User talk:UninvitedCompany/Archives/2007 March

Arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba 2 poorly sourced
Regarding your comments, that the article Sathya Sai Baba is poorly sourced, I admit that the retrieval dates for web based sources should be added and that the page numbers should be added. I have been trying to improve this in the last few days, but it is a lot of work as the article contains so many citations. I think that the comments regarding poor sourcing falsely suggest that the root cause of the problem is the behavior of the editors while it is more a lack of reputable sources. Apart from that, the subject is overshadowed by legends and swallowed by the hagiographies. For example, apart from Arnold Schulman, another writer also asserts that there is no reliable information about SSB's life, as I will quote from the summary of a German scholarly book Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi: Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger by Katharina Poggendorf-Kakar (English:The Godman from Puttaparthi: an analysis of the Sathya Sai Baba movement and its Western adherents)
 * English translation: "From a biographical point of view, he is overwhelmed by legends and miraculous stories that derive him as a person from every historicity."
 * German original: "Biographisches ist von Legenden und Wundergeschichten überlagert, die seine Person jeglicher Geschichtlichkeit berauben."
 * See here for the threaded discussion with user:Jossi Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

I have ordered this German scholarly book, together with some other books recommended by Jossi (Kent and Bowen), though my opinion that the books listed by Jossi are most probably not good sources fo the article Sathya Sai Baba was confirmed after I received the book by Kent.

Regarding your comments that the article should concentrate on facts, it will be clear that I think that there are only few facts about SSB. Some years ago I tried to make a list of facts about his life and I could only list about 15 undisputed facts.

Also, the pivotal article in India Today about SSB (available online) stated that Sathya Sai Baba's  "Controversy could well be Sai Baba's middle name." So I do not understand why this controversy cannot be extensively treated in the article. Andries 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I also want to give you another proof that good sourcing for this article is particularly difficult.
 * From Nagel's article "Sai Baba as Shiva Shakti" who summarizes an article by the antropologist Lawrence Babb as follows.
 * Babb, Lawrence A. “Sathya Sai Baba’s Saintly Play”, in Saints and Virtues, J. S. Hawley (ed.), Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 1987:168-186. The quotation is from p. 173.


 * "Scholar Lawrence Babb thought it a striking feature that in the narrations about Sathya Sai Baba, his life emerges with
 * an almost complete elision of individual personhood. What looks at first like life-history turns out to be something quite different: a suppression of unique life-history, and a removal of the life in question from history. At virtually every turn individuating details are subordinated to one timeless mythic paradigm or another. His birth was not a particular birth but the birth of a deity-infant, as evidenced by the resounding of the tambùrã and the cobra under the bedding. His childhood was not a particular childhood but the childhood of a juvenile god, for which the ruling paradigm in India is the early life of Krishna. With the first of the two great disclosures, the image of the magical child is superseded by another – that of the archetypal holy man, as represented by Sai Baba of Shirdi. In the second disclosure this identity, in turn is encompassed within yet another, which is not only wider, but universal. Now he is revealed to be Shiva and Shakti, who together represent the Absolute."

I will try to get the article by Babb (in Hawley's book). Andries 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Confirm the OTS..whatever thingy...
Not sure exactly what it does. But it says to contact somebody about it. The article is North Shore Country Day School. Tell me if I did this wrong, I'm confused. DrSatan 01:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Arbitration Proceeding
Thanks for the heads-up! I just posted a statement here, but I'm not sure if it's in the right place... in any case, thanks again for the notice! gaillimh Conas tá tú? 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

+ reply
I see your order concerns on the RfArbCom page. You imply (if not state) a concern for too many words on the page.

If that is your concern, I agree; In any case, barring cataclysmic new developments, I have nothing more sustentative to add.

I write you privately to set your mind at ease -I don't want to embarrass you in a public argument -we would both look bad, me because I'm small and you because I'm at least partly right in my reply to you.

My only concern (except for the below arbitor reaction) is that people who don't even know me were making false statements about me in the community discussion (that's bad enough), but then action was taken based on LESS than a majority, and certainly not a consensus. (Does consensus policy matter any more, eh?)

What's more irritating, however, is that arbiters, supposedly set up for defending inequities are as guilty of coming to a conclusion without actually reading up on the facts (like provide me ONE diff which shows I've been a bad editor; My mainspace edits are usually not reverted, and my talk page edits are MY right to opine as I see fit, so long as I don't threaten, harass, slander, etc.)

I hope you do as Thatcher suggests here and follow the links! I know I have posted a lot, but several statements by other editors were well-over 500 words, so please indulge me if I go a little over too: I'm being falsely accused!

