User talk:RolandR/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Steven Plaut

I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Steven Plaut.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ··coelacan 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RolandR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Each one of these edits was reversion of vandalism by the editor whose previous disruptive behaviour had led to the original protection of the article. The reverted edits made defamatory claims about a third party, which had already been found libellous by a court in Israel. And I had already asked for the article to be fully protected, in order to prevent this abuse. My edits should not be counted under 3RR. RolandR 23:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per below, this was not simply a matter of WP:BLP reversions. 3RR permits only simple vandalism reversions; BLP pretty much defines some additional things which count. But adding allegations, such as you were doing, is well outside of these bounds. And here, I'm not at all implying the allegations are false or uncited, only that by adding them, you are now bound by 3RR. — Yamla 02:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Can you elaborate on specifically what it is here that violates WP:BLP, which you were removing? ··coelacan 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the edit. But for instance, " Plaut argued that Gordon's articles had been posted on the website of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel and had been 'published and cited with favor in many other anti-Semitic and anti-Israel printed and online newspapers and magazines, ranging from Al-Ahram, to the Radio Islam web site, to David Irving's web site.' While Plaut never claimed Gordon himself was a Holocaust denier, merely a fan of Holocaust deniers, a Jewish newspaper reporting the case claimed that Gordon is indeed a Holocaust denier" -- which, in [6] libels yet another person: "While Plaut never claimed Gordon himself was a Holocaust denier, merely a fan of Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish newspaper reporting the case claimed that Gordon is indeed a Holocaust denier". And "Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz defended Plaut and denounced Gordon as a friend of neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, and also denounced Gordon's judge and her verdict, adding 'if Finkelstein and Gordon aren't themselves explicitly neo-Nazi, they're at least very highly regarded by those who are - and for good reason'".

These are precisely the charges which Plaut made against Gordon, which were found libellous by a court in Israel. Someone is attempting to use Wikipedia to use Wikipedia to repeat proven libels. This is a clear breach of WP:BLP (with libels of both Gordon and Finkelstein), and exposes Wikipedia itself to the possibility of a libel action. My edits were legitimate, infdeed necessary. RolandR 00:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this is permissible reversion under WP:BLP, because at the same time, you are inserting Newman's allegation that Plaut writes under assumed names, as well as commentary by Gordon that Dershowitz is engaging in "lies and distortions." If your reverts were strictly removing libelous material, I would agree and unblock, but you aren't only doing that. It's a complicated case, so I will ask another admin to review this block as well. ··coelacan 01:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. It's a lovely day in London, and I had to do some gardening anyway. RolandR 15:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. I see this article is protected again. Hopefully there will be some way of moving forward toward a consensus version. Let me know if I can be of assistance in discussion at the article's talk page. ··coelacan 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It may also interest you to know that there was an investigation of sockpuppetry regarding this article, but negative results on the two accounts checked. Hit my talk page if you need me. ··coelacan 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I had intended to submit the same checkuser/sockpuppet request, as I am certain -- irrespective of Jpgordon's findings -- that these are linked accounts. Further, I believe them to be linked to User:Truthwinsout, who earlier made similar edits. In fact, they are very likely Plaut himself, or his associates; and probably linked to the User:Runtshit vandal who persistently defaces pages with abuse of me and others. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated.RolandR 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! Welcome!

Tiamut 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish defense League

It's obvious you have no interest in knowing the truth about the JDL. They are not listed as a terror organization, and no where on the Internet are they published as such. I confirmed this with the FBI on Friday and I suggest you do the same. From your edits it appears you are against Zionism so your edits have a natural reason to be against the JDL and I suggest you refrain from editing that page as you may have a conflict of interest. eternalsleeper 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your stalker again

[7]. I noticed you vandalism page and thus user has the name Roland in it. --Abnn 23:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your report

Hello — I've removed your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page is intended for cases of simple and persistant vandals who have received a final warning. 84.109.51.71 only appears to have one abusive edit. Sock puppetry should be reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Happy editing! — Feezo (Talk) 11:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a complex case. Most of the IPs don't seem very persistent though, so maybe semi-protection is the way to go? I suppose problems like this are inevitable when dealing with politically-charged topics. Best of luck — Feezo (Talk) 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism report

Re your message: No warnings were issued at the time of the report on AIV. You reported the vandal, I removed the report as noted, and then you issued a warning. The warning issued previous to yours was for edits in March. With anonymous and potentially shared IPs like this one, warnings are not necessarily cumulative like user accounts or non-shared IPs. While the edits you reported were certainly egregious, a warning should still be issued before the report to AIV. Additionally, your warning and report to AIV was done nearly two hours after the last edit occurred and was reverted by another editor. -- Gogo Dodo 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

