only on you, but on Wikipedia, as well. 70.23.199.239 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I cannot prove? Maybe you should eat your own advice and stop shaming yourself instead. Have you not engaged in enough personal attacks and disruption on this very page? I do not find your proof convincing when they are fallacious, unsubstantiated with diffs, and more ad hominem than argumentative. I have no intention of further falling for your disruptive ploys. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the impartial but unwitting reader, I must explain that my bosom pal, User: Physicq210, was just posturing again. As an administrator, he would have to have checked the "diffs" before blocking me. Otherwise, he would be guilty of negligence and partisanship. Indeed, it sounds like he just unwittingly confessed to same. (Or he did check the diffs at the time, and is now being deceitful about it. Logically speaking, there is no third option.) Anyway, you are welcome to check the following "diffs." My edits are the ones that User: Physicq210I claimed were "disruptive," as a pretext for blocking me for 31 hours.

I can't promise I'll be available to respond to readers' enquiries, since it appears that User: Physicq210 is gearing up to block me again. "Disruptive" is a trigger word that typically precedes one of his, ahem, episodes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_profiling&diff=prev&oldid=101703671

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_Gail_Mangum&diff=prev&oldid=101703968

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=101710573

I've got a new friend! The above IPs are apparently the same person, who used 130.156.29.61 yesterday and is using 130.156.29.134 today. (Note that only the last number differs between the two IPs.) If you check this troll's "contributions," and go to each article's history page, you will see that all this individual does is follow me around, and vandalize every edit I make, sometimes only two minutes after I have made one. He hasn't done anything else in recent days. His m.o. under both IPs is also identical; he never gives an explanation for his vandalism, not so much as an "m."

Doesn't he understand? Nobody ever got in trouble on Wikipedia for stalking and censoring anyone to the right of Stalin. If he came out and censored me under a registered Wickedname, he'd end up with a citation on his user (talk) page, and they'd make him an administrator! (One wikicode for such awards is to make them in honor of fighting "spam." I'll have to come up with a list of the other wikicoded awards.)

Note that while registered users can sign up to get alerts whenever certain articles are edited, an anonymous user may not. Unless, that is, the user has, in addition to the two above-cited anonymous accounts, a registered account he uses to get alerts. In which case, this is an old friend in new rags. Explanation-free edits would also help shield the identity of a registered user who has previously stalked me under his official wickedname. Or could it be that I am so popular here that a whole crew of Stalinists, some registered and others anonymous, is so obsessed with me that they devote hours each week to censoring, again and again, every footnote and every link I insert into an article? Note that these commissars' work has increased, as some other editors with a sense of fair play have taken to repairing their vandalism.

Inquiring minds want to know. 70.23.199.239 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WHOIS reports for 130.156.29.61 and 130.156.29.134, your friend is a student or employee of Bloomfield College. Not sure if that helps, but obviously it's the same person. AuburnPilot^talk 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be damned. My old friend User:AuburnPilot taketh away and giveth!

(I wrote the following passage previous to reading AuburnPilot's message. When I tried to post it, it turned out that he and I were either posting simultaneously, or he had posted his scoop on the sockpuppet only seconds earlier, and the page gave me an editing conflict message.

User: 130.156.29.134 is on a roll! In four minutes, he vandalized the last four articles where I’d repaired his previous vandalism. Now I understand at least one point to his sockpuppetry. In addition to hiding his registered wickedentity, he has to switch back and forth daily between his two sockpuppets, in order not to violate the three-revert rule. Tomorrow, I expect him either to return to using 130.156.29.61, or to create yet another sockpuppet.

• 22:33, 20 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Crystal Gail Mangum (top)
• 22:32, 20 January 2007 (hist) (diff) 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal (top)
• 22:31, 20 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Caoimhe Butterly (top)
• 22:30, 20 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Mike Nifong (top)

Now, after AuburnPilot's detective work, I pose to my readers the $64 question. Is User: 130.156.29.134/User: 130.156.29.61 a student or employee at Bloomfield College? I'm guessing employee. What college kid would waste his weekend going to school and sitting at a computer terminal all day, vandalizing a stranger's Wikipedia edits? On the other hand, there are thousands of nutty academics who would gladly waste their weekend doing that. As a recovering academic, I ought to know! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.199.239 (talk • contribs).

Sockpuppet report

Just so you know, I don't believe you submitted your report correctly. I left a note stating that I am not going to be in any way involved in the report, but I doubt anything will be done since it was not filed correctly. You may wish to re-read the instructions. AuburnPilot^talk 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.23.199.239 / 70.23.177.216, please review Wikipedia's Civility. In particular, your comments on Talk:Nadine Gordimer have been repeatedly uncivil. Just in the last comment on 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC), for instance, you assume bad faith ("Please do not misrepresent..."); describe other editors as "vandalous", engaging in "flame wars", and suggest (again) attempts to "censor" information ("There are quite a few folks at Wikipedia who seek to suppress all knowledge of black racial violence."); suggest that other editors are in a conspiracy of some sort ("in league" ... "compatriots" ... "your group"); and ascribe beliefs to editors rather than responding to the content of their comments ("you would never have denied the racial assume bad faith significance of a white-on-black attack"). As you know these comments are characteristic of your comments for the past several months. Discussion might be improved if you reviewed WP:CIVIL. --lquilter 02:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least eight problems with your charges, lquilter.