Did you even read anything that was posted? A whole new section directed solely at the editors was created just for you.


 * 1.4.3.2 Rebuttal to the votes of the Arbitrators
 * 1.4.3.2.1 -No Consensus existed to support Guy's admin action-
 * 1.4.3.2.2 -These editors support my claims of innocence-
 * 1.4.3.2.3 -These editors desire ArbCom intervention-
 * 

--GordonWatts 06:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to utilize arbitration, you have to follow the rules for the WP:RFAR. It's your job to make your case concisely and present enough material in your initial statement to show us that you have a case.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there no place for families in Wikipedia?
I am writing to object to the tactics of a group of editors and administrators who tightly control Global warming and related articles. Today their tactics have hit a new low and I believe they have improperly breached my family's privacy. Does Wikipedia not want or tolerate a family to be contributors? I would like the three concerned: User:Raul654, User:Raymond Arritt and User:Dragons flight to apologise or be formally disciplined for their renegade actions and disparaging remarks to my family. They have called us sock puppets and meat puppets!! ~ Rameses 05:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a legal threat? If so, please understand that legal threats are immediately blockable on Wikipedia.  Please modify your wording above to retract the 'illegal' part or you may be blocked without further warning per WP:NLT. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 05:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant illegal in the sense that there was no formal complaint lodged or Wikipedia process followed when this group began using checkuser on my family and publicly publishing the results of their invasive and unauthorized prying. (not in the judical or courts sense) ~ Rameses 05:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this fair?
Looks like the arbcom has decided to ban me for a year. I honestly dont know how this conclusion was reached. I contributed like a good user, never insulted any user and never vandalised any article. The Indian users openly made racist remarks against Pakistanis, Muslims and our Prophet and Literally hijacked Pakistani articles to prevent anyone form editing. If this isnt good enough for you, then let me explain the 2nd major flaw. This arbcom was opened The Day After me and Nadir were unblocked from one of Ramas unfair blocks, and minutes after we tried to complain. It was simply to save himself from our complaint against him. We barely posted a word between the unblock and the complaint, and all the evidence used against us, is old evidence he had already used to ban us before. Not to mention the lousy evidence is the reason we complained against him in the first place. The only thing I see happening here is the arbcom banning the Minority users to solve the problem. Rama started the arbcom and omitted certain Indian users who were the Key causes of this dispute, and this lets them off the hook, even though they have made extremely racist remarks. Why treat me worse than a vandal? The so called evidence used against me doesnt even make sense. Is PoV pushing defined as making suggestions on Talk Pages? I am so shocked by this outcome.

I guess it helps to have a lot of people supporting you blindly. A 6 month punnishment was rejected for a guy who openly insulted the muslim Prophet (by linking him to paedophilia), insulted muslims by comparing slavery to the Hijab, said Pakistanis enjoyed killing people, and clear evidence was shown that he reverts every single edit from other users on Hinduism pages which doesnt fit his PoV. The Arbitrators didnt even suggest punishing any Indian users. Instead, a proposal to give all Pakistani users bans were put forward.

I dont know what has happened here. I really want to discuss this matter with you. I am an honest guy, I have nothing to hide, yet here I am being treated like an obvious vandal who deserves to get banned. In the first month I joined Wiki, I made some minor mistakes. I went through more than 3 weeks of bans by the same admin for this. And now the Same mistakes are giving me another year? Please get back to me. -- Unre4L  ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ  UT 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v Rosenthal
I know it's late in the case, but I have proposed an additional remedy, article probation here. I think Ilena is correct to be concerned about the behavior of other editors. This case seems to have dragged out of the woodwork several other partisans on alt medicine topics, both pro and con. I agree with Ilena that is an SPA with a likely conflict of interest with respect to Barrett. appears to be associated with this web site  run by an Australian skeptic, that currently hosts a set of parody song lyrics attacking Ilena personally. Several other editors have joined this case on both sides, including, , , and , although their conduct does not appear to rise to the level of arbitration. I am concerned that once Ilena is banned and Fyslee is topic-banned, other users might take up their crusade. Article probation for the core articles in this case would allow admins to take action to stop disruption without having to go through arbitration again, and limiting it to 6 months would be a good test to see if it is really needed; depending on circumstances it could be extended or allowed to expire accordingly. Thatcher131 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that "article probation" is a good thing, in general. The alt medicine area, as a whole, draws people with unusual points of view and unusual editing behaviors.  I'm not sure that this article necessarily deserves more attention than others, and would prefer to evaluate the extent of any remaining problems after the presently proposed remedies are enacted rather than speculate.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

