HistoricWarrior007

/Archive 1

Apology and Explanation

Fellow Wikipedian, I am truly sorry. I have done a terrible thing, sock-puppetry, and even though it was provoked, it’s just not who I am.

I am deeply sorry for my past actions. Despite extraordinary bias against me, I had no right to act based purely on emotions, no right to become a sock-puppet. I understand that by acting in this manner I have let a lot of people down. And you have every right to send angry e-mails, because I acted below the standard acceptable for an Academic. I failed to keep my cool, to act wisely on Wikipedia, and instead acted foolishly, like a monster bent on pure emotion. What I did with the two sock-puppets is inexcusable, and should be punished. I should have consulted with other administrators the minute of my first unjust trial, where nothing but empty accusations were given for the reason for my ban. I should not have kept editing without advice. The second time, I was banned, I should have appealed it, but I was too proud, and pride leads to folly. To date, FutPerf provided no proof for any of my bans, just mere assertions.

However for every crime there is a rationale, no matter how poor it is. The rationale mitigates the act. Once again, I am guilty, and I should be punished, I admit it. However a four Barnstar recipient, the only person to receive any barnstars for that article, and the one who bridged the gap between Russian and neutral editors does not go from being a debater to being a sock-puppet overnight.

The journey began via a provocation, which I should have ignored, but which I responded to, in extremely poor taste. FutPerf quickly used my response, a single post, to ban me. The case can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive50#Result_concerning_appeal_of_topic_ban_2. In the case, FutPerf failed to provide a single link to back up any of his assertions that I did not explain.

FutPerf’s second ban, the one I should have appealed as a completely neutral editor recommended, was for “edit warring“, when I removed an edit because the editor failed to discuss it on the talk page, as required by the special talk page template. Here’s the corresponding link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Renewed_edit-warring and here is the RfC recommendation that I should have followed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Setting_up_an_RfC

FutPerf’s third ban, is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Blocked_and_topic-banned please notice that he is banning me for enforcing an NPOV policy on the Invasion of Dagestan talk page. There were two conspiracy theories about the Invasion of Dagestan. I wanted to give both conspiracy theories equal weight, but Biophys wanted to give the one he liked better, more weight, and even hint that it’s the truth.

From the talk page of the Dagestan Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invasion_of_Dagestan_(1999)#.22Conspiracy.22_section and here‘s how I explain the reverts:

If this is all wrong (as you say), why do you restore large segments of text about this? It should be only briefly mentioned here, or one could create a separate article Conspiracy in Nice, specifically about this meeting.Biophys (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am giving both conspiracy theories equal weight. You are promoting the pro-Berezovsky conspiracy theory, and demoting the anti-Berezovsky conspiracy theory. I am trying to be NPOV! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit-warring on the 2008 South Ossetia War talk page is similar. Xeeron wanted to use a source from the Jamestown Foundation, (McDermott) that spoke about the 76th Pskov Air Assault Division, and my source was the actual commander’s report (of the 76th Pskov Air Assault Division.) When this was pointed out on the talk page, FutPerf dubbed it POV pushing and wikilawyering. Meanwhile he repeatedly banned me, but did nothing to Xeeron or Biophys, and this, FutPerf claims is not POV pushing.

After that ban, I had two sock puppets. The first was in the discussion against Xeeron. It was inappropriate to do. I should have appealed. It was stupid. After that experiment failed, I retired from Wikipedia. I should have stayed retired or I should have appealed, and I am a complete idiot for not doing so. Instead I used another sock puppet. I was emotional, I was desperate, and for that I deserve at least a month’s ban, but at least I ended with a plea: “And since you are giving me no choice, I will continue socking. (Like in the nuclear article.) But as soon as you present actual evidence where I went wrong, I will stop.” It was an inappropriate way to ask, but I have repeatedly asked FutPerf what I did wrong, and he never gave me, with the exception of the single edit that I was banned for, a clear and concise answer.