1. As with defamation law, the truth is an absolute defense. Since User:DianaW did misrepresent the editorial history of the Nadine Gordimer page, there is nothing wrong with me stating that bald fact. And since you have engaged in flame wars against me, there is likewise nothing wrong with me stating that fact. That you should be outraged at me for stating the facts is hardly surprising. Likewise, you rail at my complaint that "There are quite a few folks at Wikipedia who seek to suppress all knowledge of black racial violence." But that is also true, and you know it better than I do. Tell me about all the Wikipedia articles about white-on-black crimes where you and your compatriots have deleted all references to the attackers, insisting that such information was "irrelevant," as you have with the Nadine Gordimer article. But there are no such examples. For you guys, i the rare case of white-on-black violence, the attackers' race is always relevant. Meanwhile, as I discovered just hours ago, Genocide Watch has described the pervasive black-on-white attacks in South Africa as a case of systematic genocide. I don't love any race (how can one?), but why do you and your friends hate white people? (See [1]);

2. For you to charge me with incivility, is just a means for you to aid and abet User:DianaW in her misrepresentations;

3. Given your own history of personal attacks, for you to charge me or anyone else with incivility is not only hypocritical but surreal;

4. You just doubly misrepresented Wikipedia rules. First you misrepresented assume bad faith. The rule says that one should begin by assuming good faith on the part of other editors, not that one must continue to assume same after an editor or editors has proven time and again to be acting in bad faith. You really need to stop throwing inappropriate references to Wikipedia rules against the wall like pasta, and hoping they'll stick. (Is this the wiki version of Nifonging?) Second, you are claiming that it is against the rules (incivil) for me ever to point out violations and misrepresentations of Wikipedia rules. If that were so, then why do you have no compunctions about making such charges against me? Because you don't follow any rules! You just make them up and cite them against those whom you oppose for political reasons, while yourself acting with license, and hoping that no one will see that the emperor has no clothes. If your assumption that it is uncivil to speak the truth were true, this site's name would have to be changed from Wikipedia to Antipedia: The Book of Lies;

5. You complain that I wrote that User:DianaW was "'in league' ... 'compatriots' ... 'your group,'" even as you are acting in league with her by responding on her behalf, instead of letting her respond for herself! You really need to take your irony supplements, old paint;

6. You continue to manipulate Wikipedia rules, in order to censor the truth, and seek to punish those so "uncivil" as to write it. Your m.o. is to harass and attack me, and then charge me with incivility, when I defend myself, in the hopes of getting me blocked. That is the antithesis of civility. And who ever heard of rules only support one side in a dispute every ... single ... time?;

7. You use charges such as "incivility" as ideological brickbats, in the same way that tenured leftists abuse phrases like "collegiality," "harassment," "verbal violence" and "hate speech." In both cases, the charge made by people notorious for their lack of civility or collegiality is a code phrase for, "You're not a Marxist [or pick your euphemism of the week: "liberal," "progressive," "multiculturalist," etc.], so we will destroy you!" In both cases, the strategy serves the totalitarian project of silencing all dissent; and

8. Until you can get those you oppose banned, your m.o. is to wear them down through interminable flame wars, which require that you act in concert with others.

Since you brought this up on my talk page, out of the original context, I recommend that readers -- assuming they have really strong stomachs -- peruse the section "Nadine Gordimer edits" at the top of the page for the earlier flame war you participated in, in concert with User:DianaW; DianaW's January 6, 2007 statement near the bottom of the Talk:Nadine_Gordimer page, my response, and the editorial history of the Nadine Gordimer article. And for those who love reading flame wars, there's much, much more at the Talk:Nadine_Gordimer page. 70.23.199.239 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another civility issue -- In recently adding (disputed) material back to the Nadine Gordimer article, you described it in the edit summary as "(Restored vandalism by suspected sockpuppet, User:130.156.31.143.)". A, as has been pointed out to you before, good faith content disputes are not "vandalism"; if they were, then you would be a "vandal" too. [*** re: B see amendment below] B, accusing someone of sockpuppetry with no evidence is not assuming good faith. Please recall, if you will, that when your IP address switched, I didn't call either address a "sockpuppet"; I simply queried as to whether they were the same person & listed my reason for thinking so. At this point, we have no idea who that user was, but even if it was one of the regular contributors who forgot to log in, that's not a reason to call someone a sockpuppet. And it could well have been a new user who read the history and talk page, saw the dispute, and reverted your disputed addition. Please see WP:SOCK for identifying sock puppets and note that none of the hallmarks of sock puppetry were exhibited by 130.156.31.143. --lquilter 14:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: 70.23.199.239 has elsewhere supported her accusation of sock puppetry, so the use of the term 'sockpuppet' wasn't uncivil, just merely unexplained. However "vandalism" is again a violation of WP:CIVIL as has been explained to 70.23.199.239 before (see Talk:70.23.199.239#Nadine Gordimer edits, my points at --lquilter 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC). --lquilter 16:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits , as you are doing in Nadine Gordimer. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. lquilter 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) --lquilter 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits , as you are doing in Nadine Gordimer. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I wasn't merely quoting you just now, but turning your words against you. It is you who is constantly undoing my edits, User:lquilter. Why then should I be blocked, and not you? I also once spent a great deal of time discussing the matter with you, though you seek to give the opposite impression. You will recall that at one point you confessed that nothing I could possibly say would ever change your mind. Please stop misrepresenting your own history of edit warring, personal attacks, and threatening behavior, in an effort to make administrators unfamiliar with said history think that you are being open-minded. Please also stop insinuating that I have broken the three-revert rule, when you know very well that I haven't. 70.23.199.239 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've never said anything like "nothing [you] could possibly say would ever change my mind" and in fact I gave you several examples of the sorts of things that would constitute notability of the incident, or a reason to include the race on Talk:Nadine Gordimer, and ways in which to beef up the article so that this information, even as it is, wouldn't stand out as undue weight -- see comments at LQ 03:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC); LQ 14:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC); and offering more examples at LQ 14:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC) -- just to start. You have never yet responded to the substantive criticisms; offered versions that respond to any of the suggested ways that it would be okay; or explained why the suggestions aren't good enough. ... and as for administrators, luckily, they can see the whole sorry history of this thing on the talk pages, so they don't need to rely on my representations (whether "mis" or not). ... and as for 3RR -- I didn't say you had violated 3RR; I'm giving you a warning because you hit 3RRs today. --lquilter 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You stand guilty as charged. I have no intention of repeating everything yet again. And the notion that you gave me a warning about my three reverts is a ludicrous rationalization for what you really did. It's not your job, anyway, to give such warnings.

