Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection

message: '''
::::Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Please don't delete other users' comments. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)'''
Katefan sees fit to staulk - I find the personal attack more closely related to another matter - so I've removed it to discussion,. If Katefan has a comment on the substance of the article - she is welcome to particpate. Benjamin Gatti
If you could, please show me how I have "staulked" you. Otherwise you may prefer to modify your remarks. Two in-common articles is hardly "stalking."  I have a right to comment on a VfD just like everybody else. I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my words, but I felt like it was necessary since the discussion was already on the subject of potential conflicts of interest. Also, I never made a personal attack against you -- I never said you WERE currying favor, or that I thought you were currying favor, or anything approaching it -- I said it could have that appearance, which is far from a personal attack. On the other hand, capriciously painting comments you dislike as personal attacks can be construed as itself a personal attack, though I won't press this issue. I will, however, insist on my comments being left intact -- a stance at least one other editor seems to feel proper. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
You have the right to comment on other pages without people impuning your motives without cause - and I think you should extend the same courtesy. Benjamin Gatti
:Did you extend me courtesy when you said I'm "stalking" you by participating in two of the same articles out of tens of thousands?  How about when you called my pointing out something unflattering about you a "personal attack?" Or how about deleting my comments on a talk page three times?  · Katefan0(scribble) 05:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Benjamin, this seems to be unduly hypocritical. You commented on the VfD "...both of whom failed to disclose that they are engaged in an arbcom petition against Ed Poor - that is that they clearly Oppose the policy. ... items are being voted for deletion by vested parties as a means of censoring ideas with which they take exception". i.e. you "disclosed" something about two editors, impugning their motives for the VfD and the vote. You can hardly then tell Katefan0 that you have "the right to comment on other pages without people 'impuning' your motives" and disclosing equally (ir)relevant information about you, as this was precisely what you did in the first place. — Asbestos | Talk 12:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevent Comments 

message: Would somebody like to explain why there is a VFD notice on a VFD page? Is someone doing dumb things to make a point? Should we just remove it? Otherwise I could see this going on for ever... DJ Clayworth 15:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD on VFD 

message: There is a 3RR violation report about this article concerning Benjamin Gatti.  It is currently open for comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Benjamin Gatti.  violet/riga (t) 15:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR violation by Benjamin Gatti 

message: I initially discounted three keep votes.  was too new and looks very trollish.   created the account ages ago but only made about 24 edits prior to July 18th.  And Friday who for some reason I incorrectly counted as having made very few article edits (sorry Friday!)  I've altered the closing summary to show the incorrect count and the correction. This error didn't come close to affecting the result. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The close