Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am declining to vote on this, in the light of user:Starblind's belief that one must first be an adherent to the arbitration. Having read the arbitration, however, I must say that I do not find it, as it stands at this daydatetime, to represent in any way an attempt to arbitrate a dispute, rather the simple sepulchre-whitewashing which I had believed Wikipaedia above. I do not agree with the highly-POV style of this article, but if the events recounted occurred, then they need recording, so that W~paedia does not become a censored site. In this regard, I should be interested to hear from someone at admin level what I am supposed to do when it is my opinion that the W~paedia controls are being misused, to block any form of discussion over a disputed article.--Simon Cursitor 07:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Further to the above: on returning to the page (and thank you to whoever categorised it, since it has made "things" a lot clearer), it is now clearly noticeable that one user is systematically matriculating the Keep votes, identifying each as a sock-puppet. I take it that this is as a means of persuading admins to ignore these votes in the final tally. However, in each case little evidence is offered, other than that this is a user's first edit. Everyone has to start somewhere. I've forgotten where I did, but it was almost certainly egregious pap. Is it surprising that, on an emotive subject, people feel inspired to contribute for the first time ? Yes, I know that this rant will probably get me flamed and banned -- so be it :: another victory for "Free Speech". But reflect, those who criticise -- I could have taken this onto the public pages, rather than a VfD that will die in due course. --Simon Cursitor 07:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This rant won't get you banned, nor will disagreeing with anyone in here. What can get you banned is vandalism, and judging from your contributions, you are nowhere near a vandal. What could you get banned as well is sockpuppetry, and you don't seem to have any sockpuppets, nor do you seem to be someone's sockpuppet. You therefore have nothing to fear. Aecis 22:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I might agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that (1) something very similar has happened on other VfDs on articles created by Argyrosargyrou (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Evidence#26 May - 14 June 2005) and (2) the user in question has a track record of abusing open proxies to evade temporary blocks on his account (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Evidence#2 June 2005). I should note that one of the votes above came from an open proxy in Colombia. Given this, I think it's reasonable for Kiand and others to treat the votes from anonymous and new users with scepticism. Of course, this shouldn't be a factor in making up your own mind which way to vote (or to vote at all), but it's something that needs to be born in mind when tallying the votes. -- ChrisO 07:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and I note what you say. However I also note that you are a ... shall we say vociferous ... opponent of User:Argyrosargyrou (apologies to him if I have mis-spelled this), and that both of your references above are to allegations coming from your own mouth. I decline to take part in what I increasingly believe not just to be a "flame war" but in fact a "troll war" :: that is, a dispute being run to draw in the unwary passer-by, so that they are being obliged to ... let us say, entertain ... one or both sides.
    However, perhaps you can advise me whether it is possible to VfD a VfD, that is, to cause a vote to remove a VfD prior to any voting or decision, on the gound of mala fides --Simon Cursitor 09:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, it is not possible to VfD a VfD. Once an article has been nominated for VfD, the voting needs to take its course. Perhaps it is possible for admins to undo a nomination if they have good reason to believe that the nomination is an act of sheer vandalism, but I am not sure. By the way, your referring to mala fides almost makes it seem as though Chris is the culprit here and Argyros the victim. Aecis 09:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you (honestly) for your advice. As a newbie, I need guidance through the labyrinthine corridros of wiki-politicks. And, yes, I agree, I almost does seem as if Argyros is being made a victim.--Simon Cursitor 10:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simon Cursitor, if we had it your way wiki would be nothing more than a propoganda project. --E.A 10:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, let us assume for a moment that what ChrisO alleges is true... Shall we have one user manipulate VfDs so that his own POV is spread (which even his countrymen do not share to this extense)? See the RfAr, see the evidence presented, especially the Cyprus_dispute history, and compare to the alleged actions of the user during the blocks. We do have a user here who wants to go to all lengths to push through his POV, even violating wikipedia rules and manipulating VfDs. I would prefer however to have the votes in two numbered lists, with the sockpuppet comments in a separate section, relating to the number in the list. And maybe some day we make up a stricter rule on who can vote (excluding anonymous users and registered ones who registered after the VfD came up); this might sound a bit exaggerated, but I think it will prevent sockpuppeting for vote manipulation, and thus an endless discussion like this. - Snchduer 11:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • E.A. -- Yes, but one where the propaganda would include both sides' views, rather than where one vociferous minority cudgels another into silence. --Simon Cursitor 12:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Snchduer -- I have tried to read the RfAr and make sense of it. Could I ask you to reread it yourself, bearing in mind on this occasion the admitted actions of the other side. --Simon Cursitor 12:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, come on, if you're going to accuse me of something, at least use my name/handle will you, and not refer to me as 'one user'.

