User talk:70.23.167.160

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: Please see User talk:70.23.199.239 for previous discussion with this user.

Contents

[edit] Warnings

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, you will be blocked from editing. .

Do not attempt to insert links to POV sites, and don't describe my reversion as vandalism. You were blocked from another IP address User talk:70.23.199.239 for the same garbage, and I am reporting you again. I no longer need to assume good faith, as you are obviously trying for disruptive editing. Horologium talk - contrib 09:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Horologium's Threat and Vandalism

(This is reprinted from my love letter to Horologium's Talk Page.)

Stop threatening me, and stop vandalizing my edits. Calling VDARE a "POV site" simply is your way of saying that you hate it politically. I don't see you vandalizing links to socialist sites (like, say, the New York Times).

Report me to your fellow cadrists all you wish. If you think such censorship and intimidation will work, you're nuts. BTW, for readers who wonder what Horologium is so obsessed about censoring, here is the link in question:

http://vdare.com/stix/070113_duke.htm

You misrepresented your "last warning," so that people will think I had been warned previously, when I had not, and also to make it sound as if you are an administrator, when as far as I can see, you are just another dictatorial, leftist editor. Who the hell are you to be issuing warnings? I could just as well issue you a "final warning" for vandalizing my edits and stalking me!

Oh, and you also lied about the reason for me being blocked previously; it had nothing at all to do with the Duke Rape Hoax, but was political revenge for my having fought against your comrades' censorship campaign to prevent anyone from knowing that 82-year-old Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted by four young black men. 70.23.167.160 16:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You received a final warning at your previous IP address, and have been blocked twice, once for 48 hours and once for 1 month. You need not be warned each time you switch IP addresses, and you have admitted to being the same person at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/70.23.167.160. Horologium talk - contrib 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not switch IP addresses; I have no set IP address. It floats. And no, there is no cumulative rule about "final warnings," and you don't get to give them. The fact that another character posted such a warning regarding another article in an earlier attempt at intimidation and censorship, does not carry over to a different article. You don't get to issue such warnings, in any event. I notice, as well, that you didn't even respond to my pointing out your lies.
70.23.167.160 07:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Horologium is perfectly able to issue warnings, as is any other editor, since warnings are not administrative action, they merely advise that if a course of conduct continues then administrative action may follow. The fact that you have previously been warned against spamming articles with links to your own writings obvious does count cumulatively against you and make such administrative action more likely.
Wnjr 10:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it totally improper for you to be ganging up on me on Horologium's behalf, but you lied. No; he is not "perfectly able to issue warnings, as is any other editor, since warnings are not administrative action, they merely advise that if a course of conduct continues then administrative action may follow." He said that I "will" be blocked, which means that he was impersonating an administrator. And in lying on his behalf, you too engaged in fraud. 70.23.167.160 13:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I stated his actions are perfectly proper, per Wikipedia:Vandalism: "If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the user's talk page." Just because you don't understand wikipedia practices and policies does not exempt you from them. Horologium is also correct that if you continue your abuse you will be blocked, I suggest you not seek to test that hypothesis.
Wnjr 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Your Abuse, Wnjr, and Stop Misrepresenting My Edits

Ganging up on me on User:Horologium's behalf is a sorry way to seek to divert attention from your own history of abuse and stalking. I have never spammed WP or anywhere else, so don't try and make me look bad on my User Talk page, in order to try and make yourself look good. 70.23.167.160 12:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pot-kettle-black, at all?
Wnjr 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

You have previously been warned and blocked for personal attacks, incivility, and disruption. You have also been warned about using Wikipedia as a soapbox to push a point of view. You are exhibiting again the same behaviors that caused problems before. I urge you to adopt a more collegial attitude and to try to work with your fellow editors without resorting to name-calling and personal remarks. I urge you to assume good faith on the part of other contributors. These are not simply "good ideas" - they're core policies of Wikipedia.

Regarding your charges of censorship, this is not a free speech project. We have standards for the material added to this encyclopedia. The standards are especially high for biographies of living people. You are welcome to say anything you like in forums and blogs elsewhere, but Wikipedia should not be used to add poorly-sourced defamatory assertions or to skew neurality by giving excess weight to minor points.

Everyone who follows the policies and guidelines, who doesn't disrupt the project, is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. Those who can't or won't do so are not welcome. Please be civil and edit in a neutral manner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment
"Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely."
Back with your stalking and attempts at intimidation and to provoke a reaction that you can then call a "personal attack" as a pretext to viciously retaliate, I see. As you well know, I have been previously blocked for purely political reasons. And what the hell would you know about "edit[ing] in a neutral manner"?

