:I am removing the links in violation of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba]]. This has been voiced by 2 Admin: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andries&diff=74578926&oldid=74388259][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andries&diff=95325558&oldid=95136900] and is not bound by th 3 revert rule. Until ArbCom and Admin changes its position, I am not violating the 3RR and I am not changing your postings. I am simply deactivating the links in accordance with the opinion of Admin. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] <sup>[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]</sup> 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
:I am removing the links in violation of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba]]. This has been voiced by 2 Admin: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andries&diff=74578926&oldid=74388259][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andries&diff=95325558&oldid=95136900] and is not bound by th 3 revert rule. Until ArbCom and Admin changes its position, I am not violating the 3RR and I am not changing your postings. I am simply deactivating the links in accordance with the opinion of Admin. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] <sup>[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]</sup> 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
::Andries is bound by the ArbCom ruling, as well you yourself. If other editors in good standing are inserting links, it's another issue. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.
Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).
Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)
Note SSS108. You have stalked me on Wikipedia, trying to disrupt my editing of the Arne Næss page. on which subject you have no knowledge, not least since he is Norwegian. To disrupt my editing by blanking my entry from mere spite is stalking. I do not wish you to send me messages to my user pages, so please desist. And desist from blanking material I put on other Wikipedia articles, or you can be charged with vandalism, you know!
I remind you of some rules on Wikipedia:
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.
"Harassment is sometimes described as a violation of don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point or no personal attacks, but is properly both a subset and special case of both, while at the same time being separate from both for definition reasons. The policy of "no personal attacks" is primarily about content, not behavior (for example, calling certain editors "assholes" is a violation of NPA, but is not in itself harassment), while the policy of "don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" covers many less malicious behaviors that, while unacceptable, are not as bad as harassment (for example, disruption intended to support a cause). And yet, it is a subset of both, in that it is disruption to prove a point, and it is an attempt to personally attack another editor of Wikipedia."
Stalking is a legal term for repeated harassment or other forms of invasion of a person's privacy in a manner that causes fear to its target. Statutes vary between jurisdiction but may include such acts as:
repeated following;
unwanted contact (by letter or other means of communication);
observing a person's actions closely for an extended period of time; or
contacting family members, friends, or associates of a target inappropriately
cyberstalking
You are also guilty of this on a large scale, and you know it. More precisely, you engage in what Wikipedia defines as:
"Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone. This term is used interchangeably with online harassment and online abuse.
A cyberstalker follows the victim's online activity to gather information, initiate contact, make threats, or engage in other forms of verbal intimidation. Cyberstalkers target victims using online forums, bulletin boards, chat rooms, spyware, and spam. They may engage in live chat harassment or flaming (online verbal abuse and/or character defamation); leaving improper messages on message boards or in guest books; sending electronic viruses; sending unsolicited e-mail; tracing another person's computer and Internet activity, and electronic identity theft."
Before you try to mirror this back at me, you chief tactic, I point out that I am NOT guilty of anything like this, hence - though would in character doubtless like to claim it of me, it is untrue!
--ProEdits20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so sure I have been stalking you on Wikipedia, file a complaint. It's not difficult to do. All of your activity is easily traceable and no one needs to "stalk" you to get it. How I keep track of your activity is no different than how Andries keep track of my activity (and vice-versa). You are all word and no action. The page about Arne Næss contained original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You even called your material "original research"Ref. You are obviously oblivious to Wikipedia's policies on original research and citing reliable sources.
If you continue to post your long, rambling diatribes on my Talk Page, I will delete your posts. Take you whine, babble and venom elsewhere. I think if anyone has a case for "harrassment", it is I against you. SSS108talk-email20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Priddy made his comment on the top of Angela's talk page (instead of the bottom where it should have been made) Angela moved Priddy's comment to the bottom of the page where it belonged: Reference.
Because Angela moved the comment, Priddy (unable to find his previous comment) reposted it again: Reference.