The article author has had a number of other rants up on VFD, where there have been lots of single-edit users from open proxies voting. To me, and to many others, this is a clear case of vote manipulation. They are either direct sockpuppets, or are being garnered in from an external source.

Administrators are allowed disregard anonymous votes and those from very new users - the rules state so. They have to disregard known sock-puppet votes. I am assisting the administrators in this regard by providing details on how many/generally few votes anyone who has voted Keep so far (other than the article author) has.

A previous article deleted despite huge numbers of anon-votes went to Votes for Undeletion, where the rules are far stricter - something like 25 non-minor edits to the main article space and having been a member for over 7 days at the time of nomination. Here, NO votes were obtained to support reinstating the article. This shows, to me at least, that the anon-votes and new users are nothing but sockpuppets - couldn't meet the requirements as they have no intention of making worthwhile contributions.

--Kiand 13:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and has just been pointed out to me by User:ChrisO, -all- these seperate 'people' voting have usernames which happen to match characters in the new series of Doctor Who in the UK. This is far too much of a coincidence. Hence, its obviously one person. --Kiand 13:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You are clearly a liar. Only one of these names is a character from the new series of Doctor Who that that's me, the Jagrafes. Who are the others ? You are deliberately trying to sway the vote by making unsubstantiated allegations against the people voting to keep this page and therefore this vote and RfD should be declared invalid. --Jagrafes 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Big Brother, Captain Jack, and The Slitheen User:TheSlitheen (not yet contributed here, but making similar style reverts) are all characters in the current Doctor Who series. Thats 4, minimum. Theres other obvious cultural referneces to the UK - Chaucher, and Neil Kinnock. So we've got a Doctor Who-liking, UK resident who's vote spamming.
The original author uses a .co.uk homepage. We've got enough proof to show that its one person. We've got enough proof to show they're in the UK. We've got enough proof to show that the original author is the UK. That added together shows its sockpuppetry. --Kiand 16:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He's definitely taking the mickey now - there's yet another Doctor Who-related sockpuppet active on Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, namely User:TheEndOfTheWorld (the title of episode 2 of the present series). -- ChrisO 16:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are grasping at straws now. Big Brother is a realty game show shown across the world and it started out in the Netherlands not the UK. TheEndOfTheWorld and Captain Jack have not voted on this page so any connection between them has nothing to do with this vote.--Atriades 17:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-Loud and prolonged moan- Argyro, stop sockpuppeting - nobody will really believe you! Will these users be deleted for being obvious sockpuppets after the RfAr is over? (needless to point to the user's contributions ...)- Snchduer 18:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The vote has lasted long enough now, as far as I care, and the vote is a resounding delete, with only Argyros and his sockpuppets voting keep. So could any one of the admins please step up and delete this article? Or are you hoping to gather more information for the RfA? Aecis 22:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rules say, unfortunately, that we have to run for 5 days minimum. Expect another 3 days of weird and wonderfully named sockpuppets giving their almost exactly the same votes. --Kiand 23:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we sit back and enjoy the ride while it lasts. Argyrosargyrou is putting on a fine show for us. ;-) -- ChrisO 23:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm betting on a few of these names to appear in the next few days: Alien(s)ofLondon, Dalek, UnquietDead, BoomTown, EmptyChild, FearForecast, MickeySmith, Harkness, Nestene and Auton. Aecis 23:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tsk. You forgot BadWolf, didn't you? -- ChrisO 23:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I probably forgot a lot more. But then again, I never watch Dr. Who, so that's no surprise. Aecis 23:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about TheDogsDinner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Blue sea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? Aecis 23:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User:TheDogsDinner is clearly a sockpuppet. I think User:Blue sea is genuine, though, judging from his/her edit history and different tone of voice. -- ChrisO 23:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree about Blue sea. I got confused because that username popped up in an edit war on the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus article. But in the edit summary, the user went against TheSlitheen, one of Argyros' sockpuppets, and he or she reverted Argyros' edits. Aecis 23:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And a new sockpuppet has appeared: HeavensDoor. Which means that Argyros is back at this page, so in the coming hours, a lot more sockpuppets should pop up. Aecis 23:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Enter MorkandMindy (talk · contribs)... Aecis 22:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Enter TheCatandDog (talk · contribs), TheFaceOfBoe (talk · contribs) and EverAndForever (talk · contribs)... Aecis 22:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Is it about time for a new article: List of sockpuppets of Argyrosargyrou?)
  • You are paranoid out of your mind. You are afraid of anyone disagreeing with you and your gang of thought police.--HeavensDoor 00:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Man, DOES he love to play sockpuppets! And they can talk! ;) - Snchduer 11:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone should seriously consider slapping this at this page, but I can't do it myself since the little fella just gives me the creeps... Sarg 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

