User talk:WarriorScribe/Archive4

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich arbitration

Your last comment in the evidence section is in Ben's evidence area, one isn't supposed to put comments in other peoples evidence sections. JoshuaZ 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right...I moved it to the talk page. - WarriorScribe 20:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for abritration has been filed against you

Hi WarriorScribe. Since the arbitrators (apparently) didn't see the evidence in the Gastrich RFA, I've filed one. This is not meant to be in malice (though I'm sure some will not see it that way no matter what I do), I really want to know what the arbitrators think about this, because this is something new for Wikipedia. Feel free to simply add your old reply in for your statement, which I personally thought was quite candid and forthright. I just want to know what the ArbCom thinks, and I would like it to be "official." I'm hoping they will come up with a principle that everyone can agree to and abide by. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Markkbilbo.2C_Harvestdancer.2C_Daycd.2C_Dbiv.2C_WarriorScribe --Ben 07:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, of course it was meant in malice. For one thing, the header on my page says that this is an arbitration filed against me, while the header on Gastrich's page says that it's "involving you." And isn't it interesting that this occurs after Gastrich has been banned. Malice seems to be what Ben is all about, but I smell Gastrich pulling the strings. Having a site action filed against him and then trying to retaliate by using site mechanisms is vintage Gastrich. Gastrich can't do it, himself, and he hasn't fooled anyone with his sock puppets. However, if the members of the site admin are willing to waste their time with this, and declare it a valid ArbCom issue, I'll respond as time permits, and cooperate fully. - WarriorScribe 14:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Actually, it was Benapgar (Ben) who filed this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)~~ Sorry, should have read more carefully. Feel free to delete this nonsense... I'm getting more coffee. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm still working on my first cup, as well. - WarriorScribe 15:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the RFAr filed against Gastrich was already done. This one is against you, and involving Gastrich. The first one was involving you and against Gastrich. Wake up and smell your own coffee. --Ben 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, please see how most other RfAs have been notified, for example see Gastrich's own notification here: [1]. I see no mention of anything like "against you" in that. In other examples even when a specific party is named in the RfA title, this still holds true. See for another recent example this dif or this dif. So no Ben, desrcribing it as against someone is quite unique to you. In general, you seem to see everything on Wikipedia as a bit more confrontational than it needs to be. Please try to remember that we are trying to make an encyclopedia here. JoshuaZ 21:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, [2]. If you're going to go around playing defence lawyer for everyone I talk to at least get your facts straight. --Ben 22:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...you fouled up and claimed that Mark Bilbo is the founder of maleboge.org and, for some reason, you didn't seem to notice that Gastrich brought two off-site issues into Wikipedia for his own attempt at building a battleground. Before you presume to lecture others about getting facts straight, young man, you'd best cover the walls in your glass house. - WarriorScribe 05:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, it might help if you looked at the entries google returned. While a small number of the entries are uses similar to the way you have used the phrase, most of the listed entries, such as this one are from users who were ultimately found to be disruptive, problematic and/or had their RfA rejected. Furthermore, many of the entries that google returned are simply irrelevant, like this one, where "against" came up in a completely different phrase on the page [3]. JoshuaZ 22:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well let me just step into my time machine and find out what happens with the RfAr I filed. Let's see.... wow you're right, it turns out it was rejected because I used the word "against" on a user's talk page. Who woulda thunk it? --Ben 23:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was and still is about general attitude. Wikipedia isn't about confrontations and filing things "against." Such a view is ultimately unproductive and self-defeating. We are attempting to work together to make an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ 23:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste your breathe Joshua. David D. (Talk) 23:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please don't. Here's a better link gs for "request for Arbitration against" gives 214 results. Take it up with all of them. Better yet, post your concerns about how it makes Wikipedia "about confrontations" and is "ultimately unproductive and self-defeating" when people file things "against" on WT:RFAr if it concerns you so much, which I bet it doesn't, because I bet you won't even bring it up there let alone push for a required, standard, and "non-confrontational" way of informing people about RFAr's involving them. You're just trying to make me look like an asshole for using the word "against" and, for some strange reason, I'm not really appreciating that. --Ben 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting the whole RfA is a waste of time and you are being provacative. It has nothing to do with anything specific that you have written but the big picture of what you are trying to do. David D. (Talk) 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, many of the above google links still suffer from the above comments. And in any event, I am attempting to give you a piece of advice about your general attitude. This is but one symptom of many symptoms of it. If you continue to ignore the advice of other Wikipedians, don't be surprised when problems crop up. The above is exactly what I am talking about, rather than think about my advice, you spent the time arguing and presenting evidence that other people had done the same thing. This is most likely the final time I am going to repeat this. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. Please try to remember this. JoshuaZ 01:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want, nor do I appreciate your advice. If you think your advice will help Wikipedia, bring it up at WT:RFAr. Have a nice day Josh. --Ben 02:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Benapgar uses cuss-words, and I've not seen Gastrich do that. I tink it most likely that Apgar is just a garden-variety frustrated POV-pusher. Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Shocka5 was a confirmed sockpuppet of Jason which swore, in any event, I don't think Warrior is arguing above that Ben is Jason, merely that Jason is behind this. IMO, I don't think Warriorscribe is correct, Ben seems to have been doing his own thing for a while. JoshuaZ 16:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure that Ben is the writer of the complaint--I'm not suggesting that he's a sock. I merely suggested that he might be a meat-puppet and Gastrich may be pulling his strings (note might and may). He'll also pull the strings of other "Christians" when it suits him (a previous example is "Bible John," though that came back to bite him in the butt). For the record, Gastrich will use profanity against others when it suits him, and then chide others for using it at other times. Hypocrisy is part of his charm, I guess. I do agree that this attempt at retaliation is probably the result of frustration. Obviously, whatever "investigation" that might have taken place wasn't very competent. It was Gastrich who turned Wiki into a battleground (specifically, he brought off-site conflicts over Reggie Finley/Wife Swap and Mark Bilbo into Wiki and tried to edit articles about them based on those off-site conflicts). There's no mention of that, while the presence of those of us whom oppose Gastrich's efforts to "Christianize" Wikipedia simply want to work to maintain as much of a neutral POV as possible with respect to articles. That's a huge difference. Gastrich didn't see it. It's no surprise that "Ben" doesn't see it, either. Later, folks! Off to work! - WarriorScribe 16:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slight OT remark: In an odd way, the Gastrich thing is good for Wikipedia in that it did bring new editors to the wiki who might not have been otherwise involved, and resulted in the substantial improvement in whole classes of articles (for example unaccredited schools). Ah well, maybe that's just me trying to look on the bright side. JoshuaZ 16:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit war on the typosquatting article. The typosquatting article. How controversial is that article? Yet, there it is. An edit war between you and Gastrich. Who started adding in information about Gastrich there? Yes, that's right: You.--Ben 21:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we've had edit wars over far more trivial things, see Lamest edit wars ever. JoshuaZ 22:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More cluelessness and assumption. Pay no attention to that whooshing noise... - WarriorScribe 05:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a lame edit war and flamebait, and you know it.--Ben 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a difference between flamebait and exposing the unseemly tactics of a so-called "Christian," but I wouldn't credit you with knowing that. - WarriorScribe 07:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And p.s., you've had it in for me for quite a long time. Until just a few days ago, I have never even had any contact with you whatsoever. Think about that. Whose name is on your so-called "Wikipedia fundamentalist watch?" When did it get there? Barring the short discussion I had with you on Gastrich's RFar a few days ago when have I ever said a word to you? The only time I have even mentioned your name was on wikipediareview a few weeks before this, regarding exactly what I am bringing before ArbCom. And that was still a long time after you put me on your little blacklist.--Ben 21:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, now we're going to whine? Look, junior, I put the list up, and it was suggested that I add you. I looked at your "contributions," such as they are, and agreed that you fill the criteria. I can only track one POV pusher at a time, and the list is more for information than anything else. If you have a problem being on it, your solution is simple: Grow up. - WarriorScribe 05:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment that indicates that Gastrich was behind it