Besides, you have no problem with certain people breaking the three-revert rule, as long as you like the reverts they are making. Indeed, you misrepresented the rules against sockpuppets WP:SOCK for that very reason earlier today, in writing the falsehood claiming that the editor I had charged with sockpuppetry showed none of the signs of being a sockpuppetmaster, when I had clearly shown that he had, and the WP:SOCK says that the punishment for such misconduct is being "blocked indefinitely."

"The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably.

"Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. (Also see this page for information on how this affects other online communities.)

"Accounts operating in violation of this policy should be blocked indefinitely; the main account may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. Non-administrators may list the accounts at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as befits the case."

What really happened today was that you had seen that I had reported the Bloomfield College sockpuppet for breaking the three-revert rule at the Duke University lacrosse team scandal article over one hour earlier (22:55), and decided to make it seem as though I were the editor breaking the rule. If you really cared about the three-revert rule, you would be screaming bloody murder about User: 130.156.30.57 's violations of the rule. And yet, you are not only silent about those violations, but you have sought to give him cover, by misrepresenting the situation, so as to give editors/admins unfamiliar with it the impression that I had not provided extensive evidence of sockpuppetry, that I was the violator of the three-revert rule, and for a hat trick, you made personal threats against me. 70.23.199.239 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is all false. I had no idea that you had reported any sockpuppet. I saw earlier discussions about the school on your page but I didn't pay any attention to them or the IP addresses. I'm not tracking what you do. --lquilter 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain how you could have made all those references to my edits and actions on different pages. You must be telepathic! You had already attacked my report of sockpuppetry; you can't now claim ignorance about the report. Of course you're tracking what I do. And because you felt the compulsion to attack me on multiple fronts (e.g., Nadine Gordimer, supporting the sockpuppet), you were unable to cover your tracks. 70.23.199.239 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All my references to your edits & actions were from one page, the Nadine Gordimer page. I didn't attack your report of sockpuppetry; as I said, I didn't really know what it was about, except from seeing it on this page briefly when I left messages about the Nadine Gordimer page. You are perhaps confusing me with someone else. --lquilter 02:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lquilter: "I didn't attack your report of sockpuppetry; as I said, I didn't really know what it was about..."

You are sooo busted!

From my talk page:

“… accusing someone of sockpuppetry with no evidence is not assuming good faith.

"At this point, we have no idea who that user was, but even if it was one of the regular contributors who forgot to log in, that's not a reason to call someone a sockpuppet. And it could well have been a new user who read the history and talk page, saw the dispute, and reverted your disputed addition. Please see WP:SOCK for identifying sock puppets and note that none of the hallmarks of sock puppetry were exhibited by 130.156.31.143. --lquilter 14:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)”

Also from my talk page:

“The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period.”

“lquilter 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) --lquilter 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)”

And yet I know that no matter how clearly I nail you for spreading deliberate falsehoods and denying the obvious, I can count on you to just go right on with your falsehoods and word-twisting and denials. The truth is just so uncivil! 70.23.199.239 15:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sock puppetry - Perhaps we're talking about different things. As is clear from my earlier comment, I was referring to your edit summary on the Nadine Gordimer page accusing 130.156.31.143 of sock puppetry. If you accused that person of sock puppetry in another context, fine; I didn't see any evidence, from the Nadine Gordimer page, that that was a sock puppet. That was the context of my comments. I'd point out that you're assuming bad faith -- that I'm lying or something -- and not simply trying to read my comments in context. You and i know each other from Nadine Gordimer and not, I think, from any other interactions, so please note that all of my comments regarding your behavior are based on your behavior & interactions with me on your various talk pages and on the Nadine Gordimer page. If you have evidence from some other source to support sock puppetry, then you should have simply pointed me to it in responding to the WP:CIVIL point -- rather than continuing to assume bad faith (that I had secret knowledge I did not, in fact, have). ... In fact, since I gather from your assertions directed at me that you have filed a sock puppet report on the 130.156.31.143 address, I'll annotate my earlier commentate to acknowledge that; but perhaps in future you might include a link in a talk page supporting claims of "sock puppetry", to avoid such confusions. ... as for 3RR, again, i think nothing in the warning i left you says that you have done 4reverts (violating 3RR); my understanding is that it is a caution that you may be in danger of violating 3RR & explaining the rule. i'm not going to explain this to you again. --lquilter 15:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edit summaries in the article Nadine Gordimer did not accurately describe your edit. Changes to the content of articles should be accurately described in the edit summary. --lquilter 13:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I simply used YOUR misleading edit summary, word for word. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have used it, in the first place.

Statements placed on editors' talk pages should not mislead readers unaware of the political agenda motivating the statements. 70.23.199.239 08:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary I used was "(Reverting recent assault info per discussion at talk page.)" The discussion at the talk page was overwhelmingly in favor of not including that information -- hence the use of the word "per". The use of the same edit summary to describe the opposite behavior is confusing; nobody would understand from looking at the talk page how the information was put back into the article "per" the talk page. Please see [2] which defines the usage as "in accordance with". --lquilter 14:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of the same edit summary to describe the opposite behavior is confusing; nobody would understand from looking at the talk page how the information was put back into the article "per" the talk page."

No. People who oppose the politically motivated censorship of essential information, and who take their irony supplements -- the kind who live in the spirit of the First Amendment -- will not find it at all confusing. 70.23.199.239 04:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Bailey v. Alabama you persist in reverting the term "African American" to "negro". Please stop simply reverting other editors' corrections, and respond on the Talk:Bailey v. Alabama page explaining why you think "negro" is the appropriate term to use. I have already cited three points from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)#Ethnic and national identities which explain why "African American" is the appropriate term for this article. Please review Talk:Bailey v. Alabama.