Without any proof, Priddy jumped to the worst case conspiratorial view and erroneously claimed that I removed his post. Priddy said, "You will see the determination of Moreno to stop you knowing what I wrote by the fact that he has deleted my request to you in your user paeg (see below on the discussion page). Just goes to emphasizse my point. Moreno is a full-time stalker and defamer. Robert Priddy (Refs: 01 - 02)
That's right! Robert Priddy claimed I removed the text and insulted me as a "stalker" and "defamer" although Angela moved Priddy's comment herself. I never touched or edited that page!
This the guy who is trying to portray himself as honest, sober and fair-minded. He defames me for his paranoid errors and is wholly unapologetic! SSS108talk-email01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
False Claims Against Me About Comments I Did Not Make
On June 11th 2006, a person with the IP 210.210.37.103 submitted a comment on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page that stated the following:
Hii Mr Kazlev, This is the anonymous poster. Hope you are doing well. By the way, due to your suggestion, i've selected a pseudonym which will be "Mad". I also agree with your comment on the inefficiency of the whole process of the endless argument and fights to get over a point. Many a times i've thought about the amount of time people spend on this page about editing, reverting and what not...And used to think that if the people over here click on the link www.thehungersite.com during that time or send that link to other people they know, more hungry people will get food. At the same time, till now, i haven't seen anything that would not lead me to a conclusion of not supporting what SSS108 has been doing. If everybody left this page thinking that its difficult to face the bickerings, onslaught of edits (covert and overt), then this page would certainly wouldn't have improved. This is more important when there has been "co-incidence" edits at many a point of time whenever there comes a report which is pro Sathya Sai. So while i would prefer to spend my time clicking on www.thehungersite.com, i would like to extend my support to SSS108 with the work he is doing. Mr Kazlev, so we can join up together to increase the number of clickings on www.thehungersite.com Hope you accept my invitation. "Mad"Reference
Editors, please note how Moreno replies to a question with a derogatory diatribe and an assertion of "madness! Who is most obsessed with propaganda, Andries or Moreno, is as clear as day to those who read even a fraction of the endless Morenos' web pages and postings and the comparatively very few by Andries.--ProEdits 14:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reference
This is yet another blatant lie by ProEdits against me. I did not make that post and ProEdits is jumping to conclusions a prirori and is defaming me with his unsupported, erroneous and spiteful accusations. This from someone who claims he knows how to research his facts and claims he is honest and truthful. I think the facts show otherwise. SSS108talk-email01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are not the ones who need to be careful as we do not break the laws on slander as Freelanceresearch has done on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2 endlessly... the same Lisa de Witt having even been banned from Wikipedia for that previously too! As usual, she makes big claims without anything that can be called supporting evidence - circumstantial or otherwise, as is seen above. I am stating fact, not slander without using derogatory terms like 'sleazy' (Refs: 01 - 02)
According to the Wikipedia Block Log For Freelanceresearch, she has never been "banned from Wikipedia".
After having pressure put on ProEdits by both Freelanceresearch and myself, he admitted that he made a mistake and retracted his comment. He said:
I wish to correct my former statement that Lisa de Witt was banned from Wikipedia. I find I was misinformed by someone who commented thus, but - having checked thoroughly - I find no evidence of it. I am removing my unfortunate mistake. Interesting that Lisa de Witt admits that she and Moreno are co-responsible for the mean-spirited atmosphere here - this was also obvious long, long before I entered this page with some fairly restrained comments about them (Reference).
As if this can't be embarrassing enough, Freelanceresearch never"admitted" that we were "co-responsible for the mean-spirited atmosphere". As a matter of fact, Freelanceresearch said:
Joe and I are not the ones responsible for the mean-spirited atmosphere here. Wherever the anti-Sais travel their toxic behavior and agenda of hate and lies goes with them (Reference).
Robert Priddy — aka ProEdits (talk·contribs) aka 84.208.99.96 (talk·contribs) aka 80.111.21.76 (talk·contribs) — wrote a rambling diatribe on my talk page (Reference) falsly accusing me of "harrassment and stalking". The only "evidence" he cited against me (pertaining to Wikipedia) was one edit on the Arne Næss article (without even referencing his complaint). I simply removed the original research that ProEdits (Robert Priddy) added to the Arne Næss article. As a matter of fact, ProEdits (Robert Priddy) wrote, "This synopsis is based on original research by a former teacher of Arne Næss' work for many years at the University of Oslo, Robert Priddy" (Reference). To further strengthen my point, View The History Tab for the Arne Næss article. I only made one edit there. That's it. SSS108talk-email01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I have not stated that SSS108 [Gerald Moreno] is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba, nor that he is Moreno's guru since he surprisingly declared this himself after some time about 2 years ago" (Reference).
