" 

 == On Batvette == 

  is a conspiracy theorist who have often clashed with on this talk page. I don't take anything he says seriously.    
 :Oh, I'm sorry you must have the wrong article. The ""distort someone's position on an issue to discredit their person and assume your opinion of them gives added weight as an editor"" article is somewhere else. I gave a reason for my support, if you cannot address that save your drivel for someone else. Your rude demeanor is wholly unwikilike and many people have disagreements with your ""consensus"" yet you immediately archive their comments to hide them.   
 :Not that I agree with your right to sit in judgment about that, I've just looked for a DIFF regarding  - but couldn't find any. Would you please give me just ONE diff showing why you refuse to listen to anything Batvette has to say? 
 :    
 ::Anyone interested in understanding the ""perspective"" Batvette comes from simply needs to read his rants in Archive 3 of this talk page.    
 :::I see what you mean.  I've dealt with so many cranks rationality-challenged individuals that I forgot him.  —     
 ::::And you're another. Wasn't that helpful to  improving the article?    
 :::::You, , just made a mistake. The correct response is NOT sarcasm - it's the demand that Arthur Rubin STOP his Personal Attack. You are an Administrator, Arthur Rubin, you should not say such things about another user - and you know that. So I urge - STOP the Personal Attack on . It violates Wikipedia rules. How many time must I ask you Arthur, and you, Loremaster, to STOP your Personal Attacks?    
 ::::::Although personal attacks should be avoided as much as possible, there are sometimes justified to make people realize that an editor is becoming a problem.    
 :::::::I didn't see that exception on the wiki page forbidding personal attaks. Can you show me this?   
 ::::::::If an editor is being disruptive, it is perfectly normal that other editors will personally attacking him by virtue of criticizing his disruptive behavior. There doesn't need to be a written exception to Wikipedia guidelines for something that is common-sense.    
 :::::::::I'm sorry but that exception does NOT appear on the wiki policy page forbidding personal attacks, and I don't recall any ""disruptive behaviour"" on my part but I'm sure you'll allege some grave offense that only exists in the archive of your mind. If you think otherwise, produce it. Otherwise you're out of line, mister.   

 The ""rant"" I see here:  involves a Personal attack on  by . You have no right to attack him as a conspiracist, even if he is one, which he's not. He might even be a Marxist - for all you know - and we no longer live underMcCarthyism. It seems you have been doing to him precisely what you've been doing to me - if you cannot win an argument, you go into your self-righteous attack mode - of protecting this article from everyone. Now I ask you on behalf of him, as well as myself: PLEASE STOP your personal attacks on the both of us.    

 Thanks to so incredibly polite (under the circumstances) , I've located the so-called ""rant's"": .    

 :Ludvikus vouching that Batvette is not a crank must be the funniest thing I've heard on this talk page. Seriously, am I being punked? ;) 
 :#Everyone who has taken the time to read all of Batvette's rants (rather than only the first one) comes to conclusion that Batvett