courtesy blanking
I'm not really sure I understand your deletion of the archived debate at Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers 4. Could you explain that to me? Thanks, Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 11:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First, it was over year ago, and I believe we still had problems with AFD discussions being indexed by Google at that point. Second, because the deletion discussion contained much of the content from the article, it seemed to me to be courteous to the subject's family (who had contacted me) to make the debate less visible.   The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Forum host
I would be interested in helping out with that. I tend to pay close attention to what's happening on the village pumps and admin boards (and some other community boards like CN and CENT), along with such things as pointing people to the relevant earlier discussion, and putting overlapping discussions in a central location; so I think I could make myself useful there. Cheers,  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll email the relevant information to you once I have the software set up, probably later on today. Thanks! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I too would be happy to help - I tend to have an eye on most mailing lists and of course the noticeboards, and also help looking after one or two other fora. Thanks, Mart inp23 00:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I could be a mirror as well, if you'd like. Ral315 » 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrongly Accused
I am plainly not a WP:SPA with respect to Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please review my edit history if you don't believe me. Also please note these testimonies where involved editors attest to this fact.

To further prove my innocence in this matter, I asked Guy, an admin here, to give me advice in how to "clear my name". His response was to edit articles unrelated to Smart. I have done this.

I am being punished for being wrongly accused. Where is the presumption of innocence as laid out in WP:AGF? Where is the consideration of evidence and actions I have cited above? This finding is unfair, and I urge you to take proper steps to correct this mistake.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mael-Num (talk • contribs)
 * Discussed and the editor given some guidance on my talkpage (he asked me as well since I gave the notice of the decision). Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mael-Num appears to still be troubled by this. A quick message to the effect of "the ArbCom doesn't consider Mael-Num a Derek Smart surrogate" would no doubt ease his mind. – Steel 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Honest, it wasn't me. It was the one-armed man! Mael-Num 02:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Brant wheel war case
Since the committee is sticking at the finding on the role of deletion review, I've added a narrower alternative proposal on the workshop. diff. I also added some more evidence on deletion review data to the evidence page, but I don't know if that evidence is relevant to the committee's discussion or not. GRBerry 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
Thank you for your response to the checkuser request Requests for checkuser/Case/Maleabroad. I take it that by "unnecessary", you mean that the account is almost certainly a sock puppet and thus needs no checkuser? That was the approach I took initially, but the user vehemently denied being a sock puppet, which is why I filed the request. If you still think that the account is a sockpuppet, is there any chance you could block it? I defer to your judgment on the checkuser request itself. Thanks, Orpheus 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Done.  Spread the word far and wide, and shout it from the hilltops, that that which walks like a sock, and talks like a sock, and leaves edit summaries like a sock, and has a short and undistinguished history of contributions, may be blocked like a sock.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV majority versus supermajority versus consensus
You wrote: "Yet, there were a substantial number of DRV voters, many of them experienced Wikipedians who should have known better, who used this as an opportunity to try to get rid of the article with only the 50% !vote required at DRV rather than the supermajority used at AfD (DRV page)." Did you see my comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Workshop#Undeletion_of_pages ? A 50% majority is generally not enough to endorse a speedy deletion after a keep AfD. Kla'quot 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, and a note
Firstly, thanks for your work at RFCU clearing out what is fast becoming a backlogged page.

Secondly, I saw a number of answers similar to that on Requests for checkuser/Case/Mykungfu. Although it may not be personal preference to use it, there is a template,, which is very similar in meaning. Just a FYI if you'd prefer to use it. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I believe you've had to point this out to me before.  I was struggling to remember the name of the template, couldn't find it after a brief search, and therefore ad libbed instead.  I shall endeavor to remember this time.  Also, we should update the front matter to discourage people from listing IPs other than in the bottom section.  A conservative reading of the privacy policy gives us little leeway.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything that involves documenting the interpretation of the privacy policy by checkusers should probably be written by checkusers, as in my opinion it would be overstepping the limits of a clerk on RFCU. Thoughts? Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there are times, such as 3RR violations or block evasion by editing while logged out, where a user gives away his own IP address. I'm not sure how to differentiate in the instructions between the kinds of IP addresses that might be confirmed and the kind that will not be, other than to let the checkusers decide in the individual cases. Thatcher131 12:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused

 * I'm confused, looks like your comment was removed? Smee 23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Confused (Afrika paprika)
I don't understand, you need Tar's fresh edits? --PaxEquilibrium 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I re-requested it. --PaxEquilibrium 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser result clarification
Hi UninvitedCompany, Maybe it's unusual, but there were four rounds of additions to this checkuser request. The third and fourth rounds appear not to have been formatted by a clerk, so I'm not sure they were actually checkusered. It's particularly important that this result not seem to be ambiguously stated. Could you clarify (on that page) which users/IPs were checkusered according to the question posted on that page? If they weren't all checkusered previously, could you cross-check the complete list of eight? Thanks, Milo 07:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * At UninvitedCompany, wrote: "Checkuser is not for fishing. Your original hypothesis wasn't supported by the data so I stopped. If you believe you can justify further checks on their individual merits, you may make another request."