Part in parenthesis was presented earlier:

Instead FutPerf had a new surprise for me - banned by the Wikipedia Community, where he forgot to mention that he perma-banned me from the article I cared about most, as shown below, for no good reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#Community_ban:_HistoricWarrior007

In his accusation, FutPerf states “He is also now threatening that he will continue socking” - but I clearly stated “as soon as you present actual evidence where I went wrong, I will stop”. Instead of providing the evidence, FutPerf reported me to the community ban, and wrote my case so that it was meant to be misinterpreted, for instance one editor asks: “would I be correct in assuming that HistoricWarrior007 was replacing sources with those of a pro Russian nature, or otherwise attempting to bias the article(s) by unduly representing pro Russian sources and deprecating others not of that viewpoint?”

I never unduly represented a single pro Russian source. Instead of mentioning the truth, FutPerf responded with an Ad Hominem against me, and this typifies how he treats me, by making untrue statements about my edits:

“It's a complex picture. His first sanction and its background (back in November) are described here. That was for a threat against an opponent. Overall, his behavior has been a mixture of constant low-level edit-warring with an overall aggressive, overbearing attitude on talk pages and a tiresome WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-like tenacity in arguing the same points over and over – like when he kept arguing literally for months that a certain quotation, where an obviously partisan source was giving a glowing endorsement of Russia's policies in the Ossetia war, had to be quoted verbatim, at paragraph length, and given a particularly prominent place in the article. Or when, more recently, he kept arguing for weeks that between two apparently reliable sources, one of which gave a negative assessment of the military prowess of the Russian army as demonstrated in the war, and the other a positive one, only the latter could be used. In fact, the sheer quantity and length of his talk page postings was disruptive. This article has run up to something like 32 pages of talk archives, and those are almost entirely filled with debate fired by him. It's difficult to pinpoint individual postings in this maze as exemplifying the disruption individually though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC) “

The quotation that FutPerf is talking about, comes from Barabanov, who is the most cited author in the entire article. One of Barabanov’s papers is cited 29 times, by editors from all sides. The next source doesn’t even come close, with only 12 citations. Yet FutPerf calls it “an obviously partisan source”. The two “apparently reliable sources” is another one of his false claims. One source is the actual commander of the 76th Pskov Air Assault Division, submitting his mission statement. Another is a Jamestown Foundation writer. I simply pointed out that where the two sources contradict each other, the commander’s report should be used.

Nor did I “fire the debate”. The reason that the discussion of the article is 32 pages long, is because half of it came from the first days of warfare, and about a third is filled with the “title debates” - which I wanted to stop in favor of the status quo. By September 1st, 2008 (before I started editing the article,) it already had 14 archival pages. The facts in FutPerf’s allegations are not true!

However, a response by the Russian Community editing the 2008 South Ossetia War is warranted, and can give a clue about his bias:

A. I'm sorry, but I don't think threatening editors is the correct answer here. Many of us have been working hard to improve the article. Offliner (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

B. So let me get this straight. An administrator is threatening to block a group of users who are almost entirely responsible for the article in its current form, simply because of the unavoidable fact that the topic is controversial and there are parties on both sides who are adamant that the article stay neutral from their view? So what would you rather, one person or one group with coinciding views to edit it to their liking with no disruptions? Your logic is incomprehensible to me...LokiiT (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

C. If I'm thinking of the same "small group of editors" that you're referring to, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I belive that you're sadly mistaken. Although disagreements do break out, as they usually do on such a controversial and fairly recent topic, this "small group of editors" has done a superb job of revamping this article over the past several months. There is little revert-warring occurring, and the only reason for the high revert count is due to the fact that Reenem's edits are often reverted, as they are done improperly and violate WIkipedia rules, as HistoricWarrior said earlier...Laurinavicius (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

D. Do I understand it right your last message means you intend to block me from editing this article together with a "whole cast of its regular editors" unless I convince you this article can breath with me editing it? If so, you can proceed with your administrator duties and rights and block me right away, if this is your intent. Please take into account that whatever decision you make, you make it on your own discretion, of course, and this message is in no way an expression of my wish to be blocked. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On the basis that FutPerf’s facts are false, and on the grounds that I have never alienated an open minded Wikipedian, and on the grounds of FutPerf's bias, I will appeal my “Community Ban”.

