User talk:Argusbargus

So, for the record, this is NOT a sockpuppet account of Mehul, and I have no idea who operates that account or the others.

Apparently the Admin dealing with this issue has a real zeal to chase Mehul and is on a witchhunt, for he appears to have lapsed into paranoia.

But in the interest of civility, I will resist attacks on his integrity and address him here. Since my account has been permanently blocked, I can't edit anywhere else in Wikipedia including the shill of a sockpuppet investigation they did on my account, nor the individual user pages of the involved parties to call them out. I guess I'll have to do that once the auto block on my IP address lapses in 24 hours and I can at least edit as an IP to direct them back here to read this commentary.

The situation at hand
So, "B" let me get this straight you're on a witchhunt against an editor "Mehul" who broke the rules, used multiple accounts, and got blocked.

At a later date, I created a page with the same topic as one you say this editor made, and, based solely on this fact, you've now blocked my account permanently.

Anything you'd like to add?

The Shill Sockpuppet Investigation
I read the "Investigation" linked from my userpage, and I know that "Inconclusive" means the investigator found ZERO indication that my account is linked to any others. So you can't justify the block there.

It looks like the only "evidence" that I'm associated to the other editor is that I launched my account new, did some smaller edits, and created a page with the same topic.

Oh and then someone in the comments said that the articles sound similar? Well, that's just genius!

Clearly the content was different, as was also mentioned by one of the commentors. And hey, if two people wrote articles about any person, wouldn't they sound similar? The guy is who he is, he's done what he's done, and he's been covered in a certain amount of media. When there are a dozen or so references, it's not like I was choosing between the content in Newsweek and the content in Time for content. He's clearly notable, but he's not Bill Gates.

So, in summary there is no evidence, but you're so keen to punish someone that you blocked me anyway, simply because you can. Sounds like abuse of power to me.

Where you err
But the real issue here is that you are procedurally wrong... A point I intend to take up with others.

You are clearly abusing your admin privileges by effectively enacting a permanent block on ANY article on a specific topic despite the undeniable fact that there is no consensus around this.

You, effectively blocking an article on Tom Gildred through your unilateral action, not through the Wikipedia process is clearly improper. And the only reason you're doing it is because you know the topic is notable and would survive a Deletion Review.

A challenge to you
So I'll continue to withold my name calling for now... BUT, If you're not a bloody coward, revert the deletion and have some disinterested party submit the article, as I created it for AFD. You don't vote... and I can't vote since you've so kindly Blocked my account from Wikipedia... and we'll just let nature take its course. Up to the challenge, or would that be too much for you?

Conflict of Interest
And if you are removing and blocking useful and encyclopedic content from being put into Wikipedia, doing so willfully, and breaking procedural rules to justify your actions, then YOU are guilty of editing with a bias that is in conflict with the purposes and interests of the Wikipedia project.

For the future
And BTW, when I go out and create a second account since this one is hosed, does that make me a sockpuppet? I think not, so I guess that's what I'll have to do.

Happy editing Argusbargus (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you feel you were wrongly blocked, you may request an independent review via the unblock template or by making a request via the Unblock_Ticket_Request_System. Both of these are discussed at Appealing a block. By way of free advice, engaging in personal attacks is not a good way to get your request granted. --B (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For whoever reviews this, perhaps relevant information at, which explains the (alleged) sock/meat factory. --B (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)