You noted in your last edit summary that "Your term is historically inaccurate." Wikipedia's articles are not written in the style of the relevant historical period; they are written in modern English. This applies to spelling and grammar as well to terminology; the relevant terminology guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)#Ethnic and national identities, which states not to use "outdated terms" and gives an ethnic designation as an example.

Until you support and defend your assertion on the talk page, you are simply edit-warring. --lquilter 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the phrase "censors and vandals", in the edit summary of this edit, is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Comment on the content of articles, not on editors, in your postings to articles and article talk pages, including edit summaries of those postings.

One or more editor who disagrees with you is not censoring you; this is simply a content disagreement. You should follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which provides for getting the opinions of other editors via RfCs, for example. That process also requires you to abide by the opinions of others when they are in the majority.

If you do not become more civil in your dealings with other editors, you will be blocked again. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was never blocked for being "civil" [sic]; I was blocked as a matter of political c-----ship. I had reinserted into an article information that an administrator (User:physicq) was adamantly opposed to readers seeing. Of course, at Wikipedia, the charge of being "uncivil" is merely a code word for failing to toe the pc line. Those who are "nasty as they wanna be," but have the correct politics never have to worry about being c------d, er, blocked. In fact, the people who have c------d me in the Nadine Gordimer article initiated vicious personal attacks against me, without suffering any consequences, because they were enforcing the correct leftwing politics. (User:lquilter thoroughly misrepresented my defense against her c-----ship. But then, as she has abundantly made clear, as far as she is concerned, anyone who disagrees with her is a racist.) And to use any word but "censorship" to describe what they were doing and continue to do -- and what you now are doing -- is to do violence to the English language. (That feels so much better.)

By the way, I also offered dispute resolution to the administrator who blocked me, and his ally (User:AuburnPilot) who had called on him to block me; both said they had no interest whatsoever in such resolution. So please do not insult my intelligence by asserting that I am the uncivil individual.

I also notice that you took the liberty of engaging in purely ideological "editing" of the Caoimhe Butterly article, which is now even more POV than was previously the case. Your claim that The Conservative Voice publishes editorials is true but irrelevant. The WP:POV rule does not forbid linking to, citing, quoting, or listing articles with a clear POV, as long as the article itself is not POV. Otherwise, all of the articles you left untouched in the Butterly article would have to be deleted. In fact, according to the actual POV rule, almost the entire article, which is shamelessly POV, must now be deleted. But it now toes the correct leftwing line.

And I'm not supposed to point out that you censored me?! Writing the truth in plain English is uncivil? What's next -- the news that 2 + 2 = 5?

By the way, I have never seen any Wikipedia rule specifying majority rule. Or is it also "uncivil" for me to point that out?

Seeking to silence all dissent via censorship (there's that word again) and intimidation (there's a new one for you) is most uncivil. 70.23.199.239 07:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your posting:

• I have added a "not" (underlined) to correct my first posting.
• you took the liberty of engaging in purely ideological "editing" of the Caoimhe Butterly article, which is now even more POV than was previously the case - no, I reverted your change, which included (as I noted in my edit) summary inserting misspellings of the name of the subject of the article. So unless you think that her name should be misspelled, you should acknowledge that your edit was at least partly wrong.
• I cited WP:RS, not WP:NPOV as the reason for the ConservativeVoice.com being unacceptable. Please look again at my edit, and review the difference. Opinion pieces are not acceptable sources for controversial statements.
• You seem to be unable to grasp the difference between "censoring" and "reverting". Or the difference between "opinion" and "truth". For example, whether a given incident is worth mentioning in Wikipedia is an opinion; if a majority of editors thinks it's not important, then their opinion is entitled to prevail. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus.

Regarding your posting on my user talk page, She and the other removers are of the racial belief that no one may report any facts that show blacks in a negative light, and that anyone who does so is a racist, I invite you to point to an edit summary or talk page posting where the editors say anything resembling that about their beliefs. If you cannot, then you are either (a) deliberately lying about this, or (b) unaware of or unwilling to comply with WP:AGF.

Finally, I suggest you read WP:TP regarding indenting your comments on talk pages. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of your edits have added links to articles by Nicholas Stix.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] As many edits have been devoted to restoring those links when deleted by other editors. This gives the appearance that you are seeking to promote him. Please note that blogs are not considered suitable sources for Wikipedia, and that this project is not intended to be used to promote individuals or to serve as their soapbox. -Will Beback · † · 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as 70.23.170.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[40][41][42][43][44][45] and 70.23.173.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (identifying himself as Stix) [46] -Will Beback · † · 07:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will: I am not Mr. Stix, have never met the man, have no connection to him, nor do I necessarily support his views. I do know that he is an established writer with a long track record. You seem to be systematically deleting reference after reference to his work. There is no rule against using one's own published work as a reference. AGF. Yakuman 21:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are rules against using blogs as sources and external links. Furthermore, WP:NOT says that:

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.
• Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

This user has indeed created overabundant links to articles by one blogger. -Will Beback · † · 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.) He has had a writing career since long before blogs were invented. In fact, you deleted references to Insight, a print magazine published by the Washington Times, calling it a blog. 2.) He's not using Wikipedia as a soapbox, as the linked articles cover a wide range of topics. 3.) I looked at every link you mentioned and not one of those articles is autobiographical.