Just as, after 9/11 Congress passed the Patriot Act, I allowed FutPerf’s tactics to get the best of me, to turn me into an emotional savage. But I did not, do not enjoy that. That is not who I am. That is not my nature. I am glad that I suck at sock-puppetry! I’m honored that my inner conscience goes above my petty emotions! There is a famous Russian movie, “Stalker”. In the end, the men arrive to a room, where, if they enter the room, their subconscious wish will come true. They did not enter the room, because they were scared of their sub consciousness. But after the Wikipedia experience, after being unjustly banned, horrendously overreacting and calming down in a few days, I believe I am ready to enter that room, and despite all that he has done to me, I thank FutPerf for showing me who I really am. I hope that I am unbanned, yet penalized for sock puppetry. If that is not the case, it was fun editing Wikipedia, and I hope you don’t end up looking at me as the “enemy of the community” because of one administrator’s skilled ability to manipulate. 20:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note - I accidentally blanked this page. If you want to see a pre-blank version, please go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHistoricWarrior007&action=historysubmit&diff=357773671&oldid=352304007

BTW - if you need anything, my e-mail, HistoricWarrior7@yahoo.com is always open! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you use the {{unblock}} template to request being unblocked, I will support your return to the community immediately, however I understand from your above statement you want at least a month block. Outback the koala (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal and apology are noted. Please keep in mind that the topic ban and 6-month block from March are an Arbcom enforcement sanction under WP:DIGWUREN, and the indef is now a formal community ban [1], so an appeal will need to go through either the Arbcom Appeals Committee or WP:AE/WP:AN, not through a simple {unblock}. Please advise what channel you wish to pursue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to deal with some RL issues first, and then appeal. A simple warning about the community topic ban, as well as a cool down period would have been all that would have been required. I want a 3 month block, and to prove that I am not the POV pushing edit-warrior FutPerf deliberately makes me out to be, I'll voluntarily agree to a 2 year 1RR restriction. I would've gone for longer, but I don't believe in imposing sanctions for a period longer than 2 years. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Koala, I truly appreciate your moral support, it means a lot to me, thank you! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

I believe I need to clarify the apology. It was solely for suckpuppeting. That was it. I do not condone FutPerf's actions in any way, shape or form. I think the fact that he has yet to present me with a single edit that I made, of why I was topic-banned from the 2008 South Ossetia War, speaks volumes of his actions as an administrator who favors false accusations over concrete evidence. How can I ever improve as a Wikipedian, if the administrator won't even bother to tell me why I am permabanned from a topic? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to FluffyPug's false accusations

But you ARE a POV-pushing edit warrior. That much is absolutely, positively clear. A simple examination of your prior edits (and the fact that you turn almost everything into an argument), then fall back on whining about "defamation" and such, proves that. FluffyPug (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

First, don't post in the middle of other edits. Second, do you have anything to back up what you said? Please show me a single article that I introduced into the article that was biased. Clearly if I have a POV agenda, it shouldn't be a problem, right? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Support

Historic Warrior is an established Wikipedia contributor, who helped a lot to bring neutral point of view to the Wikipedia. He participated actively in the Wikipedia talk pages, respecting users of various political views.

He also made a number of major contributions to Wikipedia articles (such as 2008 South Ossetia War), based on primary and secondary sources.

The last but not least, I respect Historic Warrior for his strong position in a dispute between some Wikipedia users on whether evidence extracted under torture is admissible in Wikipedia -- HW makes a strong point that evidence extracted under torture can't be used.

You have my full support in lifting the ban.

ellol (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Although we have only interacted in a single article, mainly focusing on blocking testimony extracted under torture from being republished on Wikipedia by Biophys, I thank you for your support! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and topic-banned

It seems there is no prospect that you will ever adopt a less confrontational and less POV-driven stance to editing. After being topic-banned from 2008 South Ossetia War for 2 months in November/December, and again blocked for a week over the same issues in January, you have resumed the same style of permanent slow revert-warring combined with aggressive POV-pushing and lawyering on talk on that article. You have also been permanently revert-warring on other articles, such as Invasion of Dagestan (1999).