Priddy made this comment after I stated that I am not a follower of Sathya Sai Baba (Reference). I never "declared" Sathya Sai Baba as my guru "2 years ago". This is a bold-faced and unsourced untruth. Regarding Priddy's comments that he never stated that Sathya Sai Baba was my guru, look at the following quotes where he stated exactly that:
"In my haste I thought the user page was specifically related to the attempt by Gerald Moreno, a person who defames and stalks me throughout the web because I am a critic of his guru, Sathya Sai Baba" (Reference).
"I feel I do at least have a moral right to refute arguments directed against me...and will be further injured by a subjective account by a Sai follower, if it is not truly an independent public document" (Reference).
"He is not only a defamer and critic of me, but of all critics of his highly doubtful guru, Sri Sathya Sai Baba..." (Reference).
Please do not reveal real names
SSS108, please do not continue to violate Wikipedia:privacy by revealing the real name of user:Ekantik. As per arbcom decision in this respect, I will however keep on using your name because you yourself keep revealing it. Andries06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you did it again on the noticeboard page. Look, if the guy wanted to keep his name a secret, then he has the right to. What you are doing is considered stalking and that is not a good thing. I ask you to stop now. If the person wanted to reveal their name, then they would (like I have). But, the editor chose not to do so and we should respect his right to not use his real name. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)18:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about his stalking of me on the internet and creating a blog specifically attacking me on Wikipedia? I said I would respect his wish as long as he doesn't attempt to portray himself as a netural editor who does not have a POV to push and that he is somehow not connected to the Sai Controversy. He is. He chose to engage in debates with me first, which led to my discovery of his sockpuppet. That isn't stalking. SSS108talk-email18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Debates? If I add my comments to Talk:Sathya Sai Baba regarding problems with the article then that isn't a debate addressed specifically to you, but for all editors. You are not the owner of that article. And yes, according to Wikipedia policies your actions can be interpreted as stalking. After all, you had to dig into my edit history to find something wrong with it and according to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ekantik I have shown that almost all your accusations have reasonable explanations. Your sockpuppetry allegation has effectively collapsed, yet you continue to discuss disruptive information that bears no relation to the original sockpuppetry complaint. All of your actions are in violation of several Wikipedia poolicies and guidelines and you can be blocked for them. Please desist from being disruptive and stop revealing people's identities in violation of their requests. ekantiKtalk04:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Breach Of Privacy
A serious message - PLEASE READ
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia.
If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. REMEMBER: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, includingyou.
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, please stop using my talk page as a forum to push your venom and whine (just as you do on your blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia). You have shown nothing except your attempt to deceive others that you are a neutral editor who does not have a POV to push (despite the fact that you are the most vocal critic and opponent of Sathya Sai Baba on the internet). Your thousands of defamatory, vulgar, sexually-explicit and grotesque posts against Sathya Sai Baba stand in testament to this fact (as I have stated before [3][4]). Any Google search for "sathya sai baba+gaurasundara" ([5]) will bring up the relevant results.
Your edit history is public domain Ekantik (talk·contribs) / Gaurasundara (talk·contribs) and anyone can view it. By posting on Wikipedia, all of your edits are accessible to anyone at any time. Contrary to your assertions that I am "stalking" you (a mantra you have parroted numerous times on other forums), it is clear that you are stalking me. After attacking and defaming me all over the internet (and creating a blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia), you "innocently" appear on the Sathya Sai Baba article, engaged me in debate incognito and made edits all in exclusive association with the Sai Controversy. When Jossi asked you if you considered yourself a POV editor ([6]) you said "no" ([7]) even though you know full well that you are a Sai Critic/Ex-devotee. You continually and unremittingly accuse Sathya Sai Baba of being a "homosexual paedophile" and "faggot" despite the fact that he has never been convicted of any crime, has never been charged with any crime and has never had even one single complaint lodged against him first-hand by any alleged victim in India.