So your deletions fail the text given above. As such, I have restored several of the links, which I thought unfairly removed. I gave special attention to references to print publications. Again, I have no ties to Mr. Stix, but I wish to see him treated fairly. Yakuman 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Insight on the News does appear to have been an earlier incarnation of Insight (magazine). However most of the links this user added, incluidng most of those you've just restored, are indeed blogs. He has repeatedly edit-warred on several articles over the inclusion of those links without ever revealing that he's the author. That does not appear to be good faith. Listing himself as a "noted journalist" certainly appears to be promotional. -Will Beback · † · 22:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These policies and guidelines may apply here:

• You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest
• [You must]...avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing oneself
• A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable. Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources

I request that this user avoid making any further links to material written or published by Nicholas Stix unless there has been previous agreement on the relevant article talk pages. -Will Beback · † · 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stix is an established writer with a long track record of clips, so the standard warnings about untested self-published sources does not apply. At least in the citations that I reverted, the material and reliable in the context for which it was presented. Many pro writers, myself included, donate our pro bono services here -- and you shouldn't discourage that. He may have a reputation for edit wars, but some of that may stem from his pointed political views. Yakuman 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May have a reputation for edit wars? This user has done nothing but edit war, call good faith edits vandalism, make personal attacks, and spam articles with what now appears to be his own work. This is exactly the kind of user who should be discouraged from editing. If this anon is a pro-writer, I would expect him to be able to understand our most basic policies. auburnpilot talk 05:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than adding links to, and promotion of, Nicholas Stix, I don't see how this editor has contributed much to Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't demonstrated that his material, at least what I restored, is improper. I've said all I can say on this matter. I'm sure our anonymous colleague can speak for himself. Yakuman 06:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Let's see what he has to say. -Will Beback · † · 07:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also posted at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#70.23.199.239_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29 -Will Beback · † · 06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had any time to devote to you and your comrades at the moment, Will Beback, but for now I will note that you continue to misrepresent Wikipedia rules, to misrepresent my edits (deliberately not mentioning all of the edits I had made that were censored that had not cited your personal bogeyman), to misrepresent leading publications with hundreds of thousands of readers as "blogs," and to stalk and censor not only my edits but anyone else supportive of my edits. You are truly out of control. 70.23.199.239 14:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't believe Will is trying to enforce any sort of political orthodoxy here. Nor does he claim to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university with a Ph.D. in theology. I've seen far worse behavior from these admins, who seem to have unlimited free time. They are like tribal warlords in some Mad Max alternate universe, punishing whoever bothers them at the moment.

There's a difference between weeding out obvious vandals and picking nits on marginal cases. I believe this is a form of anarcho-tyranny: “law without order: a constant busybodying about behavior that does not at all derive from a shared moral consensus."[47] Yakuman 19:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you've interacted with every one of the 1000+ admins in order to form such a broad comment? auburnpilot talk 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a representative sample. In this case, you determined this guy was a kook a priori and treated him likewise. I have no the interest in an edit war, nor do I enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Nor should citation requirements jump expontentially simply because a topic is controversial. I'm only saying that our anonymous friend has the same privileges as any other published writer here.Yakuman 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever said anything that characterizes this writer's viewpoint or sanity. My objections to his editing primarily concern the conflict of interest in promoting himself, and secondarily concern his incivility towards other editors. No one has any privileges or rights at Wikipedia. So long as people follow the policies and guidelines of this project they are welcome to contribute. -Will Beback · † · 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this guy asked for mediation and was refused. His opposition told him their demands were "non-negotiable." (Scroll up and you can see for yourself.) Who's being uncivil here? Yakuman 02:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declining mediation has nothing to do with civility. This user was blocked for spam/disruption/edit warring; there was nothing to mediate. Have you scrolled up? auburnpilot talk 05:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is never appropriate to call another editor a 'shit' (even if you add slashes), or a 'gauleiter': [48]. Not only does it fail to advance any sort of productive discussion, it also Godwins the whole argument.

I have suspended your ability to edit for 24 hours, and I hope that you will take this time to review Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks and civility. Further violations of either policy will result in additional, escalating blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed those policies many times, and nowhere did they say that certain people may engage in personal attacks, incivility, and stalking against certain other people (including calling them racists and vandalizing talk pages) with impunity, while the latter have no rights under the same rules, and may be blocked under the flimsiest pretext or even none at all. Maybe you can show me where those passages are that I missed.

"Not only does it fail to advance any sort of productive discussion, it also Godwins the whole argument."

The preceding statement suggests that it would have been ok had I used "commissar" or "goon" rather than "gauleiter," and that you thus would not have blocked me. Is that what you meant? For if you do not believe that such terms are permissible, it would mean that you had misrepresented your own belief, in order to score a cheap debating point. A word to the ... well, whatever: It is not only crying "Nazi" that can boomerang against one, but crying "Godwin's Law," can as well.

By the way, I notice that you have joined the cadre that is stalking my every move. How many of you are there at this point? Seven, eight? And since you have for months immediately censored every single edit that I have made, and now stalk any editor who has ever put in a good word for me, and immediately censor every single edit that he makes in support of me, how would blocking me have any further effect on me? Had you done due diligence, you would know that I hadn't made any edits to articles in days, all while your cadre has obsessed in print and in emails over me.

70.23.199.239 07:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely someone who has such a broad vocabulary is also bright enough to understand my meaning. Personal attacks – including but not limited to namecalling of any kind – are unacceptable. My note about Godwin's Law was merely an observation that your particular choice of insult weakened your credibility, in addition to being rude.

As to the rest of your conspiracy theory, I had never heard of you before a couple of hours ago. I blocked you because you made a gross personal attack on a talk page that I happened to have watchlisted, and because a short review of your contributions revealed that you have a history of incivil conduct on Wikipedia.