YAP (Yet Another Proposal): Keep this VfD page archived, as a wonderful example of sockpuppetry, and link it from there. - Snchduer 13:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Now seriously, I agree. This is one of the most blatant abuses of sockpuppetry I've seen in the last three months. Sarg 18:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote should become a Wikipedia monument ;-) Aecis 22:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Look whose talking. For the worst abuse of sockpuppetry ever one only has to vist your talk page and that Scimitar, E.A, Snchduer, and of course your leader ChrisO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarg#RfA_on_Argyrosargyrou And I thought Wikipedia rule forbade personal abuse and character assaults. --Yorik 18:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hail to our leader, ChrisO! (can somebody provide with a picture of a cheering sockpuppet?) Somebody got the definition of sockpuppetry quite wrong here, havent you, Argyro? I voted personally for this VfD because of the ridiculous POV style beyond redemption, and now I could add maniacal sockpuppetry (no really, READ the definition!) as well. And hell could I agree with Kiand - we were requested to take part in the RfAr, and while you are at it, could you search my contribution on UNFanatic's talk page, where I invite him as well? - Snchduer 00:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does this come close enough to cheering? Aecis 08:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Once again, for probably the 5th time - being asked to participate in an RfAr is NOT SOCKPUPPETRY. Accept this, or go back off to your mailing list along with, oh, EVERY other 'keep' voter on here. --Kiand 18:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Scimitar citing RfAr as the sole reason for the RfD is a clear abuse of Wikipedia rules. Its an admission of a conspiracy to prevent someone contributing, and since nearly all of the votes for deletion cited that unfounded RfAr the delete votes have clearly been influenced by campaigning, and they are not genuine objections to the content of the page, they should not be counted.--Yorik 19:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What does a Redirect for Deletion have to do with this, Argyros? By the way, did you know that Stormfront.org has mentioned your homepage as a credible site worthy of visiting? And your reasoning is very funny: if someone has objections to the contents of the article, he or she is a pro-Turkish propagandist/apologist Holocaust denier (and we don't count votes of pro-Turkish propagandist/apologist Holocaust deniers, do we?), and when someone has objections because of the RfAr (even though noone has mentioned the RfAr as the reason to delete this article, but nevermind that), those are not genuine objections to the content, so they shouldn't be counted either? So in fact, only votes you agree with should be counted? Aecis 19:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The first Holocaust in the 20th century was against Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians and was perptrated by the Turks. It's time that you stoped denying it and looke at the evidence.