You are therefore now blocked for 6 months, and additionally indefinitely topic-banned from the 2008 South Ossetia War article and any discussions relating to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.21.238 (talk)

Oppose or an example of FluffyPug using tactics taken from the anti-Russian Cabal

Besides the fact that there was a valid behavioral reason for the initial block, statements like "And since you are giving me no choice, I will continue socking" are disconcerting, to say the least. Whether or not you feel your arguments are valid, the idea that sockpuppetry is ever a valid resort is not an acceptable thing. As you saw in my prior statements, I didn't like the fact that you were initially blocked, but your actions after the block changed my mind. I'm sorry, but no matter what your contributions were in the past, it is your present behavior that is at issue at the moment. FluffyPug (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You have deliberately accused me of false statements in the past, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFluffyPug&action=historysubmit&diff=337972598&oldid=337690784, and that you have deliberately misstated what I said; the second part of my qoute, which you deceptively omitted, stated that I will keep socking until FutPerf provides an actual reason why I was banned. Granted, that was wrong to say, but by omitting the latter part, you deliberately make it worse. Unlike Outback or Ellol, you are not a neutral editor, as in all of our previous interactions, your purpose has been nothing but to defame me, and you continue to do so here with a deliberate misstatement. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And again, we see that HistoricWarrior has shown little to no effort to improve on his behavior. "Deceptively omitted"? Not in the slightest- I clearly stated that ANY reason for socking, no matter what, is unacceptable. Whether or not FuturePerfect does or does not do anything is irrelevant. THERE IS NO VALID REASON TO SOCK. Again, as I clearly stated before, in fact, when I stated "Whether or not you feel your arguments are valid, the idea that sockpuppetry is ever a valid resort is not an acceptable thing." Furthermore, in regards to your ridiculous claims of "defamation"... listen you, I've prior spoken on your behalf before in an attempt to see if it was possible you could be unblocked http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Outback_the_koala&diff=prev&oldid=351754865 something, which, now that you're lying about "defamation", is the only thing I do regret. It's clearly obvious that you are absolutely, positively not ready to resume reasonable contributions and I emphatically would oppose your return to the encyclopedia. FluffyPug (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have repeadly stated that socking is bad. On that we are in agreement. However, you'd never spoken on my behalf. You have repeatedly tried to defame me. On Xeeron's talkpage you asked him "I don't know how you do it [how you deal with HistoricWarrior]", as if I am some kind of monster. On the very same day, February 5th, your reported me to FutPerf. Your sole purpose of being in the article, was either to edit-war me or defame me. After reporting me to FutPerf, you went ahead and claimed that you never wanted to defame me. All on the very same day, February 5th. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeeron&diff=prev&oldid=342177864 So please, stop lying about how you spoke on my behalf. First, the link you cited, shows that you merely asked why I was banned. After finding out the degree of my ban, you went ahead and started this conversation, in hopes that I stay banned. The truly sad part, is that you have to resort to lies, even here. You even placed the lie that you spoke on my behalf in bold. When you place your lies in bold, it just shows your true character. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we are NOT in agreement. What I've said is that socking is NEVER JUSTIFIED. You, on the other hand, have declared that you intend to continue socking so long as FuturePerfect continues doing whatever it is you said he was doing. Socking isn't "just bad", it is a terrible offense that violates Wikipedia's spirit of trust and is never justified. We aren't in agreement because you've said that your socking was justified- which it wasn't. Furthermore, your arduous bringing up of conversations I've had with other people months ago in order to attack me is tiresome and dishonest- and I stand by my statements to Xeeron, being that your ridulous edit warring and subsequent whining about being "defamed" is (and we can even see it here) endless. That's why you got your first blocks, in fact -the shorter ones-. Furthermore, I didn't "report" you to anyone, I alerted FuturePerfect that you were defaming HIM by accusing him of "bringing terror" to an article and accusing him of meatpuppetry (which you were doing). You deserved a short block, which you got, and that was that. And, from your exhausting and ridiculous (not to mention aggravating) level of ranting, accusations and just plain all out warring, you deserve any block you get. FluffyPug (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for horrendously misstating what I have said. First, I have already stated, numerous times, that sockpuppetry is bad. However, you are trying to make it look like my sockpuppetry was based on my editing style; in reality, my sockpuppetry was based on temporary frustration. There is a fine difference between an editor who sockpuppeted foolishly, based on emotion, and one who is in permanent combat mode. The former, the one that applies to me, can be redeemed with punishment. The latter, that one that you so hopelessly try to portray me as, cannot.