 * Whose original hypothesis? Whose request? Have you confused me (Milo) with the requester (Gene Poole)? I, Milo, am one of Gene's victims. If you didn't read the talk page, there are six user-victims who have been variously cross-accused, and we now have no idea who you actually checked.
 * Rules are rules, but we have to know what they are, and which ones have been applied. From what you are saying, "Unrelated" seems to be the wrong tag overall, and you have effectively "Declined" the case, since you won't tell us any meaningful partial results.
 * "important that this result not seem to be ambiguously stated" I previously made this point because Gene exploits the slightest ambiguity. He still denies he was caught with a sock years ago when these infamous oops, dang! edits were discovered   and juried.
 * Respectfully, if you don't have time for a non-routine case, who can we appeal to:
 * • to delete the confused results,
 * • to start over with Gene's 7 Mar 2007 request,
 * • to properly finish the clerking,
 * • to tell us how to or what we can't do in adding usernames/IPs,
 * and generally to clean up the mess?
 * Btw, please disambiguate the accidental inference that I might be the requester! Milo 02:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Request for AMA case
Hello, I'm Dfrg.msc and I'm representing Cliffb in an AMA case. We request an unusual request as a means of identifying the IP responsible for the below message, sent to Cliff via his webform.

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:13:30 -0500 (EST) To: **** Removed my address.. From: Doug Michael  Subject: Wikipedia edit

Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Doug Michael: dmichael@yahoo.com on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 22:13:30 ---

content: Dear Cliff,

It is perfectly accepted to edit Wikipedia articles, but your edits should not be used as a forum to express homosexual opinions about other men. If you are wondering why people do not like nor accept homosexuals (gay is too soft a word, my friend. Gay implies happy. You are not happy, you are genetically damaged. It's not your fault, of course, you were born this way). However, please keep your opinions to yourself, since you are just a poor woman trapped inside of a man's body. Your edits are no longer welcome.

Yours truly,

Doug

---

HTTP_USER_AGENT: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) REMOTE_ADDR: 12.119.119.186

The sending IP is:

The harassment clearly references Wikipedia. Is it possible to cross reference from the IP address 12.119.119.186 to Wikipedia user activity on or about 1 March 2007 03:13 UTC. If it is not possible or an outcome is achieved please notify either:

And we will take the necessary steps. Regards, Dfrg.msc 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There have been no edits from that IP in February or March. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU/Dragonslayer X
- a reason for declining has been requested. anthony cfc [ talk] 22:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Question
Regarding Ivan Kricancic case: : I would like to ask you can you block Ivan's original account, because he repeats this all the time? And he was strongly warned and blocked once as Rts_freak? Emir Arven 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking editor
Hi, JimA has emailed me stating he will follow our sourcing policy and discuss controversial changes before making them, and as that was the condition for unblocking him which you set, I am unblocking him. I will be keeping a (limited due to time and health constraints) eye on his contributions. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU/Rajsingam
Hi Uninvited Company,

The reason I requested the above checkuser was that User:Rajsingam was indef blocked for personal attacks, and then reappeared as User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam claiming that either someone he gave his password to or someone who hacked into his account made the attacks and he had nothing to do with them. The blocking admin believed him, and let him keep the new account. But since then, he has accused at least 5 other users of trying to hack into his account, and the dispute has spliied over to a number of pages.

I didn't entirely understand what you said, but since the user who made the personal attacks against User:Netmonger and User:FayssalF is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia, are you saying that User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam should be blocked as well?

Thanks, and I'm sorry to continue to waste your time on this mess, but I just want to clear my name, User:Netmonger's name, User:Kzrulzuall's name and User:RaveenS's name from all of these allegations.--snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 07:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Walter - Fraudulent Article
Arbitrator:

Richard Walter seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walters's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake. In 2003 and again in 2006 his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony) by a fedeal judge.

This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). The acrobat file here was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 100 documents per page to see it. Get the drake file.

I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. Now, an original anonymous creator of this false information page designed to rescue Walters flailing credibility, has stepped in to replace anonymous editor. I am not certain these are two separate individuals.

