There is an excellent ANI thread from February 2007 about Fys' abusive behaviour. Most of it consists in slightly abusive comments in comment boxes, and is rather lame by Damian standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107528153 [liar JzG]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107303125 (idiot)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107301614 (idiot nss)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107295308 (Idiot nss, I've selected the important EDMs, and try not to be an idiot in future)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107206378 (Of course it's notable. Stop being an idiot and read what you're removing.)
But there are lots of accusations of biasing Wikipedia articles to support UK government position, including one on the notorious Gilligan affair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107391057 Which prompted one opponent to comment
QUOTE
Everyone has their own political opinions and leanings, and while you certainly don't write articles to say "David Cameron is a Tory idiot", edits such as this [27] unquestionably demonstrate that you have a POV, as the edit is slanted against Gilligan and in favour of the government, certainly reading the evidence from the testimony you linked, it's not consistent with the slant of the article. Neutrality is a lot more subtle than bald political statements, and the presentation of evidence and summaries which appear to be balanced prima facie, but actually slant the reader towards a certain conclusion is actually rather more insidious and effective than overt bias. Nssdfdsfds 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how much more of this has been going on?
(PS some very funny PCKB comments on that thread from Guy)
[edit] The Andrew Gilligan article is interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=historyHere for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=103854599where fys removes the statement that Gilligan's claims turned out to be true, with the comment 'remove rubbish'. And note that he continued to intervene in that article in the Blacketer persona.
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: