User talk:Mirv/Archive 9

Archives by date
archive1 (27/01/04)
archive2 (pre-12/04/04 history)
archive3 (04/12–07/29/04)
archive4 (07/29–20/09/04)
archive5 (20/09–26/09/04)
archive6 (27/09–03/11/04)
archive7 (03/11–22/11/04)
archive8 (22/11–05/12/04)
archive9 (05/12–17/12/04)
archive10 (17/12/04–11/01/05)
archive11 (11/01/05–24/7/05)
archive12 (24/7/05–12/12/05)
archive13 (12/12/05–25/4/06)
Others
rubbish bin
AOL-using lawyer
Arbcom election
User talk:Mirv

Messages left here may not be seen for months. Use e-mail if you absolutely must contact me.

Negative campaigning, on the other hand, will be binned.

Administrator powers

If I have misused my magic powers in any way, this is the place to tell me.

Protection

Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from the list. Thanks.

If I accidentally protected a page to which I have made substantive edits, tell me here. I will unprotect it immediately.

Deletion

Did I speedy-delete something that wasn't a candidate? Did I delete something for which there was no consensus to delete? Tell me here.

Blocking

Hey, I seem to have been banned for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist ... however it is clear I have only two reverts. I want to assume good faith, but i was unaware of the 1RR that I violated. There was no policy I violated that warranted a block. Thanks Nasrallah 207.44.180.48 03:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Just one more thing, it is a shame you have decided not to respond. Two users are trying to resolve a dispute with you, about the same thing. Reticence is admirable in some circumstances, but not this one. I thought talking was the first resort of dispute resolution. Can't say we didn't try. Nasrallah 64.191.63.213 04:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  You'll note that I did respond, albeit on Jayjg's talk page. Copied from there:

Nasrallah is clearly a sockpuppet created solely to get around the 3RR: it had no user page, it had no talk page, its only edits were reverts of an article in the throes of an edit war, and it was clearly familiar with the ongoing dispute over Yasser Arafat. My block was a preemption of an pathetically sleazy attempt to circumvent the basic norms of good editing. —No-One Jones 03:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to say that being a sockpuppet is no grounds for a block, nor is reverting TWICE! Oh dear, and good grief! Nasrallah 64.191.63.213 04:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You could just use your account, whoever you are. Or I could ask a developer to do an IP cross-check; perhaps that would clear up some questions. —No-One Jones 04:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you asking my permission? Your activities are not under my control, mirv. How do you know so many things, so clearly, without proof? The question is DID i break 3RR, not maybe/maybe not he would've in the future, trust me. Nasrallah 65.29.84.147 07:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your block expires 02:26, 10 Dec 2004. You can wait it out, you can go back to using whatever other account(s) you have, or you can continue complaining elsewhere. The last will probably be fruitless. This will be my last response to you. —No-One Jones 07:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What does this statement mean?

LOL. Come on, I can admit mistakes... Nasrallah 65.29.84.147 07:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rollback

Did I use the admin "rollback" feature on one of your edits without warning or explanation? Then I probably thought you were vandalizing, spamming, or otherwise editing in malice, and chances are good that you were: most of my rollbacks are of such edits. If you want to know why I reverted your edit, append your question to the end of this talk page.

Automating deletion

I would be willing to help automate the deletion process. One problem is that, since I am not an administrator, I've never seen the HTML for the deletion form or known exactly how a page is deleted. This information is necessary for me to automate the deletion portion of the process. If the consensus is to keep an article, it's much simpler of course. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

What is the URL to the special page for deletion? I know it's not Special:Delete or Special:Deletepage; I've tried both. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 00:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

My new automation script is now ready to use. As I mentioned earlier, I am not an administrator, so I want you to test the vfddelete() function on one of the articles to be deleted. It's rather easy to use, really. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 00:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

