Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:38, 24 March 2006

Archives

1. First Archive (2005): User talk:WarriorScribe Archive1
2. Second Archive (2006): User talk:WarriorScribe Archive2
3. Third Archive (2006): User talk:WarriorScribe Archive3

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)

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Markkbilbo.2C_Harvestdancer.2C_Daycd.2C_Dbiv.2C_WarriorScribe --Ben 07:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

Actually, please see how most other RfAs have been notified, for example see Gastrich's own notification here: . 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Actually, . 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 . JoshuaZ 22:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

My point was and still is about general attitude. Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages "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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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" Misplaced Pages 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)

Slight OT remark: In an odd way, the Gastrich thing is good for Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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 "Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

A comment that indicates that Gastrich was behind it

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages (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)

• 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)
      • "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)

• 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)
      • 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 Misplaced Pages was obviously a cabal, so I decided to use it to see if ArbCom would establish precedent.
  • A discussion of Misplaced Pages 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)
      • 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 Misplaced Pages through outside groups, i.e. talk.origins, are frowned upon or not.
  • As much as some in Misplaced Pages 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)
      • 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)
      • 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, Misplaced Pages was a community.
    • I'm sorry if you think asking the ArbCom to evaluate a case is POV pushing. And last time I looked, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Nor is it Usenet. --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to maintain its integrity and counter the efforts of a known typosquatter, cybersquatter, and self-promoter to surreptitiously or overtly try to bend Misplaced Pages 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)
      • 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)
      • 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)
      • 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Both you and Gastrich gone. Think of how much nicer a place this would be. --Ben 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • 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)
      • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
      • 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Email

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

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • Test works. Probably just took a minute or two for the confirmation and rule change to "take." - WarriorScribe 15:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

"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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have also never spoken with you on Misplaced Pages 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)

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)