If you feel that your behaviour did not violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, feel free to use the {{unblock}} template to request an independent review of this block; another admin should be along shortly. If you believe that my conduct as an administrator has been inappropriate, you can seek review (after your block expires) at WP:AN/I or through a formal request for comment. I urge you to be both civil and concise in your remarks should you choose to file such a complaint. A more complete list of steps you may follow can be found in Wikipedia's guide to dispute resolution. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your replacement of the controversial content in the article used an edit summary that was both uncivil and misleading ("Restored censored section, as per current consensus). As you well know, there is no consensus to include this material; and you have been warned repeatedly that good faith content disputes are not "censorship". Moreover, you made numerous uncivil comments, false statements, personal attacks in a recent long comment on the Nadine Gordimer talk page:

• As for WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, User:lquilter cannot make a post without violating them. He’s been calling me a racist since he made my acquaintance. As far as he is concerned, anyone who disagrees with him on anything remotely touching on race is a racist. And that includes anyone who would say or write anything showing blacks behaving badly. Each one of these statements is false, and the third and fourth are also personal attacks.
• The past discussions were about NPOV and notability, but not in any objective sense; NPOV and notability were merely red herrings that User:lquilter used, in order to prevent, by any means necessary, this incident being recorded. Failure to WP:AGF.
• Other people were engaged in a hopeless attempt at placating him, not realizing that nothing would placate him, short of censoring any and all reference to the assault, which was almost certainly a racial attack. Mischaracterization of the discussion, which was for three months only carried on with 70.23.* arguing in the face of numerous editors saying that the information was not relevant (after we asked for an RFC to get other editors' opinions).
• When you were able to get some allies to help you gang up on me, you insisted, falsely, that I was the only person who wanted the material included, and that my position was therefore without merit, when in fact eight or more other previous editors had found it acceptable in one form or another (some with “black” in, some without reference to the attackers’ race). Another mischaracterization; see [49] where I broke down the edit history in response to 70.23.*'s repeated false assertions that numerous people had tried to put this information in.
• He is the one who must justify his position, something which he has never done. False. See extensive talk on Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2.
• I’m glad User:Lquilter isn’t a lawyer; were he to use such tactics while arguing court cases, he’d be disbarred. Personal attack (and arguably a veiled legal threat, since my User:Lquilter page makes it clear that I am, in fact, a lawyer).
• P.S. If you check Wikinews, you will see that there is no article on the assault on Gordimer, just as there is no link at this article about it. That was a clever dodge, but a dodge nonetheless. Mischaracterization of Andyparkerson's good faith efforts to write a Wikinews article.
• And the rest of 70.23.*'s long ranty comment is a series of repetition of earlier similar posts (see Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2), insulting and incendiary rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and irrelevant supposition and commentary.

Please review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --lquilter 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whittle all this down, the only option he has is to enter a long, drawn-out and unofficial mediation process which is weighed against him. Instead of trying to answer his point, you try to bury him in verbiage, policy statements, and irrelevant sparring. This is simply a creative way to violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Our anonymous colleague is in trouble because he brings up cited, relevant facts that others wants excised from the historical record, period.

I don't speak for him, but I do believe he is being unfairly hounded in this instance. There is no conspiracy (in this sense) when a group's behavior is open and public. Yakuman 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue spamming you will be blocked from editing. -Will Beback · † · 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, your numerous additions of links to articles by N. Stix are spamming this site. If you add another link to an article or website of that individual your editing privileges will be blocked temporarily. Please note that Wikipedia does not exist to promote Stix. -Will Beback · † · 16:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't give Stix fewer privileges than anyone else, either. I see admins (not you, Will) who behave worse than you say Stix behaves on a daily basis. Yakuman (数え役満) 12:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop lying about me, Will Beback. I have never engaged in spamming. Not at Antipedia, nor anywhere else. You simply call links to anyone you hate "spam," (Yes, hate.) in order to distract from your suppression of facts that do not support your ideology. Your renewed threat to block me – how many does that make? – is a feeble cover story meant to transform your vicious stalking and censoring of me into virtuous behavior. Stalking and censoring, by the way, that is not limited to my edits regarding, or links to any one writer. (There goes another of your tissue-thin cover stories.) I can only respond to your repeated attempts at intimidation by repeating myself: Since you and your fellow cadrists have already maintained a de facto block on me for months, how is your threat to make the block official supposed to strike fear in my heart?

But I will add one new thing. Since you have been stalking and censoring other people as well for the same non-existent infraction, do you plan on threatening to block them, as well? I'm going to profile your m.o.; let's see if I prove correct. You seek to promote the notion that I am some sort of lone crank, so as to promote the parallel fiction that you are a reasonable fellow. Once you have gotten me banned, however, you will start threatening the next non-Marxist (e.g., "lone crank"), and seeking to have him banned. There are so many “lone cranks”! Good thing you’ve got so many fellow cadrists willing to devote all their time to stalking and censorship, as opposed to reading and scholarship.

In struggle, 70.23.199.239 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. Notice, I did not say "please." You have now chosen to go beyond the months of politically motivated stalking and censoring that you, together with your comrades, have committed against every single edit I have made, to threaten yet another politically-motivated block.

I have never engaged in spamming; you are simply condemning as spam any material that you are politically opposed to, and extending your political retaliation. You are also engaging in revenge for my pointing out your violation of WP:VAN regarding the VDARE article. You are thus in violation of WP:CIV and WP:POV, as well, but who's counting? you have long since made clear that you hold the "rules" in utter contempt.

As I have said before, since you already have me under a months-old, de facto 24-7 block, what possible point could there be in "blocking" me? Would it be to deceive those unaware of your political stalking and censorship into thinking that this "block" would be a new move against me, as opposed to simply an official version of what you have already been doing to me day in and day out?

Do you really believe you are going to intimidate me, so late in the game, or is your point to intimidate others out of bucking you and your comrades? Or is stalking, censoring, and threatening dissenters who refuse to accept your propaganda simply a fetish that you repeat, regardless of the results? 70.23.199.239 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still finding silly instances of edit wars over benign, good faith edits by 70.*. See Hurricane Smith. See also WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Yakuman (数え役満) 20:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I haven't followed 70.23.*/Nicholas Stix' edits, I have yet to see any that are "benign, good faith". Perhaps Yakuman could give us some diffs to show these "benign, good faith" edits. --lquilter 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious good faith edit is Hurricane Smith. Since you are one of 70's lynch mob, let's discuss your tactics. Your mission right now is to censor the verified fact that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer. Our friend 70 originally brought the issues, AFAIK, before the federales chased him off Wikipedia. Then I stepped in to save his constructive edits.