To handle a page with consensus to delete, you have to edit the automation script. Look for the line that says "Place functions above this line", near the bottom. Now I see from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old that Gabriel Kent should be deleted. Above that line, add the line:

vfddelete("Gabriel Kent")

and run the script (simply double-click on it). It should open an Internet Explorer window, which you should leave alone. Hope this helps. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 01:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I realized that something was wrong even before you sent me that message. I looked at your contributions. Allow me a few minutes to find out what's wrong. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 01:56, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I fixed the problem, I hope. Try it now. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:03, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yes you certainly can. I also added a function called "vfdspeedy()" for handling articles on VFD that had already been deleted before the end of the discussion period. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I had just noticed a bug on the script and fixed it, if you hadn't already noticed. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Problem quickly resolved. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:37, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Script updated. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 03:05, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Your "administrator" box

I've copied it into my own talk page; seems like a good idea for all administrators to have. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the license blurb on Image:Bouguereau venus detail.jpg. —Tkinias 02:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party of Australia

Thank you very much for stopping by and pouring cold water on the warriors. I was about ready to give up on the whole mess, and it's only on the periphery of the main libertarian conflict. J.K. [[]] 06:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chuck evidence page

Thanks for your addition -- I was just about to start accumulating the open proxy diffs. I've taken the liberty of reformatting it some and moving the comments (which I completely agree with) to talk. RadicalSubversiv E 10:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've completed the evidence enough to feel comfortable going to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, if you want to comment there. Thanks again for your help. RadicalSubversiv E 13:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

User:Nasrallah and 3RR

Hi Mirv, User:Nasrallah has posted on my Talk: page that you have blocked him for violating the 3RR, and that he has not actually done so. From what I can see, he only reverted Yasser Arafat two times. These two edits appear to be his only edits. Was this blocking an error? Jayjg 03:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I would like to assume it is an error, good faith and all that. Thanks for you help, jayjg, but I fear any attempt to persuade mirv of his error is doomed to failure. I remain hopeful, against all the odds. Nasrallah 207.44.180.48 03:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mirv. I know even less about User:Nasrallah than you have already figured out. And I suspect he might have come to my page because I welcomed him on his own Talk: page. However, I still feel it is a violation of process to ban someone for violating a rule which they clearly have not violated, and we don't have a "ban suspected sockpuppets" rule that I'm aware of. I also note that you did not act nearly this precipitously with the User:Goldberg sockpuppet; I would be a little less troubled if I saw some consistency in your actions. (This note has been crossposted to my Talk: page as well). Jayjg 04:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've responded again on my Talk: page. Jayjg 04:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks officer

I'll make sure to signal my turns and drive 55 so as not to upset the drunk drivers. --Alberuni 04:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You may need to have a talk with your fellow officers to standardize interpretation and enforcement of rules of the road. Please see my note to Deputy Ta bu. --Alberuni 16:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Blue This

Your block of User:Blue This was totally unjustified! He was not doing anything to hurt Wikipedia, just trying to help out. Then you went and blocked this very valuable and innovative user! You owe all of Wikipedia an apostrophe apostasy apology for that!!!

Your friend, Bleu Cheese 05:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My pages

Thanks for reverting my user pages. By the way, I blocked 195.92.194.12 for 2 hours for that and other vandalisms. -- ClockworkSoul 07:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Anonymizing proxy"

Hi Mirv, is there a way of figuring out if IP addresses are anonymizing proxies or something similar to that? I'm thinking of 195.7.55.146 in particular. Jayjg 16:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Jayjg 01:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Salve, Golbez!
Back in September I was a candidate for adminship, but I withdrew and since then, I've been working away and have now decided to try again, nominating myself. Though you voted neutral at that time, I'd appreciate your vote on the new candidacy at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 19:20, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Salve, Mirv!
Back in September I was a candidate for adminship, but I withdrew and since then, I've been working away and have now decided to try again, nominating myself. Though you voted neutral at that time, I'd appreciate your vote on the new candidacy at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 19:20, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday, Mirv! Best wishes. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\^talk]] 01:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm planning to celebrate in the usual 21st-birthday fashion :-). —No-One Jones 03:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Regarding CheeseDreams: he was being highly disruptive. The blocking policy says: "Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies...Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked...For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month." My block was well-grounded in policy. CheeseDreams had created a category which was deleted after deliberation on categories for deletion. He then recreated and repopulated the category. It was deleted again as a reincarnation of a deleted article (See #5). CheeseDreams again recreated and repopulated the category. That's when I blocked him. Through this time CheeseDreams never brought the matter up at votes for undeletion, nor discussed the issue with me. He never even left a talk page comment or even an edit summary explaining why he was recreating the article. Users should not be allowed to veto or overturn community decisions about deletion. See User talk:CheeseDreams#24-hour block and User talk:CheeseDreams#Category:Bible stories. And again, happy birthday. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 00:07, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Happy birthday! (What, again? It's only been a year... ;-) -- ChrisO 19:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A more wiki way of deleting