An interesting note

"Uncle Davey" tells us here that there is a potential revolution in his wife's country and that he doesn't have time to respond and give my comments the "contempt" that they "deserve. But he seems to have plenty of time, at the same time, to get into a lengthy argument, as we see below ( - WarriorScribe 19:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC) ):[reply]

In his RfA, "Ben" wrote, "the jcsm-watch group was founded by David Sienkiewicz, whom Gastrich says is another of WarriorScribe's usernames." David was not one of my "usernames," of course. He was a real, living person whom Gastrich and his cronies have chosen to malign. The claim that we are one and the same was most frequently made by "Uncle Davey," not Gastrich. Gastrich, to my knowledge, has never made this claim publicly, so I'd be curious where "Ben" got this "information." It doesn't seem likely, however, that Gastrich believes this, since Gastrich once swore an oath to God never to address David Sienkiewicz, but he has addressed me several times since then and even relatively recently, both under his own name and as a sock puppet. If he addressed me believing that David Sienkiewicz is a username of mine, then he violated his oath to God. At any rate, absent evidence of any public claim, prior to this date, by Gastrich, that David's was a username of mine, I must assume that this was something he and "Ben" discussed in private, as part of the impetus to file the now-rejected RfA. - WarriorScribe 07:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still do think that you were behind the Sienkiwicz character, for whose physical existence there is still not one shred of evidence despite my calling for it over one year ago and on regular intervals since. Nevertheless, we cannot say that Br. Jason wittingly broke that oath by addressing you, as he himself may not have been convinced immediately that you two are one and the same - oh and Carson West, also, although I did state to him privately my view that this is the case. Later on he discovered and shared with me further corroborative evidence about your common identity with Sienkiewicz. This is not a criticism of you, since both the Sienkiewicz puppet and the West puppet were both pieces of Usenet genius, I just wish you would finally cough up to it, that's all. Anyway, that's by the by.