"You have also been warned about using Wikipedia as a soapbox to push a point of view."

No, I haven't. You made that one up.

"You are exhibiting again the same behaviors that caused problems before. I urge you to adopt a more collegial attitude and to try to work with your fellow editors without resorting to name-calling and personal remarks. I urge you to assume good faith on the part of other contributors. These are not simply "good ideas" - they're core policies of Wikipedia."

Nonsense. You and your comrades have me under a 24-7 block against my editing any articles. How, then, am I supposed to work with you, and how you do justify that as "collegiality"? As you use it, "collegiality" has the same meaning it does among Marxist academics: Anyone interested in the truth, as opposed to Marxist propaganda "lacks collegiality" and must go. You are just angry that I exposed your campaign on a talk page. Did you really think not only that I would accept your regime of censorship regarding articles on topics that I have studied to death (and which you have not studied), but would refrain from exposing your campaign on talk pages?
You have abused your power again and again, and have, with your comrades, shown nothing but bad faith. WP rules do not require that someone assume good faith under such circumstances. And as a stalker, you are no more my "colleague" than a rapist is his victim's lover. Indeed, your history of stalking and vindictive behavior towards editors with whom you disagree or who criticize you is legendary.

"Regarding your charges of censorship, this is not a free speech project."

I have never called WP a free speech project. I have also never called it an encyclopedia.

"We have standards for the material added to this encyclopedia. The standards are especially high for biographies of living people."

How can you type something like that without your keyboard exploding? Provide one example where I have added material to a BLP in violation of WP's official standards. You have stalked, censored, and threatened me precisely because I add impeccably-sourced information that you do not want people to read.
I notice that you have backed off from stalking people at articles like the one on the Channon Christian-Christopher Newsom rape-murders, even though they have added unsourced Internet rumors, because there were too many people insisting on telling the story of that atrocity and telling your would-be censor friends to go to hell. Your fellow censor User:FloNight responded by shutting things down and worked her mischief, removing impeccably sourced material, but they still wouldn't stand for it! Makes you bitter as hell to lose that one, doesn't it?

"You are welcome to say anything you like in forums and blogs elsewhere, but Wikipedia should not be used to add poorly-sourced defamatory assertions or to skew neurality [sic] by giving excess weight to minor points."

Support your defamatory accusations, or be silent. Since you have no shame, I know you won't apologize. By the way, you have a meticulously documented history of retaliating at Wikipedia against people who criticize you elsewhere, so we both know that you don't believe your own words.
The craziest thing about your campaign against me is that I'm a real encyclopedist, while you are an unappeasable opponent of the ideal of encyclopedic knowledge.
70.23.167.160 07:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't get banned by the agenda-pushers

I very much liked your comments about that rogue editor who is trying to push his agenda by eliminating everything about Crystal Gail Mangum and censoring the Duke Rape Hoax page. Don't insult these agenda-pushers, though, because some of them have a lot of pull and will get you banned, and I don't want that. Stick around and spread the truth. Ikilled007 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, but I am afraid that a ban is unavoidable. The editor in question is an administrator who dedicated himself months ago to getting me banned, and to which end he and some like-minded comrades have for six months stalked me from article to article, immediately censoring every single edit I make. When I complained about the abuse – which violates every WP rule in the book – they got me blocked, which they have so far done four times (I believe he has personally blocked me at least twice). He has given me the implicit alternative of becoming pc (i.e., a racist liar), going silent, or being permanently silenced at Antipedia by a ban. Meanwhile, he has sought for months to get me permanently banned.
The problem with WP rules is that they are only rules in the sense that the Soviet constitution was a constitution. The Soviet constitution promised citizens equality and all manner of rights. In practice, however, over 90 percent of the citizenry was disenfranchised, and demanding one's rights resulted in either being executed, sent to a gulag, or later on, to a psychiatric hospital. Meanwhile, Party members lived above the law.
Granted, at WP, things are much less dramatic. The cadrists don’t have the power to shoot the non-pc in the head, work them to death in the gulag, or give them electroshock or drugs. The operation sucks in volunteers with a passion for scholarship who find themselves stymied by racist Marxists (or as they call themselves, "anti-racists") who censor sourced, factual work, replacing it with emptiness and/or lies. And while the Marxists violate every rule in the book with impunity, they lie about the same rules, in order to rationalize their stalking and intimidation of non-Marxists and anti-communists.
The stalker in question has now upped the ante, and is violating WP: VAN, in deleting entries on discussion pages. I fail to see how, under such circumstances, I can spread the truth.
70.23.167.160 23:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)