Heya, seeing as you're one of the editors who's been active trying to improve our deletion system, I wonder if you could have a look at my proposal. It still needs some fleshing out, so I'm not quite moving it into Wikipedia: or announcing it officially yet (it's hard enough to get people to eyeball these proposals once, I'd rather they do so when it's done), but I would like to get some comments from other people working with the current deletion system. Feel free to edit to your hearts content, as long as you leave the general idea behind it intact. Thanks in advance! --fvw* 20:14, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Mirv working for The Wikipedia

I've noticed that Mirv takes the trouble to check the Block log for wrongful blocking and other "maintenance" tasks. He also restored an "oppose" and comment to the election page when "Neutrality" wrongly deleted it because it was not in his favour. People should bear this in mind when deciding who to vote for as an arbitrator.WikiUser 17:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You should put comments like that in the endorsement section of the arbitration elections pages. CheeseDreams 20:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Offensiveness

Could you please take a look at these diffs, [1] [2] [3], particularly the third, and consider whether Lady Tara should be blocked? CheeseDreams 20:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Open proxies

Aloha, Mirv. I just read your comment on Jayjg's page regarding blocking open proxies. You could probably save a little bit of time by using Mozilla Firefox instead of IE. Firefox has a free extension called SwitchProxy that will streamline your process. Instead of opening a new browser, you just open a new tab. And, while they both require four clicks to start a new proxy, the Firefox extension only requires one click to modify an existing entry, so after your initial setup you will be saving a great deal of time -- especially with the use of the SwitchProxy toolbar. I think you'll find that you'll be able to block twice as many IP's in the same space of time. --Viriditas | Talk 04:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, very useful, thanks. I've used Firefox as my primary browser since the days when it was called Firebird; I just use IE to check proxies so dead-end leads don't hold up my browsing. —No-One Jones 04:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The other advantage to SwitchProxy is that while using multiple tabs, each tab can be checking/using a different proxy. Sorry, this feature hasn't been released yet. I guess it will be in the next release. --Viriditas | Talk 05:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Hi, could you possibly take a look at this and see whether you think these are sock puppets? If so, could you consider banning them for vandalism (and the use of sock puppets), so that, by use of the autoblocking, it becomes possible to work out who they really are?

• John johnson (IP), John johnson (2nd IP) contributions for 1st IP contributions for 2nd IP (only contributions are against me)
• User:148.136.141.172 contributions harrassment [4] (note the phrase "cheesecake"), [5] (warning - this is an extremely large (but rather repetative) edit of over 1MB in length - some browsers, and computers, may have significant problems viewing it)

These are dialup IPs, the first two from Slovakia and the third from Sweden; therefore I would guess that they're not being used by the same person. Blocking them wouldn't tell me much unless whoever was using them e-mailed me rather than redialing. 148.136.141.172 seems to have a long history of vandalism and trolling, which made me suspect that it was an open proxy, but investigation turned up nothing. —No-One Jones 20:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, Nasse claims to be Swedish. CheeseDreams 22:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• User:Baffinisland contributions harrassment [6] (note the similarilty to the first at the previous IP address user)

  Just a vandal. It can be blocked indefinitely if it continues to vandalize.

• Nasse/Piglet contributions harrassment [7], [8], [9], [10] (note the phrase "cheesycake")

  Possibly a sockpuppet. It's been taunting you but I can't see how it's been violating any specific policies. —No-One Jones 20:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Lady Tara contributions harrassment [11], [12], [13],

[14]

• It's interesting to note that this user's first contribution was to upload an image from the Swedish Wikipedia. If I had to guess I'd say that it was being operated by the same person who used 148.136.141.172—but without access to logged-in users' IP addresses, which I don't have, I can't say for sure. —No-One Jones 20:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some of these IPs and accounts can be blocked on their own merits, regardless of whether they're sockpuppets or not; others should be watched carefully and blocked as sockpuppets if, for example, they appear out of nowhere to join in revert wars. —No-One Jones 20:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In which case, I think Lady Tara , User:148.136.141.172, and Nasse/Piglet are the same person.

• Nasse claims to be swedish
• Lady Tara used the Swedish Wikipedia as the first thing
• 148.136.141.172 used "cheesycake"
• nasse used "cheesycake"

The content of the personal attacks seem to match each other

Since none of these accounts have really made constructive contributions, and since I suspect them of being a sock puppet (possibly via an internet proxy, thus potentially from anywhere) of a more established wikipedian (I can narrow it down to a handful of possible individuals, but I can't place which yet), could you block them until they request unblocking?

Hopefully they will be careless, and get autoblocked while they are logged in as their more used identity. CheeseDreams 22:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is quite likely, and I suspect I know who this troublesome Swede is (hint: someone with a long record of obnoxious antisocial behavior, including a clumsy attempt to forge comments by others); however, 148.etc and Nasse seem have gone to ground, and I suspect Lady Tara won't be back any time soon. If they do show up and continue making trouble, I can block them; however the autoblocker blocks only IP addresses, so I won't be able to tell who's using those IP addresses unless they e-mail me from their regular account. —No-One Jones 22:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ive just looked at the vandalism to other user pages by 148.136.141.172

It seems to be to people (some of whom are openly gay) whose vast predominant edits are to maths articles particularly relating to fractals

The prime conspiritor against me (The one who initiated the whole thing) is Eequor, who predominantly edits science articles, including maths ones, and has fractals on their user page

Further, Eequor is the only conspiritor against me whose main edits are outside the sphere of religious articles, i.e. even remotely maths related

Eequor has at no point addressed Lady Tara's comments or Nasse's, unlike some of the other editors.

Is it possible to check on whether Eequor could be the same as the vandals? CheeseDreams 22:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you're on the wrong track. 148.etc seems to be quite homophobic ([15], [16], [17]), which I would not expect from Eequor but would expect from the user I had in mind, whose outstanding RfC should give you an idea of his favorite type of personal attack. Also I don't know anything about Eequor's nationality, while this user clearly states that he's Swedish on his user page. —No-One Jones 23:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I was under the impression that the user was just another sock puppet, since his sudden appearance in the RfC with absolutely no history whatever of coming into contact with me. You seem better at this detective work than I am. Thanks CheeseDreams 23:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rules

Does it count as abuse of adminship, if an admin, for example, Ta bu shi da yu, unlocked a page, e.g. Historicity of Jesus, then reverted it to a prior version, and continues to revert it everytime someone, for example me, makes edits?

CheeseDreams 13:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. AFAIK there's no rule about unprotecting pages one wants to edit, and reverting is something anyone can do. —No-One Jones 20:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for unblocking

The following has occurred

• Ta bu shi da yu reverted Historicity of Jesus 3 Times
• In order to bypass 3RR, this user then left a message at User talk:Viriditas to get Viriditas to continue the revert campaign
• After I had been fighting viriditas, Rhobite (another accuser of mine at the RfC organised against me) blocked me

I consider tag-team reversion wars to be wholly unfair and inappropriate I do not consider application of 3RR against me valid, The tag-team had made 5 reverts before I had even made 4.

Also, please see WP:AN on the validity of the non-reverted version

CheeseDreams 18:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid the block was technically valid: though Viriditas joined in reverting without joining in the talk page discussion, you're the only one who reverted more than three times. It's not really appropriate for someone to join a reverting team when he doesn't know enough about the subject to explain why the edits should be reverted, but neither is it appropriate to revert multiple editors without addressing the points they make on the talk page. Undoing this block would be a misuse of my admin powers; I have to enforce the rules that exist, not the rules that I wish existed. —No-One Jones 20:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to step in here and mention that CheeseDreams is incorrect. Ta bu shi da yu only reverted twice. --Viriditas | Talk 22:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Viriditas, you forgot to count the revert that TBSDY made immediately after unlocking CheeseDreams 01:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aloha, and welcome back. Unless you can provide evidence, I'm afraid I must disagree. TBSDY appears to have reverted the page twice, not three times: [18]. [19]. Happy holidays. --Viriditas | Talk 03:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Libel

Mirv, can I ask why you reverted by change to the Jimbo Wales page? He seems not to want this stuff referred to. He has deleted previous messages referring to it, and has explictly said others can do the same. It seems to me that if David, or anyone else, wants to set up a legal fund, they should e-mail him privately about that. Any public reference to the libel simply serves to spread it, in my view. Slim 22:24, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I also really don't want certain people posting certain libel and implied threats of my family here—I read that as "I don't want Sollog and his crew posting libel and making threats against my family on this talk page", not "I don't want anything about this matter, even expressions of sympathy or offers of help, posted on this talk page". Maybe I'm wrong. —No-One Jones 22:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that interpretation because he, himself, removed references to it that were not from Sollog, but about him, just as today's were. Expressions of sympathy about an issue only serve to draw people's attention to that issue, which is what I believe Jimbo Wales was saying he didn't want. That's my take on it anyway. Expressions of sympathy can always be sent to him privately, then at least the libel isn't spread any further. If you post/publish a reference to a libel, you are (in law) posting/publishing the libel itself. Also, about your message on my Talk page, asking whether it was an edit conflict? No, just to clarify, I removed the references deliberately. Slim 22:46, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking if the deletion was deliberate (before I got your message above). As for your interpretation, that's something I hadn't considered, and I think it's fair—but it would still be best to let Jimbo remove the messages himself. —No-One Jones 22:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That outstanding RfC

I though I would change it into this

CheeseDreams 01:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Ambition (card game)

You probably realize this has gone thru 2 more redirections to randomising page since your deletion. I don't think i'll attempt any repair/combat. --Jerzy(t) 16:01, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

I fixed it and protected it. Mike is doing exactly the opposite of what he should be doing if he really wants to be forgotten. —No-One Jones 19:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What? Protecting pages while you're involved in a dispute over said pages (a clear violation of Wikipedia policy) so as to re-instate soon-to-be-deleted personal attacks on trying-to-exit users? Oh wait. Some other assclown is doing that. 568 19:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protecting pages against clear and obvious vandalism—which is what you were doing, Mike—is perfectly acceptable. —No-One Jones 19:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All I've ever seen from you is clear and obvious vandalism. Get a fucking life. Moreover, there are plenty of restrooms in the world for you to take a shit; you shouldn't use Wikipedia for that purpose. That's not what it's for. 568 20:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All I've ever seen from you is clear and obvious vandalism—Then you haven't been looking very hard. Do you really want Wikipedia to forget about you, Mike? If so, this is what you need to do:

• Stop the vandalism. Obviously.
• Ask a developer to reassign your contributions to another username. This will remove you from edit histories.
• Once this step is complete, references to "Mike Church" can be changed to point to your new username, as was done with User:H.J.

You can then leave Wikipedia confident in the knowledge that the name "Mike Church" will no longer be remembered. —No-One Jones 20:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only just solution is not to remove just that, but also everything on Talk:Ambition (card game), to remove the entire history of the whole episode. Why? Because what occurred was a from-the-shadows right-wing libel attack, a politically-motivated culture-assassination attempt against a person and an emerging cultural phenomenon (driven, as it were, by completely unfounded fears; how the hell is a card game going to influence political affairs? It's not.) By refusing to eliminate this libelous history out of irrational anal-retentiveness, the Wikipedia community is complicit in the crime.

The changes of December 16 were not vandalism. They were attempts at justice, thwarted by small-minded individuals. 568 20:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

remove the entire history of the whole episode—If I weren't so sure that you'd recreate the article as soon as the evidence surrounding your past promotion of the game were gone, that would be reasonable. However. . . Also, I am still unsure where you get the idea that the attacks were motivated by anything other than dislike for your admitted misuse of Wikipedia to promote your game. I know I don't give a fig for your politics, and I sincerely doubt anyone else here cares either. —No-One Jones 01:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)