I am far from sure that Br. Jason is behind this current matter. Since matters have been fairly quiet between the two of you for a while what earthly sense would it have to dredge it all up again? I suspect someone else is behind this, someone who gets a ick out of all that conflict, and who is a consummate shootstirrer and I think you have a good idea who I might think is behind it. There's very conveniently a space for that charactyer to "have his say" but when I looked that character conveniently hadn't noticed it yet. I'm certainly not getting involved on that page and you will not see any votes from me on that page, either in favour or against. My only point is for you and your fraternity to keep an open mind on who might be doing this, as I don't think it's anything to do with Br. Jason. Uncle Davey (Talk) 10:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Atheists regularly go to all this trouble to surround Britsh accountants. And we're all sock puppets. Didn't you know? There are actually only two people on the Internet. You and Us (for we are Legion bwahahahahahhahahaaa). In fact, the entire Internet is actually a scheme cooked up to confound you. Nobody else is actually aware any such thing exists. Just you. You're the only one who "sees" an "Internet." None of the rest of us actually exist.

(Interesting that it took all of three hours for you to show up.) Mark K. Bilbo 16:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: No reply to your comment about the time...nor mine. Just "you started it," when all I did was point out that he's the only one who keeps attributing other personalities to me. Methinks the boyo's getting a mite sensitive... - WarriorScribe 04:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have anything to say about the time matter as i think all intelligent readers will figure out for themselves that it is an irrelevancy. It might have been three hours, it might have been thirty three. The reason is, if you so want to know, is that I came on Wikipedia to see if anyone had edited my recent article on energy forestry, and when I switched my watch list on, I saw activity on some of your club's pages, which are all on my watch list, just in case you pull any stunts like this.

Rrrrriiiiiggggghhhtttt...uh, huh. Sure. Davey just happened to want to look at an article, and he just happened to look at his "watch list," which just happens to have the "club's" pages on it (again, so much for wanting to be left in peace). All of that just happened to occur less than three hours after the posting. I actually think that most intelligent readers wouldn't know why that is relevant, but those who know the history certainly do know the relevance. I guess they might also wonder what the "stunt" was supposed to be, since the only mention of Davey was that he is the only one whom has publicly made the claims that were attributed to Gastrich in this thread. That's it. That's all that there was to it; but Davey once again overreacted. He usually does that when he's been caught at something, and he's been caught at something, again. Tick, tock...tick, tock. - WarriorScribe 15:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that Davey has slyly ignored this comment, and we still don't know what the "stunt" was supposed to be. Recall that all that was done was to cite Davey as the only previous claimant with respect to alleged sock-puppetry on my part. That's all that was said, and it was true, but it brought Davey running into the discussion less than three hours after the comment was posted. Davey is trying to introduce off-site commentary, elsewhere, and seems rather put off by the fact that I won't answer him, here. "Always jam tomorrow," he lies, when he responds to my refusal to allow him to dictate the course of the discussion. But when it comes to things that have occurred right here at Wiki, he's out of the pool. He won't respond. That's one of his methods. He gets caught saying something stupid or he makes a false claim about which he is questioned, and he does everything that he can to try to divert attention from it. I have multiple examples of this that were discovered during my research into his manipulative tactics. We'll have the chance to see them all. Tick, tock...tick, tock... - WarriorScribe 16:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not out of any pool, Zazu. I simply stated what I did in a courteous way, and I think the readers can see that I was a jolly sight more courteous to you than your reply to me was, in response to your bringing up my name in an out of context fashion. You seemed to wish to make out that I am somehow involved in referring your club for arbitration, whereas I am telling you it was nothing to do with me. You don't have to believe that if you don't want to, but I think I have the right to reply at least here when you bring my name up, even though you've recently had the honesty to make it abundantly clear that I don't have that right when you call the shots. [4]. Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davey once again shows that he seems to be incapable of reading for context. He was not brought up in an "out of context fashion," as was clearly shown. "Ben" attributed a claim to Gastrich that had previously been a claim that only Davey has made and asserted (repeatedly) elsewhere, and I said as much. That was really all that there was to it, and that much is clear. There was really no more to it than that, but Davey is a very sensitive sort of person, and so it's not surprising that he'd take offense. Also, he claims that I want to make him "involved" in the arbitration, and I never wrote that nor made that claim. I simply wrote that he was "involved," and wrote nothing else, in response to his comments. Davey has done what he frequently does: He took a comment, removed it from context, attributed his own view to it, and insists that his way is the way that it is. That's false. As for Davey's whimpering about his "right to reply," which he thinks should be completely unfettered, let's put it back in context, shall we? The simple fact is that Davey has had some messages rejected by me, as one of the moderators of the group, because he used the commentary to launch personal attacks against others in the group, as well as to teach him a much needed lesson that seems to have gone completely over his head. I suspect that it's just matter of time before we are both reminded by site administration, here, that we don't have an unfettered "right of reply" on Wikipedia, either. Tick, tock...tick, tock... - WarriorScribe 18:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, what a surprise! Gastrich's pit yorkie shows up, too, with the same refuted lies, and so soon after it starts. Hmmm...wonder what all that whimpering about "leave me in peace" was about, if he wanted to try to remove himself from these things and be uninvolved. But he is involved...and his day is coming...tick, tock, tick tock. - WarriorScribe 15:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling you that I am not involved. You invoked me above by talking about me, and I simply came to explain what you said about me. As ever, you started it. As for this "tick tock" nonsense of yours, I say about that what I say about a bad-paying debtor - the longer it goes on the less chance there is that any payback will ever happen. If you had anything to say, you would have said it while it was still topical. As it is, all I hear is this continual threat of some future action by you, but I know by now that it is just posturing and bluster. Moreover, kindly explain why, since more than six months have now elapsed since my rebuttal to Professor Norman, you are not getting on his case to answer me as you used to get on my case to answer him? Explain please why it should be that all vertebrate life higher than Agnatha is supposed to have evolved in river systems when there is no evidence of any river systems having been large enough to accomodate that?Uncle Davey (Talk) 20:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davey is never anything if not dishonest and disingenuous. He knows full well that retibution is coming, just as he lied so often when he would make pretenses about my response pattern with respect to him, and has lied about the attribution of other persons to me. Davey also knows, as I have told him enough times, that my responses to him will occur at a time of my choosing and at a time when he figures he'll never see them. We can see that he's almost there, already, but I have set my date. It will not change. His whimperings about the response of Professor Norman are equally disingenuous, particularly since his own Usenet participation has been cut back considerably and Norman is not known as one whom avoids issues. Davey is one known to do that, usually with rambling stories, misrepresentation of what has been said or written, and misdirection on those occasions when he does respond. Davey may claim to "know" that I am engaging in "posturing and bluster," which is really more his style than mine; but I think, deep down, he knows better. Davey's come-uppance is nigh, and it will happen when I decide. It will not be prompted nor hastened by his whining. Never forget that Davey is very much involved, despite his denials. If that was not so, he'd have nothing to worry about. As for me "starting it," though it's hard to imagine a more juvenile argument, the fact is that all I wrote was that the only person whom had ever made the claim about me and David Sienkiewicz was "Uncle Davey." So what, exactly, was "started?" I stated a fact and, less than three hours later, I might add, Davey affirmed it. Davey usually acts emotionally like this when he's been caught at something. It's almost certainly happened again here. - WarriorScribe 03:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've written so many times about come-uppance when you (note emphasis) decide, Zazu, and I should think most people have long since stopped believing in it. Nobody prepares a load of material and then doesn't post it just for effect. This is not a Moody Blues world. Nobody would write 31 articles about an opponent and then wait for them to go stale instead of using them. It's a useless, pointless tactic. The fact that it is, I'll grant you, a bit original if you do it doesn't take away from the fact that iut is counterintuitive behaviour to anyone with any understanding of either how media works or human psychology works. All you are doing is, noting how your attrition wasn't affecting me as I had already identified your tactic, changing it to some 'sword of damacles meets the emperor's new clothes" threat of some devastating articles about me you were going to write, and this was supposed to keep me sweating? Wot larks! If you had the wherewithal to write such stuff you would have been happy enough to do post it long ago and have done with me. So your accusation that I am "dishonest and disingenuous" is very hypocritical, bearing in mind the insincere tactics you use ... but then you don't have any others left, do you?

