" 

 == Sock puppets == 

 I'm sure that  is a sock puppet. Jonah has been using multiple sock puppets ever since he started editing. I blocked a handful of them previously. I suppose that we should block  too. -  
 :Due to his many disruptions and personal attacks, some sort of action regarding the user now known as  would be appropriate. Perhaps an RfC? What do you think? -  
 :PS, yes, I think you acted properly to refactor the personal attack against you. -  

 ::You might want talk to Sojambi, I think he's going to file one.  At least, that seemed to be the implication.   

 :::On the Biff Rose talk page, I extended an invitation to meet Jonah in Union Square, New York City, for lunch, my treat.  Apparently we both live in the 5 Boroughs.  Perhaps we can work this out in a civil manner.  So far he has not responded positively, and my name remains on his official enemies list.  So we will see....I'll give it another couple days.  -  

 ==RFC page for BD== 

 Got your message.  I've removed the comments.   

 == it.wiki == 
 Hallo, many thanks for you message. We aleady linked the interview in our Village pump a couple of days ago. Thanks for your nice words... -) Ciao it:Utente:Civvi 

 == pl.wiki:  A quick hello == 

 Hi Paul. 

 Thanks for the info on the interview. I think it's the best one I've watched so far. ) I wanted to let you know I've moved it, but we all have our hands full right now (the 100K articles Press Release brought an enormous popularity increase). 

 Happy editing and see you at Wikimania 2006 (hopefully). 

 Best, 

 == BD777 IP address == 

 Takes ownership of it here   -   

 Also, I forgot to mention that I agree with your position on E - those comments are most appropriate for the talk page - see ""threaded discussion"" in the comments section.  -   

 == Old Sandbox == 

 I keep up with your old sandbox page. I would note merely that my attempt to fix BD777s behavior is quite clearly detailed on the RFC page, with links to diffs of what both I and he said. I'd also note that the pages you accuse me of having as ""pet"" pages are pages that I had not edited untill after BD777 began editing on them. While some of the signatories of the RFC are liberal POV warriors, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that I am.  -   

 :What your comment on my talk page demonstrates is that you are not doing the requiste research to fully understand the issue - for instance, you can't figure out why BD777 got vanadalism warnings - but I can, and I did, in about 10 seconds - he got them for being a vandal. Everyone who is going to look at BD777 from an ArbCom perspective is going to look at his first edit. They're going to understand why he got vandalism warnings. Unlike you, people are willing to click the previous edit and next edit. They are willing to scroll down into the text under the diff to figure out context. Why you are not, I have no idea. 

 ::Okay, you've proved your point and mine: Yes, that is clearly vandalism, but no, I shouldn't have had to dig for it or ask you for it.  Has he made any edits since that are clearly vandalism, or were the warnings sufficient? 

 :::He has not done anything since that rises, in my eyes, to the level that I would consider banning him indefinitely, no.  -   

 :You write that you don't see how this is a rebuke - as you can see by the comment above, I wrote ""please read WP:AGF"". BD777 responds that he's not going to follow WP:AGF. I ask him what we can do to fix the article - he has nothing to say about that. Anyone who isn't trying to d