Whereas in 1914 the Turkish Nationalist regime initiated a systematic campaign to eradicate the ethnic Greek population in Asia Minor, consigning and killing thousands of male conscripts... (Introduced in House)

HCON 148 IH


105th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 148 Commemorating the 75th anniversary of the burning of Smyrna and honoring the memory of its civilian victims, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 9, 1997 Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. SHERMAN, and Mr. BILIRAKIS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations



CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Commemorating the 75th anniversary of the burning of Smyrna and honoring the memory of its civilian victims, and for other purposes.

Whereas in 1914 the Turkish Nationalist regime initiated a systematic campaign to eradicate the ethnic Greek population in Asia Minor, consigning and killing thousands of male conscripts in forced labor battalions and destroying Greek towns and villages and slaughtering additional hundreds of thousands of civilians in areas where Greeks composed a majority, as on the Black Sea coast, Pontus, and areas around Smyrna;

Whereas in 1922, Smyrna, the largest city in Asia Minor, a cosmopolitan hub populated by a highly educated Greek community and flourishing commercial and middle classes, was sacked and burned and its inhabitants massacred by the Turkish forces of Kemal Attaturk;

Whereas Turkish forces turned on the Greek population, whose numbers had swelled to 400,000 with the influx of refugees from Greek villages destroyed in the countryside, after first slaughtering the Armenians of Smyrna in their quarters;

Whereas on September 9, 1922, Turkish soldiers, led by their officers, set fire to Smyrna and razed most of the city under the gaze of United States, British, and French ships and foreign diplomats and journalists stationed offshore;

Whereas Metropolitan Chrysostomos, the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians in Smyrna who refused to abandon the city, was seized from religious services he was conducting in the cathedral by Turkish police forces and given over to be dismembered by a mob in the streets;

Whereas 3 other Orthodox metropolitans were brutally tortured to death in 1921 and 1922, as were 37 Armenian clerics and thousands of priests in the broader period from 1894 to 1923;

Whereas in 1923 more than 1,200,000 Greeks were expelled from Turkey; and

Whereas persecutions of Greeks in Turkey were repeated in a pogrom in Istanbul in 1955 whereby Orthodox churches and Greek businesses were burned and vandalized, again in 1964 with the expulsions of Greeks, and continues today with restrictions on press and religious freedoms and harassment of the Ecumenical Patriarchate: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) the Congress joins the Hellenic and the Armenian American communities in honoring the memory of the victims of Smyrna in 1922 and the millions of Orthodox Christians who perished in the genocidal campaign in Asia Minor from 1894 to 1923;

(2) the United States should encourage the Republic of Turkey to take all appropriate steps to acknowledge these crimes against humanity and commemorate the victims at Smyrna; and

(3) the American people should never forget these events, and an accurate history thereof should be restored and preserved so that such atrocities may never be repeated. --Yorik 17:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Argy. We know its you.

Once again, I don't have, never have had, and never will have sockpuppets.

Secondly, I have not and do not intend to participate in the RfAr. However, if the sockpuppeting and POV-pushing doesn't stop, I probably will.