I should thank Davey for fodder for yet another rebuttal article, and I continue to be amused at what such an imbalanced mind would describe with respect to what others would do. I also continue to be amused at one such as Davey whom has, well, let's just say that he gets a tad creative with the truth and then presumes to chide others about integrity. Ah, but who can blame the sort of mind that feels that being dishonest in the cause of the Gospel is the "lesser of two evils." Never mind that he could never provide the Scriptural basis or a Biblical explanation for it. Besides, there are now more than 40 articles and Davey is sweating. I've made my decision. I'll post them when I'm good and ready, and I don't require that everyone or anyone understands why I will do it that way. It will happen (I've already given Davey his come-uppance a number of times so both he and other readers know that it can be done and that I can do it). The decision stands, and there's nothing that he can do about it. Tick, tock...tick, tock... - WarriorScribe 15:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken like a true psychopath. Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tick, tock...tick, tock... - WarriorScribe 23:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, this "true psychopath" simply will point out that Davey's failure to understand the tactic does not require my explaining it to him, nor does it require that I explain just how he gets it wrong, just as he gets so much of everything else wrong. - 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well! My, my! That changes everything! Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC) (PS: Always jam tomorrow).[reply]

The "always jam tomorrow" is another of Davey's lies. He wants the reader to believe that he generally makes some point of comment and my response "always" is to put off a response. He knows better. Generally, our history has been that my response has usually been very quick, usually within hours or, at most, a couple of days[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. More often than not, my word on an issue between us is the last word, because it usually exposes him for what he is--a fraud, a phony, a mean-spirited, hateful manipulator, a prevaricator, and a liar. One needn't be fooled by Davey's pretenses. Tick, tock...tick, tock... - WarriorScribe 16:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Moreover, kindly explain why, since more than six months have now elapsed since my rebuttal to Professor Norman, you are not getting on his case to answer me as you used to get on my case to answer him? Explain please why it should be that all vertebrate life higher than Agnatha is supposed to have evolved in river systems when there is no evidence of any river systems having been large enough to accomodate that?" Do any of your pretend links above actually answer that question, or are you just wriggling again, and trying to throw off the readership with irrelevant and tendentious material? Now let's sit back and watch as Zazu does whatever he can to wriggle out of the question. Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now Davey wants to whimper and whine that I am not getting on Professor Norman's case, as I did on him, when the good professor did not respond to Davey's comments in the newsgroup, talk.origins. I've already answered this, but as usual, Davey is disingenuous and can't resist the temptation to whine. At the time that I did get on Davey's case, we were both participating in Usenet quite a bit. At the moment, and for some time now, I have not (and neither has he). I have also pointed out that it is not Professor Norman whom has a reputation for avoiding points with misdirection and disingenuousness. Davey does do those things. If Davey really feels that Professor Norman should answer him, he should work up the courage to say so in the group in which he posted his message (and doing so along with his criticism of me would make that criticism more appropriate). As far as I know, he has not pushed for a response, so that makes his criticism here more an example of empty rhetoric rather than a reasonable point or argument. I have also pointed out that his pretense to pushing discussion of commentary and subjects that were, until just a couple of days ago, not the topic of discussion, is another rhetorical device. Davey wants me to move my time table for his come-uppance to suit him, or, at least, wants to bait into a discussion that we were not having just a few short days ago. It's typical of him. "Answer me now or continue to 'wriggle,'" is, I guess, his tactic, here. It's pretty transparent, actually. But that's okay. It's quite normal for him. I will answer Davey in my own good time and in my own way, and it won't be on Wikipedia talk pages that very few will read. No, no...it will be presented to a much wider audience in multiple Usenet groups. Meanwhile, it's interesting that Davey has criticized the time I am taking to respond to him and pointing out that it's not an effective tactic. Indeed, his continuous whining and attempts to get a response sooner than I plan are evidence that, indeed, the tactic is quite effective. - WarriorScribe 19:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice, also, that Davey doesn't say anything at all about my exposure of his "always jam tomorrow" lie. That's par for the course, too. He thinks that he can misdirect the discussion far enough that no one will notice, but it's actually the subject of an entire article about his tactics. By the way, the number is not "31." There are just a few more than that, now, including one