On the black perps issue, I have produced a fair compromise that contains all details from both sides. LQ rejected it, mocked me for it, and even sought to have me blocked for it. (It's good form to let folks know that sort of thing, I think.) She claimed I added and readded unverified material (with sockpuppets[!]), when the text was my GF union of two versions in toto. Once I discovered the problem, in her complaint against me, I deleted it. She knew I had simply combined pre-existing grafs, this strikes me as an obvious WP:GAME to ensure that Wikipedia forgets that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer.

This defeats my assumption of good faith. Our friend 70's AGF died long ago -- and I don't fault him for it. You can't just go around persecuting fellow editors whom you categorize as the enemy. WP:CIVILITY and all that. Yakuman (数え役満) 03:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic: Our dispute is documented at Talk:Nadine Gordimer; we don't need to discuss it here. Regarding 70.23.*, please point to a diff that shows good faith. I note that one of 70.23.*'s issues is that she repeatedly reverts and describes the reverts as "reverting vandalism" or "reverting censorship", etc. So, any diff you present has to be evaluated in the context of the whole history of the article. --lquilter 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good faith edit

Did this deserve an edit war? It needed cleanup and a cite, sure, but this is obviously not spam or self-promotion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Smith&diff=93221974&oldid=93221291 Cleaned up version (my edit) is Hurricane Smith. I don't think it needs much context. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.23.*'s sole contribution to this page was an extension of her ongoing edit war with 130.* (an edit war they're both participating in). 70.23.* didn't fix the problem that 130.* pointed out (inappropriately on the mainspace page itself; diff), but simply reversed it (diff) The edit war over the local text is a separate issue: There are obvious problems with this text, not least of which is the fact that you don't need to disambiguate an entry for someone who is not listed in Wikipedia. These problems were fixed by Wnjr diff who cited WP:BIO and WP:RS to remove the text altogether, and (IMO) edit warring over the text started after that. So while I agree that 70.23.*'s didn't edit war about this page, 70.23.* carried over a preexisting edit war with 130.* onto this page; and I wouldn't therefore characterize 70.23.*'s edit as particularly helpful or an exemplar of good faith. --lquilter 13:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a difference between good editing and good faith. This edit reflects none of the usual charges: spam, COI, etc. If his entire agenda is disruption, this clearly contradicts it.
• In addition, you may disambiguate an entry for someone who is not listed in Wikipedia. It happens all the time. Anyway, there's an article now.
• He doesn't have to be an exemplar of good faith; I merely demonstrated him showing it. Yakuman (数え役満) 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in arguing about it. I agree that it wasn't bad faith like spam, sarcastic name-calling, disruption, etc. But I simply don't think that reverting in pursuit of an edit war is a good example of a "good faith" edit. We can agree to disagree on this matter: In the scheme of 70.23.*'s edits, this is certainly one of his less disruptive ones, and I'm willing to concede that reasonable people might diagree. The real point I suppose you're making is that 70.23* has almost certainly at one point or another done something that was constructive, beneficial, non-controversial, and in utter good faith. I suppose I can agree to that, but it doesn't change my assessment of the balance of 70.23.*'s contributions and conduct. --lquilter 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address has been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks. Durova^Charge! 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't edited since yesterday, which was only one post, on his own talk page, above. There's been been heat on both sides. I don't claim to speak for 70 -- and I understand the admin's mission to enforce policy -- but I feel that this action only worsens existing hurt feelings. Please, please reconsider. Yakuman (数え役満) 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to say that the discussion on what to include (if anything) about the robbery of [Nadine Gordimer] has gone on for several months and has gotten us nowhere. Each side is still arguing its original points, and there seems to be no spirit of cooperation here, or willingness to compromise on key issues. Lquilter has repeatedly mentioned that mediation might be a good idea, and I must agree with her. Mediation is a voluntary process, and its results are non-binding. If both sides do not agree to the mediation, then it will not occur, for its results would then be meaningless. It is, however, the next step toward Arbitration, which is binding. The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to all parties. It is not to force one viewpoint on others. It is very important that all sides agree to this mediation. I am in the process of drafting the Request for Mediation. If you have a problem with mediation, or do not wish to participate, please speak up now at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#Mediation. Andyparkerson 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No wikilawyering please, I'm English.

Mediation simply drags out a silly dispute longer. One problem is that Stix was chased off and has no say in any of this, so I get to do twice the work. I also don't see to have the inordinate amount of time to fight over one issue that LQ seems to have. You seem to basically agree with her on everything anyway, Andyparkerson.

If you think Wikipedia is supposed to be a bastion of sensitivity, see Crystal Gail Mangum, where the entire article raises more issues than our disputed paragraph. Good grief, its an African-American female rape accuser illustrated with a mugshot! If y'all want to dispute, go fight over that one.

{The very fact that there's a dispute is evidence that there's political ramifications to the incident, which deserve coverage. Otherwise, the article is a banal hagiography anyway. We don't really need more wikilawyering over this. Let the readers read what I provided and let them make their own conclusions. Yakuman (数え役満) 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have retracted my initial refusal of mediation to allow 70.* a chance to vote on this matter. Since he has been the flag-bearer on this issue, if he votes "Agree," I intend to go along with him. That's only fair. Yakuman (数え役満) 08:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the wikicensors' Conflict of Interest page to see the essay with the above title -- while it's still there. The page is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

Then hit the link at my IP, currently #4 with a bullet, to get to the bill of indictments and my response. I tried several times to enter the direct link here, but each time I did, the edit page blanked out.

Lovers of real encyclopedias will cheer my ripostes, while totalitarians will tear their hair out, which I guess is a form of pleasure for them.