At any rate, I expected that whoever created the page would change the edits and that this issue would become something that needed an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts more than a few because of their association with him.

Anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 has removed the Richard Walter page at least six times aleady and has also removed this section from the Talk: Richard Walter page at least six times, since 3/18/07 to prevent me from even having a civil discussion about it with others. has done the same. Not exactly actions that are conducive to resolution, let alone communication. They just don't want the ruling public because of their hero worship (that's assuming that one of the individuals is not actually Richard Walter -this a very distinct possibility).

This informaion is not libelous. It is corrective. It is the posting of a court's ruling using the court's own document. The Wikipedia entry currently states that Walters was exonnerated by the judge in the Drake case. This is not just false, it is beligerantly deceptive at this point.

Note please that I am the only person in this dispute who must testify in court on a regular basis, under oath - and that I am also the only one willing to be identified.

As it stands, the article is full of false and bloated information about Walters that is designed to prop him up despite the court ruling - so that those who use Wikipedia as their primary nfo source (and there are many too many) will be misled. It is a disgrace to the professional community, and it is the furtherance of a weakly crafted fraud.

Do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance.

Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Scientist Bturvey 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Highways appeal
Your vote looks conditional on lifting the probation from all 3 editors. Since Flo and Morven have indicated that their vote to lift the probation only applies to PHenry and Rschen, can you clarify whether you vote yes or no on that question? (you could also make a separate motion with respect to SPUI if you wanted to). Thanks. Thatcher131 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Forum
Any news on that forum?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. No updates though.  I've been up to my eyeballs in other stuff.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCU on Watchtower Sentinel
Hi, why was RFCU declined? He is such an OBVIOUS sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. It's unbelievably obvious!!! --Hamsacharya dan 21:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because you didn't provide the required diffs for any of the code letters you specified. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Code letter was changed. I'm not clear on what specifically you need. Can you help me understand so that I can complete this? --Hamsacharya dan 21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, for more information on Hamsacharya dan's real motive in filing the RFCU please see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

zurbagan-pulu-pughi checkuser
You recently looked after the checkuser case involving user:Zurbagan and declined it. I urge you to look at page Ziya Bunyadov and compare editing of user:Zurbagan and today's editing of user:Pulu-Pughi  - it is identical and the same POV pushing!!!--Dacy69 01:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * UninvitedCompany, sorry to butt in, but Rovoam is indeed listed at List of banned users. The most recent accounts he's used are and . Khoikhoi 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention once more to today's obvious vandalism on page Ziya Bunyadov. user:Zurbagan was reported several times. I ask - when this vandslism will be stoped. This user was reported and asked for check user (he has a number of socks) but thus far nothing is done to ban him. How many times we should report him?!!! Look what he wrote: "That, perhaps, adds weight to speculation that he was not entirely human." --Dacy69 14:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't consider it a community ban unless there is discussion and consensus on AN/I or a similar forum. An indefinite block that no one has overturned isn't a sufficient substitute.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Otheus
Would you revisit that decision? You rejected the argument for a class B request. I've followed up with evidence that it's an airtight class F request: one of the IP addresses listed has been under a monthlong block and a second IP address was under a 48 hour block. The registered editor in doubt, Otheus, posted a desire for his name to be cleared at ANI. I've included appropriate links and diffs at the checkuser request. Your attention would be very much appreciated. Thank you. Durova Charge! 03:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded :) --Otheus 15:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Hindutva
You misunderstand. The question is, is an established "user in good standing" behind this? If so, who is it? dab (𒁳) 11:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_checkuser/Case/El_chulito
You just removed this request from the Checkuser pending page. Why did you do this as it is still pending? regards--SameBatTime 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved it to the non-compliant page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, what was "non-compliant" about it? how do I make it comply and how do I put a stop to this guy? regards--SameBatTime 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not include IP addresses in the list of things to check.
 * Cite only one code letter.
 * Provide the diffs the code letter requires.
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats not really helpful - I mean the system not you, I listed it over a week ago now!--SameBatTime 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked it and tidied it up. Is it looking OK now.--SameBatTime 19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get the clerks to be more involved in getting the requests formatted properly and helping people through the tests. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA
I am confused about what to do with people who are possible sockpuppets of. I had previously filed three cases at Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA, all which led to being confirmed and resulted in bans of some 40+ sockpuppets (shown at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SEGA). What was done differently in those cases than this one? Where do I list these people to get checked? There have been even more edits by these new users over the last few days that parallel SEGAs other sockpuppets. (further reading: User talk:Luna Santin & User talk:Moeron) -- moe.RON   Let's talk  19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)