Thirdly, I have absolutely no point of view over what went on or is going on in that area of the world. I'm going to make this clear - I'm not pro Turkish. I'm not pro Greek. I really couldn't care less. I do, however, care about VFD hijacking, which is whats going on here. --Kiand 00:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are such a big boy with such a big mouth, Argyros, please tell us who exactly is denying the genocide? If we're doing it as blatantly as you say we do, it shouldn't be a problem for you to prove it (and proof by blatant assertion is no proof). So go ahead. I'm waiting for you, or any one of your sockpuppets. Aecis 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Yorik 18:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shame on Wikipedia

  • I was made aware of this vote through a Greek mailing list, and I could not believe that holocaust denying was alive and well in the 21'st century until I came down and had a look here for myself. Wikipedia should be ASHAMED OF ITSELF ! Doubtless other people feel exactly the same was as me.--Yorik 18:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ahh!!! Thank you. You've given us proof of external sockpuppetry!
You can tell people on the mailing list not to bother coming to vote, as theres no sodding way in hell their votes will be counting now. And you can tell them that you put the nail in the coffin, as you've just admitted theres specific, planned external block voting going on.
Thank you. No, really. --Kiand 18:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look whose talking. Talk about votes from mailing lists not being allowed. Well how about this mailing list then ! Just read this on your talk (same thing as a mailing list) page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kiand#RfA_on_Argyrosargyrou I've started a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration on User:Argyrosargyrou. Please take a look and add any evidence you feel is relevant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Evidence. -- ChrisO 22:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at this on Scimitars page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scimitar#RfA_on_Argyrosargyrou I've started a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration on User:Argyrosargyrou. Please take a look and add any evidence you feel is relevant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Evidence. -- ChrisO 22:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And look at this too from Snchduer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snchduer

And this from E.A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:E.A#RfA_on_Argyrosargyrou

Do you want more ?

If my vote to keep this page is not counted then every single delete vote should not be counted either for the same reason, since you have given us proof of internal sockpuppetry--Yorik 18:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those mentions of the RfAr were done because we'd previously endorsed a summary of an earlier RfC against that user who's name I'm not even going to try and spell. Note that at -NO TIME- and at -NO PLACE- were there "go here and vote this way" posts. Which is no doubt what there was on your mailing lists. --Kiand 18:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All you have to do is read the comments of the delete voters and the reason why this page was nominated for deletion in the first place. They are all directed against Argyrosargyrou because a unfounded campaign was started against him by ChrisO. Funny how the majority of the people voting for deletion have all got the same message or similar messages posted on their talk pages.--Yorik 18:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here look I've found another one on Sarg's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarg#RfA_on_Argyrosargyrou
How many more are there ?--Yorik 18:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sigh
The majority of Delete voters here voted Delete the LAST time Argy posted his pov-fest under a different title. And then when he duplicated it under at least 3 more titles. And started attacking us by name. So, there was a Request for Comment taken out, and most of us endorsed it. When the RfC became an RfAr, we were all asked if we wanted to contribute to it. This is the way the Wikipedia works. Either accept it, or go away.
It has nothing to do with 'unfounded campaigns' or the like. Most of us accept there should be an article on this topic. Just not at this title, and not by this author, or any of the other "people" (as most are just him) who have come on to support him. --Kiand 18:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Obviously, I'm closely watching all of Argy's edits, as probably are doing many other contributors. I have no problem with NPOV edits, but blatant POV always rings a bell. The sad fact about this thing is that the topics behind this user's apparently childish behaviour are valid. And instead of finding someone who knows enough about the events to write a NPOV version of them, Argy makes us all waste our time. Sad, truly sad. Sarg 18:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Argyros, don't you have, I don't know, a girlfriend or a boyfriend to attend to? Don't you have a life beyond your computer screen? Don't you ever play sports? Judging from your many posts about this subject and your maniacal sockpuppetry, you really care about this subject. Such a shame, that you have decided to use all that positive energy so negatively. You could have informed the world of what happened, you could have meant something for the world, but instead... Aecis 18:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is not true. There is ample evidence to show that Feco, E.A, Snchduer, RickK and of course ChrisO were all involved in a content war with Argyrosargyrou in order to prevent him from contributing and countering their pro-Turkish point of view. RickK and ChrisO have both made personal threats against him and abused their powers by placing unfounded 24 hour blocks on him to prevent him from contributing to pages which they and their cohorts have repeatedly reverted to versions with a pro-Turkish bias. This is the evidence I found of this on Saint Jerome's talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snchduer#Turkish_Cypriot_Genocide