And my sockpuppetry claim against you has not"collapsed". To the contrary, you confirmed it by admitting that you areGaurasundara ([8]). As long as you edit on the Sathya Sai Baba article, you will be held accountable for your extra-Wikipedia status as a critic, defamer and ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba. Get used to it.
If you want this discussion to stop, I suggest that you stop using my real name and behave in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ekantiKtalk03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SSS108, so should we or should we not include your website into the Sathya Sai Baba article? By the way, you are the webmaster of http://www.saisathyasai.com , aren't you? Please tell me if by writing this I am stalking. 15:05 (UTC+1) 10 Dec. 2006 Kkrystian Modified: 15:09
Regarding the inclusion of saisathyasai.com, I already expressed my view that we should not include the link because it will cause another uproar by Andries & Co. As you already know, when it comes to highly defamatory content by Robert Priddy, Andries will argue the exact opposite of what he is arguing now. Andries is a POV pusher due his former webmaster status and current "Main Representative, Supervisor And Contact" for the largest website opposing Sathya Sai Baba on the internet [11]. Best to drop the issue. Now there are two well known Anti-Sai Activists to deal with: Andries and Ekantik / Gaurasundara. SSS108talk-email18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different issue. If Robert Priddy is notable then it is because of his writings critical of SSB. Of course his article should link to his writings that make him notable on his own homepage. It is very similar with Michael Moore who became notable because of his criticism of George W. Bush and of coures his homepage should be linked to even it is defamatory reg. Bush. See Talk:Michael_Moore#Violation_of_WP:BLP. If you had your own article then of course that article could link to your homepage defaming me and Priddy. Andries18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time, the link you want to include on Robert Priddy's page is not his "homepage". It is an Anti-Sai Site exclusively attacking Sathya Sai Baba. And I am not alone in my opinion. You were warned against including that link by admin [12]. As I said before, you will argue hard and long to push your Anti-Sai Agenda because you are a POV pusher, self-admitted critic and ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba and former webmaster and current "Main Reresentative, Supervisor And Contact" for the largest Anti-Sai website on the internet [13]. SSS108talk-email18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your upteenth explanation that I still consider completely unconvincing. I will only revert, because discussion seems to be endless between us without any side coming a millimeter closer. Andries18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will revert what? And by the way, I am not aware of any ArbCom ruling on the George W. Bush or Michael Moore wiki-pages that prevents linking to critical and negative sites, as outlined by the ArbCom ruling on the Sathya Sai Baba article. You can't use other pages to make your arguments. There is now an ArbCom ruling that must be taken into account. SSS108talk-email18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can use other pages to make arguments. Precedents are quoted all over Wikipedia in discussions. What is your rationale for arguing that Priddy's site is an "Anti-Sai site" and not a homepage? ekantiKtalk03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, Andries and ProEdits (Robert Priddy) are all collaborators and belong to the very same Anti-Sai Group that systematically attacks Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. I do not have to explain myself to you, of all people, Ekantik/Gaurasundara. Admin has already spoken about this issue [14] and that is all I need to say. SSS108talk-email04:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see the link in my previous post. Place your cursor over it and left-click on it. Please direct your questions to the Admin who made that comment. SSS108talk-email05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I am not asking what Admin think of it in connection with the ArbCom ruling. I am asking what rationale you are employing in determining Priddy's site as an "Anti Sai site" and not a homepage. Thanks in advance. ekantiKtalk06:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not kidding. I am asking you to provide a rationale for one of your fundamental arguments. Thank you for violating WP:CIVIL and not pointing me to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports your theory. I'll also thank you to carry this out. ekantiKtalk06:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your comments on Sathya Sai Baba: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ekantiktalk04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ekantik aka Gaurasundara, there you go again acting like an Admin. Too funny. And if you are so committed to no personal attacks, explain why you created a public blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia? Explain why you have made numerous derogatory comments against me on Yahoo Groups and forums about my involvement on Wikipedia (which has already been discussed earlier on this page)? I suggest you read Off Wiki Personal Attacks while you are so busy acting like an Admin and citing Wikipedia policies. You viciously attack me off Wikipedia about my invovlement on Wikipedia and then you have the audacity to tell me not to attack you when I rightly point out your Anti-Sai Bais and vicious defamations against Sathya Sai Baba. I know you must always have the last word (as you do outside Wikipedia) and I will tell you once again to stop using my talk page as a forum for your venom and whine. SSS108talk-email04:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your second warning. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Sathya Sai Baba, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.