Hi. It seems that your revert in the East Jerusalem article was to a bad version by me which I self-reverted. This version is bad because it repeats the "Israelis of all religions" bit (see previous sentence).--Doron 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestine Userboxes

Thanks for the heads up on the PalReturn UBX. I have requested a deletion review here. As for the one-state UBX, I don't care to get into a prolonged discussion about the matter. Suffice it to say, I agree that the two terms are not necessarily synonymous; however, in general usage I think they are and, in my experience, most people who support a binational solution have in mind a one-state solution in all of Palestine. For instance, the binational solution article begins with "The binational solution, also known as the One-State Solution ... " --DieWeisseRose 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Roland, I don't know how to be more clear about this. Do not insert this WP:BLP-violating material again. Instead, come to the Talk: page, and engage in the discussion on the page. You came very close to being blocked today; I don't want that to happen. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not violating WP:BLP by posting a DEFENCE of someone being libelled and defamed. You have absolutely no justifcation for blocking, or threatening to block, me. and I consider your behaviour to be an unacceptable attempt to bully me into complying with your anti-Finkelstein agenda. But it won't work; I have not acted against either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia. I have reported your breach of WP:3RR RolandR 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no anti-Finkelstein agenda. I do have an anti-WP:BLP violation agenda. WP:BLP is quite clear that 3RR does not apply to WP:BLP violations. This is not a game, Roland. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR report

Hello, Roland. I am the admin who dealt with your 3RR report about Jayjg. I want to stress that BLP is something that Wikipedia takes very, very seriously, and it's best to err on the side of caution. If someone other than an obvious troll removes something, citing BLP, and you disagree, it's a really bad idea to revert. I've been following an ArbCom case where an administrator who had absolutely no history of vandalism or trolling undeleted some articles which had been deleted citing BLP. She didn't do it with the intention of harming Wikipedia; she simply thought that the articles shouldn't have been deleted. She's now facing an admonition with threat of desysopping in the ArbCom rulings.

Regarding the way you submitted your report, the administrator dealing with the case needs to be able to click on "first revert", "second revert", etc., to see that it really is a revert. If you look at the history of any article, you'll see times given for each version. If you click on the time/date, you will then be looking at a particular version. It will say at the top that it was the version edited at a particular time by a particular editor. It's called a "version". However, if, instead of clicking on the time/date, you click on "last", you will get something that shows you the difference between that version and the previous one, with the name of the editors, and the times and dates. That's called a diff. Here is a diff for a revert I made.[8] You can see from the edit summary that it was a revert. (Actually, I was reverting vandalism.) If you just show the version here, there is absolutely nothing to show what my edit involved. For a valid 3RR report, you need to start by giving the version that was reverted to, if it's possible. (Sometimes it isn't, when people are making lots of complex reverts.) Then (and this is important) you need to give a diff for each of the four reverts, with the times and dates clearly stated. You simply gave versions for each of the reverts.

However, I would like to point out that reporting someone who is removing a BLP violation is not likely to result in a block for the person reported. At most, it might result in a block from an admin who hadn't looked into it properly, followed by indignant discussion at an admin noticeboard, followed by unblocking. I hope that all helps. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful response. I will be more careful in any future 3RR reports.

However, I do not agree that there was any BLP violation at all in this instance. Finkelstein is being attacked by Dershowitz, and Menetzer carefully studied the allegations, concluding that there is no merit in any of them. When the link was originally posted, Jayjg objected, on the grounds that it was published in CounterPunch, which he rejects (wrongly, in kmy view) as an unacceptable source. As you will see in the 3RR discussion, SlimVirgin accepts that Menetzer is an okay source, but also argues that CounterPunch is unreliable. Rather than argue the merits of CounterPunch, I found another version of the article; this time on Finkelstein's own site. Jayjg then dropped his claim that the source was unacceptable, and instead claimed that this was a BLP violation and should be deleted even if found in a reliable location.

I see several problems here. Jayjg is repeatedly making disputed edits, and shifting his ground in defence of them. He is also acting as an admin on the same article, semi-protecting it and making threats (see above) to block editors who repost this important link. And we are, in effect, denying Finkelstein the opportunity to respond to very serious allegations against him -- allegations which have cost him his job, and which have been found by Menetzer to be unfounded, and, in at least one instance, even deliberately fraudulent.