In struggle, 70.23.199.239 05:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, click the mediation link here. Are you in or out? Yakuman (数え役満) 06:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the page in question, and it said that if I didn't respond, it would be the same as declining. So, I'm not dignifying their page with a response.

70.23.199.239 08:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation would bring in people who have not been involved in these disputes, so they would be untainted by any other disputes with you or me. Wouldn't that be helpful? Win or lose, either way we could all focus our energies on other things. --lquilter 12:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s see. People who have imposed a de facto permanent block on me now want me to agree to “mediation.” What’s wrong with this picture?

More images. The other day, I stumbled onto a cell WP:COIN in which Lquilter and some of her cronies had a few weeks ago begun organizing a lynch mob to do officially what has already been done to me informally for the last, I don’t know, almost five months, and have me banned. One of their implied cover stories is that this lynching has nothing to do with Lquilter’s need to control the Nadine Gordimer fan page. But if that is so, why is he the loudest voice? Other comrades in the cell include User:Durova, User:Athaenara, and User:EdJohnston, who were saying that I have “behavioral issues.” Translated into English, that means that if they had the power they crave, they would prefer to have me incarcerated in a psycho gulag and shot up with drugs, rather than have me shot behind the ear.

(When the cadrists at the admin level want to “give you the business,” as Ben Dreith used to say, they play a rotation strategy. The thug who wants to give it to you hands the job off to a comrade, so as to have plausible deniability. Since they are always doing each other’s dirty work, complaining about administrative thuggery is a waste of time, unless you have about thirty friends all willing to dive into the enemy’s trench at the same time. And even then … there are better ways of dealing with these, ahem, people.)

Durova is the thug who just officially blocked me for 48 hours, threatening me that I’d better be “more civil” or he’d … he’d … well, what the hell would or could he do to me, in addition to what he and his comrades have already been doing? He’s on a par with those jailhouse gang rapists who tear a white guy’s butt wide open, infect him with HIV, and then tell him that if he complains, they’ll really hurt him.

Nah, someone like that would never be satisfied with merely interning his enemies in a psych gulag – only the bullet behind the ear will do, preferably after some good, old-fashioned, Cheka-style torture.

However, Durova went beyond threats and attempted intimidation against moi, and on Lquilter’s behalf, made a thinly veiled threat to block/ban Yakuman, if the latter does not cease and desist from defending me against Lquilter and Durova’s fellow cadrists. So, Durova is guilty of two counts each of WP:Stalking, WP:CIV, and a million billion or so other wikicrimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Wikipedia_as_a_reliable_source

Durova to Yakuman:

“If you wish to defuse tensions then the best thing you could do is tone down your own posts regarding that dispute, not so much toward me as toward the involved parties. DurovaCharge! 04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)”

Meanwhile, Lquilter, true to his m.o., could not constrain himself to wait until after he had gotten me banned, and is already trying to get Yakuman banned, as well. Lquilter is already using the same epithets – so much for WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc. – he has recently used against me against Yakuman for also having had the temerity to contradict him, which is a capital offense in these parts. Since anyone who disagrees with Lquilter is by definition “intolerant” and a “racist,” and the principle “no tolerance for the intolerant” is in operation, he feels no obligation to respect rules like WP:CIV in regards to the likes of Yakuman.

So, the game plan went like this. Stage I: Lquilter would get me permanently banned. Stage II: As soon as that went though, he would get Yakuman permanently banned. Stage III: Lquilter would remove any references to the robbery and assault on Nadine Gordimer.

The fly in the ointment was that Lquilter could not control himself, and prematurely began the campaign to ban Yakuman. If he couldn’t wait to begin the anti-Yakuman campaign, and is already accusing him of “tendentiousness,” “‘gaslighting,’” i.e., the identical charges Lquilter had recently, and even on the same page just made against me, then I doubt he will be able to wait until Yakuman’s ban has gone through, before censoring the essential information from the Nadine Gordimer fan page.

To make a short story long, I’d have to be out of my mind to consent to “mediation.” I once actually went to the trouble of asking for one of those thingies in dealing with some cadrist comrades of Lquilter’s, and they told me to go to hell. In another case, months ago, I also jumped through all of the hoops, only to be ignored. But that’s alright. I knew the game was rigged, but was giving my antagonists enough rope to hang themselves.

With that accomplished, I have no more need to play along with Antipedia’s Kangaroo courts. So, no, I will not consent to “mediation.” 70.23.199.239 13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP account is blocked for one month due to persistent personal attacks. It is the fourth block for that cause. -Will Beback · † · 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go, Will! You really showed me, pal! So, you and your comrades can engage in constant violations of WP:STALKING, and in their cases, with your muscle behind them, WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:ADINFINITUM and WP:ADNAUSEAM, and I'm supposed to not only take it, but say, "Can I have some more, Sir?"

Nice work, if you can get it.

And the meaning of this block is ... what? Since you've already been stalking me for months, censoring all of my edits, and conspiring with your comrades to have me banned, what did you accomplish? t most, you got a rush of self-esteem, i.e., self-righteousness, as if you weren't already overdosing on it.

By the way, if you are going to post messages on my user talk page, you will respect the English language. Thus, while I have preserved your vicious content, I have corrected your sorry English. Anyone who wants to read the original, is welcome to read the "diff." I can't stop your ugly conduct, but I can do something about your mangling of the language. 70.23.199.239 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The expression is "At most", not "t most". Sorry English, indeed.

--posted by:130.156.31.76 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I posted to user talk:Yakuman the offer remove the block if you'll stop making uncivil remarks to your fellow editors. Such remarks, including what you've just written, are not tolerated here. This is an encyclopedia-writing project - it's neither a schoolyard brawl nor even a debating society. Complaints against you for personal attacks have been made by many editors and admins. You are welcome to contribute here if you can avoid commenting negatively on your fellow editors and if you follow the rest of our policies. -Will Beback · † · 20:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]