that discusses the theory about his so-called "friendship" with Jason Gastrich, which some of us now feel is just a ruse so that Davey could goad and prompt confrontation between that rather abrasive personality and others, all for his own amusement. Stay tuned. It's going to be fun. - WarriorScribe 19:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, on the issue of the "pretend links" above. Well...I don't know, they look like actual links to me, and they were designed to show exactly what I said they would show, that is, that the "always jam tomorrow" claim by Davey is a lie. The record shows that I have usually responded to him (and rebutted or refuted him) very quickly. Notice how Davey tries to be sly here and pretend that those links should actually represent something else. This is one of Davey's rather sly ways to play rhetorician. Sometimes it works, that is, some readers will be fooled. But a careful reading shows it to be what it usually is, that is, empty rhetoric. Attempting to tell another person what his comments should say or what his argument was supposed to be (when, in fact, that's not what the comment says or what the argument should be) is a frequent device that Davey tries to use to misdirect or derail the thread of discussion. Sadly for him, that's not usually the case. Tick, tock...tick, tock... - WarriorScribe 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now kindly answer the questions in my rebuttal to Professor Norman, since you said that you would take on the action of any evolution-related questions, and you diverted me onto the venerable Professor as a way of getting out of it. He has not answered the question, so your endorsed bill of intellectual exchange has recoursed back to you. Now let's sit back and watch as Zazu does whatever he can to wriggle out of the question Uncle Davey (Talk) 14:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous, misprepresentative, dishonest...as usual. That's Davey. But his prattlings and whinings and lies don't change my time-table, nor does his lack of discernment. Still, I wonder when "Ben" will chide him for bringing on an off-Wiki "battle" into these talk pages. Don't hold your breath. Tick, tock...tick, tock - WarriorScribe 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said "Now let's sit back and watch as Zazu does whatever he can to wriggle out of the question". Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tick, tock...tick, tock...on the other hand, perhaps Davey has done so much wriggling, himself, that we should consider that, just as he sees sock puppets in so many places because of his own tendencies when it comes to using them (as well as manipulating low-brained types like Gastrich for his own amusement), Davey will see wriggling where it is not, if only so he can try to bring others down to his level. Regardless. I've made my promise...I'll keep it. - WarriorScribe 23:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always jam tomorrow, never jam today. Like I said "Now let's sit back and watch as Zazu does whatever he can to wriggle out of the question". Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "always jam tomorrow" is another of Davey's lies. He wants the reader to believe that he generally makes some point of comment and my response "always" is to put off a response. He knows better. Generally, our history has been that my response has usually been very quick, usually within hours or, at most, a couple of days. Davey also knows full well that a discussion of the subjects that he presumes to introduce will, sooner or later, be prohibited in Wikipedia under several provisions of Wiki rules (including the afore-mentioned prohibition on the entry of "battles" into the encyclopedia pages). There's no "wriggling" here, that's just more of Davey's rhetoric. Davey jumps into the discussion, expects to change the subject or the rules, and we're to drop everything to accommodate him. But I have my own way of accommodating Davey. Tick, tock...tick, tock... - WarriorScribe 16:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tick, tock...tick, tock... - WarriorScribe 03:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben is clearly connected with these Gastrich-related Usenet conflicts some way or another. I do not think he's a sock or meat puppet (and if it's a sock, Jason is now good enough at it to fool me). Anyway, what boggles the mind is that someone familiar with these usenet conflicts (and possibly involved in them) and working on the side of Gastrich on Wikipedia (I think we can safely call this ArbCom request proof of that) seems to think he can accuse people of forming a cabal while clearly being part of his own cabal. Playing this via ArbCom makes this kinda look like a youth whose friend just got a speeding ticket taking revenge by racing a carful of cops to prove they're driving too fast. AvB ÷ talk 09:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) WarriorScribe, I am not Jason Gastrich.
- I didn't say you were. Learn to read.
  - Ok, I am not Gastrich's meat puppet. --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Ben" is quite clearly Gastrich's meat puppet. "Am not" is not sufficient to convince me otherwise.
      - Tell me, how popular is the band Cannibal Corpse amongst Christian fundamentalists? You are a fucking tool. --Ben 07:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow! Skewered by that rapier-like wit...and by a meat puppet, no less. Guess I'll be crying myself to sleep, tonight... - WarriorScribe 07:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Some more of "Ben's" cleverness appears to have been removed]