" "I've rune out of reverts, but another one is badly needed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Found it more productive to re-edit a bit. - Snchduer 16:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC) " "

After this discovered RickK placed a spiteful 24 block on SaintJerome.
Since Argyrosargyrou was under an unfairly imposed 24 block preventing him from making edits for most of the time this RfD was up, as is commentated on above in exchanges between ChrisO and SaintJerome above, how can he have been using sockpuppets ?--Yorik 19:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theres one thing that gives all you socks away as being the same person. Its not the inate knowledge of how the Wikipedia works being way too much for a newbie. Its not the same language (NAZI, HOLOCAUST DENIER, unfounded, etc). Its not even the theme-linked usernames
Its the fact that nearly all of you use the term RfD.
This isn't an RfD. Its a VfD. The fact that, oh, HALF of the 'keep' votes come from 'people' using the same wrong term kinda shows that its one person. --Kiand 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right that I am a new user. I picked up the terms RfD and RfAr from other peoples comments.--Yorik 19:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For a noob you pretend to know an awful lot about Wikipedia procedures. In reality you don't know anything about Wikipedia procedures, but don't let that bother you. Let me ask you: where have you come up with this all of a sudden, in (oh miracle) exactly the same laughter-inspiring rhetoric (11 year-old schoolboy pretends to work for Pravda) as Argyros? Aecis 19:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are not worth my time.--Yorik 19:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, judging from your insane posting spree (15 posts in this VfD over the past hour and a half), apparently we are worth your time, and boy, do I just happen to be part of that we ;-) Aecis 19:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (By the way, if I'm not worth the time to respond to, why am I worth the time to tell me I'm not worth the time?)
You are not worth my time because you are a racist. What are you doing frequenting websites like http://www.stormfront.org/ --Yorik 19:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you ever tried googling for Argyrosargyrou? The first hits are related to Wikipedia and to [1]. And lo and behold, hits 8 and 9 are links from Stormfront.org to [2]. So Argyros, what does it feel like? Aecis 19:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Try Googling for "Argyros George Argyrou" as well, and do a Google search for both terms on Usenet. AA's been ranting online about Turks since at least 1997 and seems to have attracted a bit of a reputation as a loon... -- ChrisO 19:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Which proves that he won't change his ways, no matter what we say, which proves that the RfAr was the right decision. This person needs to be banned from Wikipedia, for life. Aecis 21:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whats so funny about the comment directly above is that all of argy's puppets accuse estabilished editors and even administrators of being 'Nazi's', 'holocaust deniers' and 'racists', and yet can't provide any proof. Mainly because there isn't any. Not that its going to stop argy wibbling on for all eternity about it. --Kiand 19:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Argyro's silence

Well, this can be explained - Argyro(s) was blocked for a week, with his sockpuppets being blocked indefinitely. Hopefully this will give us some peace here. - Snchduer 01:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably not, unfortunately. Evidence from the block log suggests that he's now using open proxies in conjunction with sockpuppets, so expect another round today... -- ChrisO 08:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest moving all these discussions to the talk page? This is cluttering VFD and I bet 99% of the people don't care for Argy's sockpuppetry. Sarg 08:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, and done. -- ChrisO 08:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The score so far

Delete

17 (Kiand, ChrisO, RickK, Starblind, Xcali, Snchduer, Angr, Aecis, Feco, Sarg, EA, Kbdank71, TenOfAllTrades, DropDeadGorgias, Carnildo, Func, Radiant)

Keep

2 (Argyrosargyrou aka SaintJerome aka 64.76.83.118 aka Jagrafes aka BigBrother aka JohnChaucer aka NeilKinnock aka Enforcer2 aka TheHolyGrail aka MaxPlank aka Atriades aka TheDogsDinner aka TheEmpire aka HeavensDoor aka Yorik; and Gabrichidze)