How can we resolve the disagreement over whether there is any BLP violation here? RolandR 00:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP again

I see above that you are having trouble with the policy regarding articles on living persons. Restoring unsourced or improperly sourced content, as you did on José Saramago, by saying that the information is "useful" is a clear violation of a critical policy. Do not restore this information again unless you can provide valid sources to back it up. | TheBLPGuy 13:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentences which I added, and which you have again deleted as "unsourced", are in fact the only sourced statements in the entire article. What is your problem with them? RolandR 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken; there are sources for other statements - the paragraph following the one I deleted, for example, is properly sourced, since it provides a link to the document he signed - and there are sources at the bottom, such as his Nobel Prize biography, that verify much of the other content. I went after that one paragraph because it was the one paragraph that wasn't sourced at all. Most of what you re-inserted is acceptable, but the sentence that states that his works have aroused controversy in Portugal must be sourced, per WP:BLP. | TheBLPGuy 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to the document he signed since I inserted it. I repeat, the only sourced statements are those I inserted. For instance, there is no source for "Saramago was in his mid-fifties before he won international acclaim", for "It was the 1988 publication of his Baltasar and Blimunda that first brought him to the attention of an English-speaking readership", or for "This novel won the Portuguese PEN Club Award" in the first paragraph alone. It seems very strange to me that the only statements you removed on blp grounds were the sourced ones which i had inserted, and not any of the others.

I removed the content I removed because it was "contentious," which is grounds for immediate removal under WP:BLP, a policy for which you don't seem to have much regard. The content to which I objected is now properly sourced. Was that so hard? | TheBLPGuy 14:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't need your patronising tone, thank you very much. What was in the least contentious about the statement? Has anyone ever suggested that Saramago's work is not controversial, or that it is offensive or defamatory to state this? And what about the statement that hsi wife comes from "a very powerful Barcelona family of editors who actively promote his books around the world", to which I added a citation needed tag two and a half months ago, but which no-one has attempted to justify? Why do you not focus on the dubious claims, not the well-attesrted facts? RolandR 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Template removed

I am mystified by your message. Please specify where you believe that I violated WP:NPOV by "adding commentary and my personal analysis". I do not believe that I have done so on any article, and it doesn't help that you don't specify where this is supposed to have happened. Thank you. RolandR 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I misintepreted one of your edits on Steven Plaut. Pardon my mistake. Tomj 18:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfounded claims of sockpuppetry

You have reverted various sockpuppet pages to state that the socks are mine. A CheckUser request proved that the socks were not mine. If you continue to accuse me of sockpuppetry in the face of proof to the contrary, then you're violating WP:NPA. Note that I'm one of your few Wikipedia adversaries who has not resorted to personal attacks on you. Truthprofessor 18:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The accounts were all blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Truthprofessor, and the blocking admin added the Confirmed Sockpuppet tag. If you dispute this, you should ask the same admin to remove the tag; to do so yourself could be construed as vandalism.

I am truly grateful that you have not descended to the gutter language of the hundreds of sockpuppets who have attacked me. RolandR 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will ask the admin.

I suspect that the attacks by the socks are happening because you're posting very hostile allegations about participants in political controversies when you're clearly on the opposing side. (For example you want to include Newman's claims about Plaut even though Newman doesn't give any source for those claims.) This makes some excitable people decide that it's a free-for-all.

Truthprofessor 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a confession to me. In fact, I am being attacked because Kahanist bigots cannot accept the idea of an anti-Zionist Jew. I am not the only victim; the abuse that has been poured on Ilan Pappé, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Baruch Kimmerling, Tanya Reinhart, Shimon Tzabar and many others who have never edited Wikipedia shows that the abuse is directed ar anyone who dares to step beyond the parameters which you determine. And it goes well beyond Wikipedia. As you well know, the abuse directed at me frequently links to a website set up to attack me; this is clearly linked to similar websites set to attack Tony Greenstein, Richard Silverstein and others, and to abusive messages sent to subscribers to the Alef mailing list by supporters of Plaut, who claimed to have stolen the mailing list. There is an obvious pattern here, and it's worth noting that you see fir to excuse and justify this. RolandR 20:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this abuse just unprovoked nastiness, or have you and your friends contributed by calling people racists, war criminals, Nazis, apartheid supporters and Kahanist bigots? If it really is just unprovoked nastiness, why are you getting your revenge here on Wikipedia? If you try to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for attacks on political enemies, isn't it obvious that their supporters are going to do the same? Maybe I'm being naive, but why not look for ways to de-escalate the situation. Truthprofessor 22:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you are excusing and justifying libellous and defamatory lies. Anyone who reads my edits, and the abuse I have faced, can see who is telling the truth and who is lying here. RolandR 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see which defamatory lies I'm supposed to have justified - and please remember that you just called your opponents Kahanists and bigots.