Can you please show me where I stated that my socking was justified? Or do you intend ot keep up lying. Me, bringing up the actions that you have taken against me in the past, when you are trying to defame me, is not dishonest. It shows your true character, your true hatred of me. And since you've stated that I edit-warred, can you please provide actual examples? Or do you intend to continue your anti-HistoricWarrior rant with mere accusations in desperate hopes that it will provoke me.

In terms of accusing FutPerf of bringing terror, I wasn't the only one. Numerous Russian and neutral editors have stated as much. Here is a link, note that unlike FluffyPug's senseless accusations, I actually provide evidence to back up everything I say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

Some responses to FutPerf:

Do I understand it right your last message means you intend to block me from editing this article together with a "whole cast of its regular editors" unless I convince you this article can breath with me editing it? If so, you can proceed with your administrator duties and rights and block me right away, if this is your intent. Please take into account that whatever decision you make, you make it on your own discretion, of course, and this message is in no way an expression of my wish to be blocked. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think threatening editors is the correct answer here. Many of us have been working hard to improve the article. Offliner (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If I'm thinking of the same "small group of editors" that you're referring to, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I belive that you're sadly mistaken. Although disagreements do break out, as they usually do on such a controversial and fairly recent topic, this "small group of editors" has done a superb job of revamping this article over the past several months. There is little revert-warring occurring, and the only reason for the high revert count is due to the fact that Reenem's edits are often reverted, as they are done improperly and violate WIkipedia rules, as HistoricWarrior said earlier. And Xeeron is correct, in my opinion. "The main issue at hand is improving the civility of the talk page discussions such that the talk page becomes an avenue of improving the article again." Full page protections, blocking editors, etc. are unnecessary as there is little evidence that either revert- or edit-warring is occurring. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (Laurinavicious is actually a neutral editor)

So let me get this straight. An administrator is threatening to block a group of users who are almost entirely responsible for the article in its current form, simply because of the unavoidable fact that the topic is controversial and there are parties on both sides who are adamant that the article stay neutral from their view? So what would you rather, one person or one group with coinciding views to edit it to their liking with no disruptions? Your logic is incomprehensible to me. There's no such thing as a neutral editor. It's important that there are disputes and arguments, as that's the only way neutral articles on controversial subjects can exist on wikipedia - compromise by both opposing sides...The worst articles on wikipedia are those of controversial subjects in which like-minded editors have free reign. Have you actually taken a look at some of the articles the people on that mailing list edited that didn't get any opposition? LokiiT (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not the only one with issues with how FutPerf handled the article. Granted, I used language that was overly strong, and I later removed said language as a compromise. Something you deliberately ignored, as it didn't fit your needs.

Now it terms of Xeeron. Unlike Xeeron threatening me, when he didn't get his way, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results, The only title suggestions that gathered a net positive amount of support were 2008 South Ossetia war with 23 support/14 oppose and 2008 Russia–Georgia war with 21 support/16 oppose. That means 2008 South Ossetia war wins...As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I have never threatened anyone. Xeeron repeatedly tried to insert jamestown propaganda material that was blatantly false, such as articles stating that Russians used 1,200 tanks, (150 in reality) that Russians outnumbered Georgians 2 to 1, whereas the real ratio was around 1 to 1, and recently Xeeron tried inserting an article that stated that the entire Russian Airborne Regiment, (including the cooks, accountants and support staff) was sent into Tskhinvali, and landed, without any of them being fired at, despite the enemy air defenses being unsuppressed.

You, knowing all this, chose to support Xeeron. BTW, which one of my edits are wrong, you have yet to show that to me. If this was a courtroom, you'd be thrown out for lack of evidence, and the fundamental principle of justice requires that someone be treated as innocent, not guilt, unless evidence, not mere accusations are presented. Yet, by your previous posts, you don't care about any of that, you just want to bash me, without offering any proof to the contrary.

So let's take a look at how you took a page right out of the tactics used by the Anti-Russian Cabal. The way this tactic works, is that a completely unknown user, possibly a sockpuppet, makes a couple of innocently looking edits, designed to provoke an experienced editor. Said user suddenly begins acting nicely towards the person he just provoked, but in his nice actions, there's a tiny bit of provocation. After the experienced user, be it Russavia or HistoricWarrior, responds to provocation, the new user goes ballistic, and starts whining about how he is being oppressed. The new user then goes on to defame the more experienced user, akin to sacrificing a pawn for a knight in chess.

Let's take a look at all of FluffyPug's edits in the 2008 South Ossetia War article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&_target=FluffyPug The way it worked, is that Xeeron would make an edit, I would point out on the talkpage what is wrong with it, and then undo it, and then FluffyPug would undo it "as per Xeeron's reasoning". When asked to clarify, FluffyPug responds: "I'm sorry, but your version is just not supported in my opinion. Don't yell at me, that's just how it seems to be." When asked to point out where I yelled at him, FluffyPug deletes the question from his talkpage.

This established a trend. Granted, I should've instantly taken it to RfC. That was my mistake. But when I stated that Xeeron would make edits irrespective of talkpage discussion, I would undo them, FluffyPug would undo my edits, and then FutPerf would ban me for edit-warring, all of which took place, FluffyPug went ballistic, saying "Don't drag me into this". Previously, FluffyPug went on Xeeron's talkpage, saying "I don't know how you do it" - meaning I don't know how you edit with someone like HistoricWarrior. And when I was unblocked, FluffyPug went to my talkpage, going "Welcome Back" and "Yay for being unblocked!".

So on the one hand I am evil, and I don't deserve to edit Wikipedia, on the other hand, 7 days later, it's suddenly welcome back to Wikipedia HistoricWarrior. It's rather fascinating that all of FluffyPug's edits in the 2008 South Ossetia War article had more to do with me, and defaming me, than the actual article itself. The extreme majority of his edits were attacks against me, not discussion of the article.

Thus, after reporting me to FutPerf, who has previously banned me without any reason, and who perma-banned me from the 2008 South Ossetia War topic, again without citing a single edit that I made, FluffyPug comes back to my talkpage, saying, I've prior spoken on your behalf before in an attempt to see if it was possible you could be unblocked. Of course the link merely leads to Outback the Koala's page, who was already in favor of getting me unblocked, and judging FluffyPug's previous attempts to get me banned, I somehow doubt, call it a gut feeling, that FluffyPug would actually speak on my behalf. But he has to make some pro-HW edits, otherwise people might see him for someone who he truly is, a wikipedia account used to get me banned, and to ensure that I stay banned, using tactics taken from the anti-Russian Cabal.

Perhaps FluffyPug can actually show me which edits I made that were blatantly POV pushing, instead of repeating FutPerf's mere accusations, not backed up by a shred of evidence, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHistoricWarrior007&action=historysubmit&diff=363168085&oldid=363167750, and hoping that they stick. As a tactic from the anti-Russian Cabal said "if it can be shown that a user is in conflict with numerous other users, Admins might miss the lack of evidence". What better way than to use a new editors attacks, for the sole purpose of attacking me in the 2008 South Ossetia War topic area?

Now the astute administrator may ask: "why such hatred directed against HistoricWarrior"? It is because I can transliterate Russian Cultural arguments onto English Wikipedia, and show Wikipedians the Russian side of the story through their own cultural eyes, thus surpassing the cultural barriers placed upon my fellow Americans by Cold War Propaganda, on both sides. However to the anti-Russian Cabal, or editors seeking to insert anti-Russian sources, or those who are anti-Slavic, and always ban the least Nordic editor in an argument between two editors, to those, I am an enemy, merely because my arguments surpass the Cold War bias. I am no longer participating in the Title Debates, and yet, because I was able to show others how to get past the Cold War bias, the arguments, which I have shown, stay the same. Are the same. They're about the title, no longer affected by the Cold War Bias, coming from both sides.

And speaking of the article, when mass media on both sides, Georgian and Russian, talked about genocide and ethnic cleansing, I was the first one to state that neither occurred, citing actual facts, over propaganda. For this, I am hated by those who want to restart another Cold War, or by those who still live in its shadow. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)