Re your above complaints, "Attack" seems to be your favourite word of late. If you use Wikipedia as a vehicle to push your bias in favour of Sathya Sai Baba, you can expect your edits to be reviewed by other editors just as you do to them. The blog you keep referring to was created prior to my joining Wikipedia. In addition I may draw attention to your numerous derogatory comments on Yahoo groups and other venues (which far exceed mine when you consider the number of websites and blogs you author that specifically slander me). You were recently reminded by Admin Jossi about off-wiki attacks that you continue to engage in. Wikipedia does not directly penalise editors for such attacks but such actions may be considered aggravating factors during dispute resolution and other procedural matters. I would very much love to stop using your talk page as a "vehicle to whine and spew venom" just as soon as you cut it with the personal attacks. Please comply. Ekantiktalk04:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to stop. File a complaint. And I would like to see my off-Wiki posts attacking you and your involvement on Wikipedia? And your diff from Jossi [15] was not directed to anyone in particular. Stop distorting other's words. SSS108talk-email05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments [16]. You have engaged in edit warring and have reverted the article a number of times wiping out substantial contributions. This diff spans 8 days and 48 reversions and yet the content of the article is almost identical, except for rearranging a couple of paragraphs. Reverting is not an appropriate editing method. Reverting 3 times on 19 Dec is arguably a blockable offense even though it is one less than a 3RR violation. Even reverting once every couple of days to a favorite or preferred version is a bad practice and will keep the article stuck in a bad state. You have also engaged in inappropriate personal comments. Simply searching for the phrase "You are..." on this page finds it used more often by SS108 than all other editors combined. It does not matter whether a editor runs an anti-Sai web site somewhere else, as long as their behavior here is appropriate and follows the rules. Accusing someone of being "the most vocal critic and defamer of SSB on the internet" over and over again is not how you move forward on editing an article. It is also not appropriate to link to google searches or external web sites on the talk page in order to demonstrate that an editor is opposed to SSB. (It is also not appropriate for opponents of SSB to try and denigrate SSS108 because he is a believer. Just deal with a person's edits on wikipedia and leave the rest of the web to itself.)
However, I believe some of your concerns are legitimate.
I am in a tough spot here. The edit warring and continued personal comments require some response. However, it seems that the only regular editors here have either a strong pro-SSB or strong anti-SSB agenda, and if I block or ban SSS108, I will have to personally watch the article to make sure it doesn't deteriorate into an attack article. I also think the disagreements here are rather small, and can be worked out if the editors involved can set aside personal issues. Therefore, I will issue a 48 hour block of SSS108 (24 hours for edit warring and 24 hours for personal comments) which will be suspended—I will not actually carry out the block if you stop edit warring and making personal remarks. I am also placing the article on 1 revert parole. All editors of this article are limited to one content revert per day (obvious vandalism excepted). Editors who revert more than once may be blocked for up to 24 hours per offense. Hopefully you will be able to discuss your changes and come to an agreement on these issues, or at least agree that as long as "the other side's" version is not much different from the way you would want it, you can let it go for a while to work on some of the more serious problem areas. Thatcher13105:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your propositon
I think your proposition is a good idea because it will greatly limit Anti-Sai POV pushing. Kkrystiantalk 22:04 (UTC+1) 20 Dec 2006
Warning
On Talk:Robert Priddy you are changing other user's (i.e. my) postings and you are using misleading edit summaries. You are near 3RR violation at Robert Priddy itself and using misleading edit summaries there, too.
This behaviour may result in temporary blocking your write access to Wikipedia. Of course, as an involved party, I won't block you myself.
Andries is bound by the ArbCom ruling, as well you yourself. If other editors in good standing are inserting links, it's another issue. --Pjacobi22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A serious message - PLEASE READ 