If you believe in telling the truth, can you explain why you keep re-posting that Newman claim in Plaut's entry. Newman wrote: "Writing under assumed names, Plaut has a long history of attacking, labeling, and targeting left-wing scholars in Israel. One anonymous article appeared under the name of Socrates in the Middle East Review of 2001." Newman didn't provide any evidence that Plaut uses assumed names or that Plaut is "Socrates." Do you have evidence?

You also linked to the claim about Plaut's spamming activities. Maybe I'm not reading carefully enough, but I didn't see any proof that Plaut rather than a supporter was the culprit. And how do you know that someone didn't fake this "evidence" - just as some of the abusive socks on Wikipedia faked messages from you?

Truthprofessor 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And please note that you've missed my point. Far from excusing or justifying gutter language against you or charges of Kahanism and bigotry against your opponents, I'm arguing that both sides should avoid this sort of conduct, as I've tried to do.

Truthprofessor 11:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've watched the treatment handed out to Roland in WP (and elsewhere) and I'm horrified. This level of abuse cannot possibly be a reaction to anything he's done, it can only be from very nasty people that he has somehow upset. I don't know what he's done (it can't possibly be just what you claim, which is relatively innocuous). Roland comes across to me as a gentle and industrious soul who is a credit to this project. And likely most else that he touches. PalestineRemembered 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

Hi, Roland. It looks like you and I both reverted Tube Deny on Israel Shamir just now--that is, from the history, it looks rather like I reverted you, but that's not what happened. Sorry about that. I don't know why I didn't get an edit conflict. I'm going over to warn the editor about calling content disagreements "vandalism", I'm awfully tired of seeing that. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

Twinkle

did you try this solution? It's a copy of the scripts before any of the major updates were made. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tried that but it made no difference, even after I purged the cache. RolandR 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from Adding Libelous Material on Altaf Hussain

"A speech from Hansard" is just someone's opinion. It DOES violate Biographies of living persons So take the libelous material out. M12390 19:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Ray

I guess the problem I have is that I didn't see him re-add that content; it didn't show in the diff. If you can point me at the diff in question, I'll reconsider. —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Found it [9]. but it's also a two-day-old edit. —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, a close reread shows that the summary was that he was reverting vandalism. If that's not a clear sign of not learning a lesson, I don't know what is. Blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For that quick revert against vandalism on NF's page. Regards Nishidani 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering why you made this revert while not noticing that there was a page-protection template placed on it. :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Penwhale, I noticed that the page was protected (indeed, it was from the page protection link that I cam to this page in the first place), but I failed to realise that I had removed the notice. I made the actual edit because an editor, who I do not think is well-disposed towards the subject of the article, had added a lot of unsourced unfavourable material, and had then asked to have the page protected. RolandR 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that this needs to be discussed since both unsourced and sourced statements are being removed. I changed protection level to full protection. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

comment

i have no interest in rekindling old disputes (and habits). please note that "sophistry" and "quibble" might be interpreted as uncivil and try to avoid using them when in content dispute reverts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for a three revert rule violation on Jajah. I have exacalated the block due to a number of other blocks for edit warring. When you return, please discuss edits rather than revert war. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have made that last edit, and I got carried away. However, please note the following: 1) It is not true, as 12.105.242.154 states, that I have previously been blocked three times. If you check my block log, you will see I have actually been blocked twice, once for just three hours. This does not really reflect a pattern of "other blocks for edit warring". 2) I received no warning, though the guidelines state "A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly." Had such a warning/reminder been posted, I would have self-reverted. I therefore request that you reconsider the block, or at least the length. I undertake to be more careful in future. Thanks RolandR 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RolandR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wrote to Ryan Postlethwaite yesterday, and I have posted above an apology and a plea in mitigation. But he seems to have been offline since he blocked me yesterday afternoon, and has not replied. In his absence, I request that another admin reviews the block, in the light of my comments above.

Decline reason:

You've been here quite a while and have been blocked previously for 3RR. You do not need a warning to know what behaviour to avoid. Most of your response is wikilawyering on the particulars of your block log and no receiving a warning. Altogether, it does not give me faith that you fully appreciate the problem in your edit warring. — Vassyana 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm disinclined to unblock here, because of your past 3RR blocks, you really should be aware of the rule, yet you chose to break it. You only need a warning if you haven't previously been blocked, so might not be aware of the rule. The length of the block is 48 hours as you have previously been blocked for a 3RR violation so it has escalated accordingly. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Runtshit sockpuppetry