- - - - Well, it wouldn't be the first time I saw a meatpuppet engage in profanity. I must say that I am impressed, yet again, with the clever retort, and the intelligent manner in which he handles criticism, including the addition of what he presumes is a clever picture file. Fascinating. I guess, when "Ben," here, told us he was done, he lied. That's not a first, either. - WarriorScribe 08:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben wrote "Tell me, how popular is the band Cannibal Corpse amongst Christian fundamentalists?" Did anyone check out his one edit on that band? I'm convinced. David D. (Talk) 08:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ben is probably telling the truth in that regard, some of his other edits point to strong POVing for environmentalism and anti-Bushim. See these [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] When I saw this dif: [18] I almost thought he was some sort of weird fanatical deist, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. I think he's his own thing. JoshuaZ 16:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

b) The connection? I was searching for cabals on Usenet because I was hoping to find FeloniousMonk's cabal.
- Let's consider this: "I was searching for cabals on Usenet because I was hoping to find FelnoiousMonk's cabal."
  - I missed the part where you consider this. Perhaps the Wikipedighost of Jason Gastrich swooped in to erase it? --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or perhaps the very real and living "Ben" didn't get the point. There's that whooshing sound, again...

I stumbled upon maleboge by connecting the dots. Your constant discussion about Wikipedia was obviously a cabal, so I decided to use it to see if ArbCom would establish precedent.
- A discussion of Wikipedia in an outside discussion area does not meet any definition of "cabal" of which I am aware. There was no conspiracy, no false identities created, no secrecy, no attempt to hide anything, no coordination...none of that. There was only discussion.
  - A conspiracy then. A collusion of like-minded agenda-driven editors. Is that better? Can you understand it better? --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Asked and answered. "No conspiracy, no false identities...no coordination...none of that. There was only discussion." "Ben" likes to snipe at others and play word games. "Can you understand it better," he asks, rhetorically; but I understood it just fine the first time. He was wrong then, and he's wrong now.

This would have (might still, since there are only two rejects) save me a hell of a lot of time for me when it comes to my approach on the RfAr Felonious filed against me, whether or not editing Wikipedia through outside groups, i.e. talk.origins, are frowned upon or not.
- As much as some in Wikipedia try to make it an island, it is not, regardless of the paranoid prattlings of a dissatisfied editor.
  - Paranoid prattlings? Take a look in the mirror. --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And now we get "I know I am but what are you" in typical, juvenile fashion. This is almost too easy...

Maleboge is clearly a cabal...
- Asked and answered. See above.
  - I did. Your response was "No it isn't." If my case is accepted, guess what, that's not going to fly. --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - By any definition, including one referenced, directly, the participants of the maleboge group do not meet the criteria. It's really that simple; and whimperings of "do too" from someone who insisted that he didn't want to get involved in this "at all," in the first place, isn't going to change that.

I want to see what ArbCom does.
- Note "I want." Once again, we have a POV pusher (just like Gastrich) who thinks it's all about him. Last time I looked, Wikipedia was a community.
  - I'm sorry if you think asking the ArbCom to evaluate a case is POV pushing. And last time I looked, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Nor is it Usenet. --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There hasn't been any claim by me that it is either of those things, but again, we get this incessant need to create a battleground more to "Ben"'s liking. There has, of course, been no established case of POV-pushing by anyone else, and of those named, only "Ben" has been established as a POV-pusher. His own record makes this clear.

I tend to think Wikipedia should have a policy even regardless of whether I could use it in my RfAr. I think there is plenty POV-pushing without organizations trying to run off users and control articles.
- Entirely irrelevant in this case. The interest was in allowing Wikipedia to maintain its integrity and counter the efforts of a known typosquatter, cybersquatter, and self-promoter to surreptitiously or overtly try to bend Wikipedia to his whims.
  - Sorry, you can't just say "the entire point of your case is irrelevant" and the case goes away. As for the rest of it, it's nonsensical.--Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fact is, I can say whatever I like, and being much more skilled at investigation than this "Ben" character, chances are pretty good that I can make a better case. The fact is that the efforts are useless and based on two things: A childish need to retaliate and the stumbling of the name on my "blacklist." Whimpering "is too" isn't going to create a case where one does not exist. Claiming some sort of conspiracy or cabal where it doesn't exist won't make it magically appear.

Frankly, I did not think it would cause any fireworks, and just be rather clear cut, since not one of you actually needed to say anything.
- This strikes me as rather stupid. How would any rational person presume to make these kinds of comments and not expect even low-level fireworks? Answer: That person is irrational and not motivated by what is claimed to be the motivation...at all.
  - You seemed fine when I first mentioned it. What happend? --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure what "you seemed fine" is supposed to mean, but then, "Ben" has gotten so much wrong since then, that I'm not sure there's any merit in wasting the time trying to fathom it.

You think maleboge did nothing wrong...
- There has yet to be a clear statement of wrong-doing or any evidence of wrong-doing.
  - Like I said, you clearly think maleboge did nothing wrong. --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And as I said in reply, there has been no clear statement of wrong-doing or any evidence of wrong-doing.

I want to know what ArbCom thinks. Surely you would too.
- Maleboge will exist or not regardless of what the ArbCom thinks. People will participate both in Wikipedia and in maleboge, either, or both, regardless of what the ArbCom thinks. Until someone can actually make a case for any of that being a violation of Wikipedia policy, ArbCom isn't going to care much, at all...nor should they.
  - Yeah, maleboge will exist or not regardless of what the ArbCom thinks. However, depending on what ArbCom thinks, members of maleboge might not exist at all on Wikipedia. Both you and Gastrich gone. Think of how much nicer a place this would be. --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This would follow from the previous. There has been no evidence of wrong-doing--certainly none has been presented by "Ben," while he has his own record of ill-will and POV-pushing with which to deal. A discussion within one venue about activities in another is simply that--discussion.

c) Regarding the comment about Sienkenwicz, the founder of the group is obviously an important note, especially if it is you. I found someone who said it was you on Usenet. I probably wasn't reading close enough and just said it was Gastrich, not knowing of his "oath" and the trouble this would cause.
- So...once again, there was a problem with attention to detail. I think that's something that should be noted.
  - Note it all you want. --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't recall asking for permission. An important fact was misrepresented and out-right wrong, and it's not the first time. Getting facts wrong goes to credibility, and credibility of the accuser goes to the value of what "case" might exist. There is none, here.

Seeing as there are something like 5 Dave's on maleboge, things can get pretty confusing.
- That's no excuse if someone is going to pretend to conduct an investigation and post accusations and innuendos.
  - I'm not perfect, but you pretty much admit it yourself in your post above: "...swore an oath to God never to address David Sienkiewicz, but he has addressed me several times since then". --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's nothing quite like quoting something out of context or simply failing to comprehend it. People whom can read can certainly see that I admitted nothing. In fact, I'll come right out and say that what we have here is deliberate misrepresentation, and not for the first time. "Ben" is, therefore, a liar.

I hope that clears things up for you guys. Please don't turn it into a battleground now, that would just be silly, and then FeloniousMonk will just say "see I told you he is disruptive, as usual, as evidenced by his recent history of disruption and personal att.." you get the idea.--Ben 11:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So this fellow shows up, creates a small battleground, and wants to beg the rest of us not to turn it into a battleground. I shouldn't be surprised. I'm used to this kind of hypocrisy from these characters. - WarriorScribe 15:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rest of "us?" Who is "us?" And "these characters?" To whom are you referring? And like I said before: The first thing you did when you got onto Wikipedia was edit Gastrich's talk page. Soon after, you posted a rant about Gastrich on the Typosquatting article which caused an edit war. You know what that is called here? TROLLING.--Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, anyone who knows how to read can probably understand the reference to "us." My first edit, ever, was not, in fact on Gastrich's talk page, as anyone who bothered to really investigate will understand. Whether or not I engaged in a "rant" about "typosquatting" is in the eye of the beholder. Regardless, this "Ben" character is free to walk around with that chip on his shoulder, if he wants, but his pretense at any kind of capacity for nPOV and investigating anything is clearly based on his own sense of self-importance, but really, there is nothing there but incompetence.

My point is that ArbCom members are virtually guaranteed to see this as a WP:POINTish maneuver, mainly intended to cast doubts on their handling of the Jason Gastrich case, and reject it straight away. The fact that you have stated a non-existent case will not escape them either. If you want the ArbCom to look at a perceived cabal, you should probably state your case as a dispute between you and its members, presenting evidence of an ongoing dispute that is detrimental to the building of an encyclopedia, and of course documenting your attempts to resolve the conflict. AvB ÷ talk 12:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Follow established procedure." What a concept! - WarriorScribe 15:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the established procedure of ArbCom is to review the evidence of my claim. You shouldn't find that surprising.--Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained, the established procedure is to engage in discussion, request mediation, and initiate an RfC before calling for an arbitration. But again, this is a fellow who thinks he can make his own rules. No one should be surprised by that - WarriorScribe 07:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

Just because Ben has violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA doesn't mean you should too (although I hasten to add that Ben's violations have been far worse). There is no need to tell him to "grow up" or call him a "little fellow." JoshuaZ 13:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Warrior, I'd like to email you but your wiki-email is not set up. JoshuaZ 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was a confirmation process that was put in place and that I had not completed. Feel free to try now. - WarriorScribe 15:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, still returning an error, saying that you haven't set it up. "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." JoshuaZ 15:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might take a few minutes to finish the process, or I may have missed something...let me take a look... - WarriorScribe 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Test works. Probably just took a minute or two for the confirmation and rule change to "take." - WarriorScribe 15:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else feel their ears burning?!!! Here is the proof, i can't believe they are so blatant about consorting offline ! YAWN David D. (Talk) 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gasp! David has found out about the cabal! David, stay where you are, the black helicopters will arrive shortly. JoshuaZ 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consorting? There is consorting going on? WS is JoshuaZ's consort, or vice versa? Prince consort? Consorting with the enemy? Consort, Alberta? Please be specific; before I protest loudly and uselessly I want to know what I'm protesting. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / ~~opposing~~ / ~~vandalising~~ my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now ~~still a normal user~~ / an administrator / ~~indefinitely banned~~. Your ~~constructive criticism~~ / support / ~~foulmouthed abuse~~ has ~~given me something to think about~~ / helped me immensely / ~~turned me into a nervous wreck~~. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ~~ask someone else~~ / ~~suffer and die~~ / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Speaking of cabals

Does anyone else find it funny that these three (Usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs), Michaelwmoss (talk · contribs) and Itake (talk · contribs)) all showed up to vote keep on this obscure AfD? David D. (Talk) 21:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the same sense that WarriorScribe added my name to his user page as a "fundamentalist" months before I had any contact with him strange? Yes. Well, actually now that I think about it, it's not as strange as that, seeing as WarriorScribe said someone suggested to him that my name be added to his blacklist. It's entirely possible that these users simply found their way to it by browsing through talk pages of users they were discussing with. How did you come across it just now David? You never signed it, nor edited it, you just went through Uncle Davey's contributions. Nothing wrong with that. And you can always ask them how they found out about it. --Ben 01:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well since Michaelwmoss (talk · contribs) is such a regular to wikipedia I'm sure he just keeps popping in every hour to check on Daveys contributions. Get real. And i didn't sign it because i'm not going to lower myself to these petty wars you seem to love. David D. (Talk) 04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moss is a Gastrich meatpuppet who used to run a "Christian" radio site of some sort in Indiana; and we all know about "Uncle Davey." If Gastrich is around, he's never far behind. It's obviously some sort of affiliation, but "Ben" doesn't seem to apply the same standard to Gastrich and his cronies. Instead, he'd rather whine about being on my "blacklist." - WarriorScribe 03:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ben" is on my "blacklist" because of his incessant POV pushing that shows no concern for the value of concensus or what is involved in the construction of an encyclopedia. Regardless, if he continues to whine on the talk pages that Wikipedia so kindly provides for me, it may be a cry for attention, and I may just give it to him... - WarriorScribe 03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm on your blacklist because someone suggested I be put on it. You said so yourself. Who was that? What is their relationship to you? And I apparently had your attention before you had mine.--Ben 05:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in the habit of letting obnoxious loons tell me why I do things. I also wrote that I looked at what "Ben" had written and found justification for putting him on the "blacklist." Once again, "Ben" shows us that he either can't read for comprehension, keep things in context, or represent what another has said or written honestly. - WarriorScribe 07:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wrote "I put the list up, and it was suggested that I add you." You "looked at what I had written?" You have never edited Talk:Intelligent design, nor Intelligent design.--Ben 07:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing quite like affirming that "Ben," here, can't keep things in context. I've already answered the point. I wrote that it was suggested that I add him to my list. I also wrote that I looked at what he had written and determined that he belonged on the list. Whether or not I have edited the areas in which he posts is not at all relevant, and I haven't said anything about that. - WarriorScribe 07:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew he had an interest in users that are pushing a religious POV. I saw your work and mentioned that you might be someone that fitted his category. After looking at your contributions, WS agreed, although he seems to have had zero interactions with you since. David D. (Talk) 06:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also never spoken with you on Wikipedia before I filed the RfAr and you too have never edited Talk:Intelligent design, nor Intelligent design.

Something is very rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark.--Ben 07:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it often. You'll notice i have edited AiG and Jonathon Sarfati so this should not be a surprise. David D. (Talk) 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ben" seems to have selective retention and, at best, borderline competence at reading comprehension. - WarriorScribe 07:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that it is hilarious that Ben admits he has never spoken to me prior to filing an RfAr against me. But he is all worked up because I have read his POV pushing on articles in wikipedia? David D. (Talk) 08:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's a child. His only purpose, at the moment, is to provide us amusement on talk pages. - WarriorScribe 08:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No time, really...I can only watch one loon at a time and, these days, I don't even have a lot of time for that. Under the circumstances, I also don't have time to teach "Ben" how to read for comprehension or to understand context. - WarriorScribe 07:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done here

You two, and especially you WarriorScribe, are a bunch of raving loonies. Get your last word in. I will let ArbCom decide what to do. --Ben 07:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, three members of the ArbCom have found no basis for the complaint, so this is just a lot of sour grapes. Meanwhile, if anyone has demonstrated lunacy, it's "Ben." However, he's got my attention. - WarriorScribe 07:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]