Hi Roland. I am beginning to get rather tired of seeing Runtshit's sockpuppets vandalising articles on Israeli politics every so often. Have you requested a checkuser to be done on the socks to see if they all come from one IP address? If they do, perhaps we can get that blocked. Number 57 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you. I've also got better things to do. I have requested a checkuser in the past; it appears that the culprit is using anonymisers to disguise his identity and location. I believe that I know who is responsible -- and this person is also responsible for serial email and internet abuse elsewhere as well as on Wikipedia -- but it has not as yet been possible to obtain the necessary evidence, and in any case the use of anonymisers and proxies could still allow him to make further edits. Any suggestions you could make would be welcome. RolandR 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. If they're using different IP addresses each time, then I've haven't really got any more suggestions as I'm not too hot on that kind of stuff. Sorry, Number 57 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: Delete your vandalism subpage and don't label the sockpuppets. The reasoning can probably be found in WP:DENY, WP:RBI, and WP:DNFT. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering deleting the sub-page; but the sockpuppets should continue to be labelled, to show casual browsers that this is a deliberate campaign rather than merely casual abuse. RolandR 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the reason behind my suggestion ;) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of Libraries in the London Borough of Waltham Forest

Sorry I forgot to come back to you! I restored the article, per the WP:PROD policy. I'm not sure personally that this article is suited for WP, it it really directory-ish. I left a note to the user that proposed the deletion at first, he might wish to bring it to AFD. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding

I did not mean at all to make an accusation or implication that you had removed that, and am sorry that it could be and that you did read it that way; I had guessed that you would prefer the version I reverted to and was merely alerting you to that fact. The silly remark got in the way of a nice clear edit war - this is a technique of some of the more clever vandals and POV-pushers, but I don't think that was the case here.John Z 19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for restoring my remarks.John Z 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

note

i do insist that you strike <s></s> your suggestion that i "deliberately" misled the editors of the 1929 Hebron massacre from that talk page. i note you a second time that "i've explicitly copy-pasted that text from the article and suggested i translate the entire text."^[10] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. IZAK 08:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed my "Accept RolandR on own group?"

Hi Roland, I've removed this from here.

• Accept - User:RolandR has offered to write an article on the secular JAZ.org group of which he is a member. This is a little irregular, but I cannot see a substantive objection and would like to see him go ahead. PR^talk 13:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment not really within the scope of this AfD. If someone raises objections on the planned JAZ article, I'd follow the normal DR practice (such as filing a user-conduct RfC or posting to CoI noticeboard.) <eleland/talkedits> 15:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

question

if i understand correctly, jewsagainstzionism.com is registered in your name, if i am incorrect, feel free to let me know.

in the off chance that this is correct (and i apologize if it is not), i was wondering why you are not vouching for the source in question on 1929 Hebron massacre... mind my asking, where did you get the testimony of Baruch Kaplan from and perhaps you can help solve the "kaplan" issue by providing a link to a source less contentious than the website.

dor the sake of clarity, i apologize again if the answer to the question is 'no'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

i stand corrected. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Euston Manifesto

Could you please take a look at the Euston Manifesto article? I've added some critical links but the body of the article itself is in need of balance since there are few, if any, criticism in the text. Good to see you're here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladspoke (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD

List of Libraries in the London Borough of Waltham Forest which you de-prodded a while back, has now been proposed for deletion at AfD, by another editor. You may wish to comment, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of libraries in Newham -- its a combiined nomination of the two. DGG (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bother

Dear Roland, hate to ask you this, as it entails a waste of your time. There's a question I have wanted to resolve for several months, and it should be simple to resolve, but no Hebrew speaker on the particular page seems willing to help me. I refer to 'Hebron'. All of my researches indicate that the actual Jewish population within Hebron proper, and not Kiryat Arba, is around 450-600. The page has long had the figure 700-800 (odd no one knows how many Jewish people live in there, despite it being one of the most studied towns in the PTerritories). The actual figure must consist of residents and yeshiva students (I don't know if the 200 yeshiva students commute a quarter of a mile daily from Kiryat Arba, or live in there). Is it possible, without wasting too much time, to look at the Israel Census Bureau online and see what they give. I hardly think the present link, to David Wilder interviews in the Jerusalem Post, is an adequate source. People are touchy on this, but I think the correct figure shouldn't be hard to obtain? If this is any bother, forget it. Best regards Nishidani 17:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time like that. I'd tried myself to access the English site of the Census Bureau, but without success, due for my fogling (or is that fogeying?) inaptitude for googling as usual, I suppose. I'll keep nosing about. Best regards Nishidani 11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thank you for sorting out the Marxist box which I think I originally shamelessly stole from your userpage! Thank. BobFromBrockley 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Pol Pot "Vandalism"?

Excuse me, but I would like to know why you have labelled the inclusion of Kmae language to the Pol Pot page as "vandalism". It is widely accepted that a person's name in his native language may be included at the beginning of a page. Please explain your bizarre action. -Ionius Mundus 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. -Ionius Mundus 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the editor who I originally reported, Andyvphil, was also blocked for 72 hours at the same time, as was the second editor who he was constantly reverting, Nishidani. However, Andyvphil's appeal against blocking has been accepted, but mine and Nishidani's have been ignored. It seems a misuse of admin tools to block two editors who object to the disruptive behaviour of a third, who has been pardoned. RolandR 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Popping in

Just to say hello. I noticed your latest edits to Israeli apartheid and wanted to thank you for locating that quote and information. It's very interesting and I hadn't ever read it before. Will definitiely pass it on to a friend of mine doing research on the role of the JNF in land expropriation. Aah, my favourite moments in Wikipedia; when I learn something. :) Cheers. Tiamut 21:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to get Davis' books. It's hard to find English copies of such work in Nazareth. Thanks for the references though. I will try to get a friend from North America to bring one on their next trip into town. Tiamut 11:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried contacting him by email once to discuss housing issues here, but he did not return my note. I guess he's quite busy or else I had the wrong address. Do you know how I might get in touch with him? Tiamut 15:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I will correct now. In the future however, if you do find such a mistake on my user page, I grant you, RolandR, carte blanche access to make corrections as needed. :) Thanks again. Tiamut 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed the bracket. Tiamut 17:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do, though rather sporadically and infrequently. I'll be sure to take a look though. Thanks. Tiamut 19:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel

Excuse me? Why are you accusing me and Chesdovi of vandalism? The information (both parts) is properly sourced. It is you who are putting back the patently false figure of 300+ million Arab citizens of Israel. What is the point of that? Please cease and desist. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If the infobox doesn't match the article's title, and someone (two someones) missed that, is no justification to cry "vandalism", nor does it justify your removal of a properly sourced subsection elsewhere on the page. One assumes the top infobox corresponds to the article's subject. If not, it functions as a trap that can mislead any reader. In the interest of clarity, it needs to be changed, not warred over. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why the “Arabs” infobox appears on the Arab citizens of Israel‎ page. This page is specifically on Arabs of Israel and the infobox should reflect this, as it does in Arab Brazilian, Arab American, Arabic-speaking Christians. To do otherwise is in my mind quite misleading. At first glance I thought there were 300 million Arabs in Israel! As the page itself is not about Arabs per-se, I will change the title of the box accordingly. The image will also have to go as 1905 pre-dates the modern State of Israel which was re-established in 1948. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What have I done which is not acceptable? Chesdovi (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I wish you had addressed my specific point about disambiguation before reverting me on Jacob Israël de Haan. Wikipedia:Hatnote deals specifically with the issue of hatnotes, and WP:NAMB (on the same page) supports my view that this article should have no hatnote whatsoever. There should definitely not be a link back to a disambiguation page. I have left the note but changed it into a "not to be confused with" link to Jacob de Haan, however much I think this is not actually in keeping with policy. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest Jacob de Haan is turned into a disambiguation page. JFW | T@lk 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RolandR, not sure we've ever corresponded, just wanted to thank you very much for adding to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/I-P editing battleground statistics. Thanks for taking the time. All the best, HG | Talk 05:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Roland, thanks again for the data. I just wrote an attempted clarification of guidelines for the battleground stats. "Cite only Requests/Reports made within WP Noticeboards (and the like) and their explicit, official outcomes/findings. Do not cite claims made on Talk pages or your own interpretation of disputes or user conduct." With this in mind, I'd appreciate your looking again at your input on BLP and libel violations. Please add brief footnotes to show how such claims of violations have moved through official WP channels (highest level/outcome only is needed). Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 12:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I read your note and have tried to be responsive. Pls give a look at the battleground stats Talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Another sock of Jaakobou?

This is very interesting. I have clashed with Paul T. Evans on Adam Keller, and have been very suspicious of him. At times, he has presented himself as an extreme pro-Palestinian supporter, with an edit summary "I DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM LATUFF SPEAKS HIS MIND IN DEFENSE OF THE PALESTINAINS AGAINST THE NAZI ZIONISTS AND I SUPPORT HIS RIGHT TO DO IT", and an edit "However, Mr. Brown has managed to hold his head up despite continous threats and daily harassment from the Jewish gangs". Elsewhere, he has supported Jaakobou's edits: "As the dust settled it became clear that no such massacre had happened" -- identical to several previous and later edits by Jaakobou. He was clearly acting as a provocateur; and his edit pattern showed similarities to anonymous IP editor 67.70.107.228. This editor reverted one of my edits at Adam Keller with the summary "rv, VANDALISM BY ISRAELI!!" (note the same use of upper case); Paul T. Evans made an identical revert. However, most of his edits are to Jewish Defense League, and in his most recent he provided the summary "JDL is a political organization, I should know, I am a member. Whoever keeps putting militant is bias". These editors appear to be acting deceptively, in order to discredit pro-Palestine editors; but they are not clever enough to maintain their cover! I have not yet seen convincing evidence that they are Jaakobou's sockpuppets, though it seems undeniable that they are working with him. The claim to JDL membership is worth noting. RolandR (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will need more analysis from User:RolandR before I'm convinced that 67.70.107.228 is another sock of Jaakobou. The geographic location appears not to match. PR^talk 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe them to be the same editor because of the same pattern of editing -- at first, presenting an extreme anti-Israel POV, then revealing themself to be a right-wing Zionist; use of capital letters in edit summaries; and identical edits to the same articles. There is enough evidence through the harassment of me that geograohical location of IPs can be misleading, as editors can use anonymisers and proxies; so I don't put too much store in such evidence. Nor, for that matter, on Check User, which is useless in the face of such evasion. RolandR (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

IP block

The problem is that only one edit had been made from that IP today, it had been about three weeks since the IP's last edit, and today's edit was unrelated to any prior edits. As a result, I was not going to block an apparent new user who had received no warnings.

If the same articles were targeted as before, then I can deduce that it's the same person as before, and I'll block. Otherwise, because IPs are so prone to be reassigned, I have to conclude that it's not the same person, so without a full set of warnings, I'm not going to block, except in extreme circumstances. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I don't think the school IP tag was there when I looked at the article earlier. Given the edit history, I've schoolblocked them for a fortnight on account of the vandalism. I'm watching the talk page to see if there's a protest, just in case. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

IPCOLL stats

Thanks. Moves in 2nd column. Do you happen to have full/semi distinctions on those additions? If not, don't sweat it. However, we are including only protections within the past 12 months. Thanks, HG | Talk 12:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you think they'll be any q's about whether those belong to the disputed area, broadly interpreted? I think not, though I'm not sure about some of the Lebanon items. HG | Talk 13:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roland, thanks for help w/the links. BTW, I assume that really we should be posting more permanent links, e.g. to the archives (once they're archived) or to diffs. Would you be willing to do that sometimes to help out, too? Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle edits

Hi. It might not have been your intention but you reverted these edits to George Galloway and used Twinkle to indicate that they were vandalism. The edits do not appear to have been vandalistic, merely a content addition. While you can dispute the addition and revert the edits, please take care not to refer to good-faith additions of content as vandalism. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Galloway Participation Statisitics

I've updated them. why have you deleted it?21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Roland,my mistake. Do you have any idea why the page claims there was a Parliamentary Inquiry into Asian Voice? 21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cover of Apartheid Israel.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Cover of Apartheid Israel.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cover of Apartheid Israel.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover of Apartheid Israel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect placing of CSD template

Please don't place speedy deletions templates on SSP cases involving your alleged sockpuppetry. Thank you. Rudget. 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would be frustrated, but placing a speedy deletion tag before a reason why hasn't been explained isn't the correct course. I'll tie things up with Matt and see whether this was false or not. Your co-operation is appreciated. Rudget. 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been deleted. On behalf of Matt Lewis, I apologise. Rudget. 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but you don't have to apologise on my behalf. This looks like an ongoing problem to me. I can delete the above two "supected sockpuppet" headings if you want RolandR - no offence meant. I can see who you are now (I've actually seen plenty of your decent edits). The Twinkle script surprised me when it did all that it did - it made the two headings, plus various other stuff. If that Rance guy (or 'Rantshit' as he is pleasently known) pees me of - he must have been driving you crazy! 400 sockpuppets? Jesus. I guess his "Roland Rances" always stuck in my head.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Vilnai query

Dear User:RolandR. Just a query if you know offhand whether or not Vilnai's remark on shoah in Gaza raised a fuss when it was reported from his interview with the Israeli Army Radio by online Israerli newspapers, or only after the English newspapers, Haaretz etc., translated it, or the Reuters translation of 'shoah' as holocaust came out. In other words, did he in speaking of a 'shoah g'dolah yoter' in Gaza create a stir among native Hebrew speakers, or is all the fuss at Israeli-Palestinian conflict simply a consequence of the way that word weas translated by Haaretz, Reuters and Yediot A.into English? No research asked for, just a comment offhand. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment was widely discussed; but, as far as I can see, mainly in terms of the negative impact on foreign opinion, rather than on the enormity of the remark. There has also been discussion of the real meaning of the word, with a general agreement that the term "shoah" means simply a disaster or catastrophe (nakba, possibly), rather than systematic slaughter of a whole people; commentators have pointed to the term "shoah atomit", a nuclear disaster. Out of interest, I did a Hebrew Google search on the word שואה. This turned up 857,000 pages. Obviously I could not study them all, so I looked at the first 100. Of these, two referred to "shoah atomit", two to the holocaust allegedly occurring now in North Korea, one to the Armenian Holocaust, one to the removal of the settlers from Gush Katif, one (from the head of the Islamic Movement in Jaffa) to Israeli government policy in Jaffa, one to an apparent "International Electromagnetic Holocaust", one called for "Shoah le-Aravim" (destruction of the Arabs), and one referred to Vilnai's remarks. The other 90 referred to the systematic slaughter of European Jews by the Nazis. This suggests to me that the special pleading over possible meanings of the term is misplaced; although other meanings are possible, in popular Hebrew usage the word shoah is almost entirely used in the sense in which Vilnai's remarks have been generally interpreted. RolandR (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed, and apologies for any waste of time my request for clarification may have caused. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Neve Gordon

Hi Roland, thanks for the note. I agree with you; I didn't know who the accounts were (though it did all look like one person), but I figured I'd assume the best. The material you readded looks fine, although, what do you think of the quote from Dershowitz? I'm not sure who it reflects on more, but it strikes me as a bit much. Maybe it could be reduced to noting Dershowitz's criticism and perhaps retaining the first part of the quote. I might try something to that effect if you don't mind. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roland, are you going to report this? I'm not an admin, so all I can do is keep an eye on the article, or ask for one to take a look. Mackan79 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it on AN/I,[11] so maybe someone will take a look. Mackan79 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you have a long term fan? It looks pretty similar. Maybe one for WP:RFCU if it keeps on. Mackan79 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Countries visited

Hi Roland. I really must question your list of countries visited. Palestine is clearly not a country, it is part of Greater Israel. Could you please correct this in your profile? --EelJuice 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Palestine is a country, I have many friends who live there, I have visited there at their invitation, and I have no intention of censoring my user page to meet your political agenda. RolandR 23:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Roland, Please edit your page to include that you are a self-hating Jew. It is important that you be truthful. You are misleading your readers by hiding your self-hating personality. Please include how you brainwash your grandchildren to hate Jews as well. You should include why you must position yourself to identify with a radical cause. Unhappy as a child?, bullied for being Jewsih (only slightly?). Sad that your teeth are rotten because of National Health Scheme? Please be Honest!!! Thank You19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)67.189.228.34 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

I forgot what the puppet master account name was but had wanted to alert other people in the know the connection. Sorry if I inadvertently fueled misunderstanding. You would that by now the whole Wikipedia community would know about User:Runtshit, if not exactly by that name. Anyway, now I know how to proceed if I see him again. Thanks for that. I hope you are doing well. Tiamut^talk 12:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Hold on. The links will become blue next time Werdnabot runs. — Werdna talk 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Borisyy (4th)

I've knocked this one (and the previous one) off pretty quickly, as I'm trying to get rid of the huge backlog at WP:SSP. If you find any more socks in the drawer, don't bother creating a new case, just drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. _GB^T/C 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would if you signed and I knew who you were!RolandR (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

One tilde short of a signature, sorry! _GB^T/C 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you didn't have to hunt too far....! I've declined your WP:RFPP request, however - all the socks accounting for the vast majority of the vandalism have been blocked, and in any event there isn't enough activity to justify protection at this time. Sorry! _GB^T/C 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. _GB^T/C 13:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Runtshit

So you're the one that asshole is after! Congrats on pissing off someone who clearly deserves it so thoroughly as to create this obsession.

I keep seeing them vandalize marxism-related articles - how long has this been going on? Is there nothing that can be done besides blocking individual sockpuppets as they appear? Kalkin (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed

I'm not a CU, nor do I play one on the radio, and yes, anonymizers make it somewhat impossible. My criteria is that if the puppet's name references you, or its edits include the "Tony Tony" or the blog, that is pretty much a confirmation. The others, I could not find a particular edit that confirms it was a that user. As for how to stop it, other than massive anon IP rangeblocks, I'm not sure either :( -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've applied some small blocks that may help. I may disagree with your political views, but that is not an excuse for allowing wikipedia policy violations to persist. -- Avi (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By all means, anything which can be confirmed should be tagged as confirmed, just for housekeeping purposes. I do not have time now to go through the entire list, as I am making my last minute preparations for Yom Tov. Thank you for your kind appraisal, and have a חג כשר ושמח -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)