User talk:Amoruso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1st Archive 2nd Archive 3rd Archive

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I, LifeEnemy hereby grant you, Amoruso, this barnstar for listening to the advice others and learning to better keep a discussion civil and on-point.

Contents 1 Not anymore? 2 attacks 3 Apology 4 Template:Football player infobox3 5 Jerusalem in Category:Cities in the West Bank 6 Article help 7 Replaceable fair use Image:David-and-solomon.jpg 8 New page about Israel & UN 9 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Eurovisionisrael.jpeg) 10 check out talk on East Jerusalem page 11 Welcome back 12 Please add your comments to the new thread on the Mufti 13 Replaceable fair use Image:Hasmonean-map.jpg 14 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logoprc.jpg 15 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Battlegroundbook.jpeg 16 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Timeimmemorial.jpeg 17 Davids-kingdom.jpg 18 illegal 19 Restoring unsourced, critical information to BLPs 20 Plaut 21 Comment 22 Note 23 Nationalist Reverts 24 Sockpuppets? 25 Deletion of your userpage 26 Blocked 27 Fair use rationale for Image:Pantani.jpg 28 Requesting to unblock after blaming me for sock puppetry that never occurred 29 Requesting again because the last administrator clearly did not investigate the issue 30 There's really no appeal process? 31 Evidence... 32 Checkuser evidence 33 Allegations of Israeli Apartheid?

[edit] Not anymore?

Regarding this... did you not notice you put the template back into the East Jerusalem article? -- tariqabjotu 23:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks. Amoruso 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attacks

The nonsense being spouted by some of these people who think they are doing the world a favor never ceases to amaze me. --Gilabrand 07:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I've now added an apology to the end of the section where I originally posted the allegation against you.--Peter cohen 12:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And thanks to you. I have now posted [1] to try to get the complaint (especially its title) removed from an active page. --Peter cohen 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Football player infobox3

A template you created, Template:Football player infobox3, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 03:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem in Category:Cities in the West Bank

In your edit comment you said "see previous discussions in talk." What discussion were you referring to? Also, I've created a new section for this issue on the talk page. Robert Ham 12:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any conclusions. Robert Ham 11:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for further clarification of your objections in Talk:Jerusalem#Category:Cities_in_the_West_Bank Robert Ham 13:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on your response in Talk:Jerusalem#Category:Cities_in_the_West_Bank Robert Ham 06:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've commented again on your response in Talk:Jerusalem#Category:Cities_in_the_West_Bank. I think this really needs a response from you. Robert Ham 13:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article help

Hi Amoruso. Could you please add Battle of Jenin to your watchlist? A debate is currently occurring over coverage of this event. And please feel to free to take a look at the talk page at some point. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:David-and-solomon.jpg

Greetings. Image:David-and-solomon.jpg is a non-free map that you uploaded about a year ago. We used to be a lot more lax about non-free images, but nowadays we're pretty strict about the "replaceable" requirement, which says that a non-free image can't be used if it would be possible to create a free image to replace it. I nominated it for deletion for this reason, but I hope it's replaced by a new map that is freely licensed. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New page about Israel & UN

Hello Amoruso, you recently edited the page Israel and the United Nations. I invite you to have a look at my rewrite of this subject, Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I intend to replace the first with the second. Let me know what you think.Emmanuelm 13:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Eurovisionisrael.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eurovisionisrael.jpeg. 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 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] check out talk on East Jerusalem page

Please check out the debate on East Jerusalem talk page. User Doron has been pushing for renaming Jerusalem Arabs into "Palestinians" - he is claiming to have a "consensus" of some fictional literature. You input would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyyahu (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

e-mail me please. Zeq (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add your comments to the new thread on the Mufti

If we can whittle the disputes down to specific textual issues, we might make some progress toward removing the POV tag.

--Ravpapa (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Hasmonean-map.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hasmonean-map.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logoprc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Logoprc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Chesdovi (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Battlegroundbook.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlegroundbook.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Chesdovi (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Timeimmemorial.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Timeimmemorial.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Chesdovi (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Davids-kingdom.jpg

Hi Amoruso,

on WP:V and WP:RS grounds, I've had to request deletion of the image "Davids-kingdom.jpg" See discussion at Talk:Land_of_Israel#New_map_of_Greater_Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] illegal

You should put the illegal back or other editor will protest, based on UN resolution that states that Israel violated Argentinean sovereignty. I had a discussion about this with another editor before making the change that looks more neutral. Anyway to avoid edit warring on the article, I recommend puting it back. For me which ever way you decide is ok. Igor Berger (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring unsourced, critical information to BLPs

Generally it isn't a good idea to restore unsourced information critical of the subject to a BLP, particularly one in the orbit of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. When you restore it, you take responsibility for its content. Its always a good idea to take great care when restoring information removed because of BLP concerns. Avruch ^T 17:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plaut

Fair enough, thanks for finding another way. I don't know if you're aware that Roland gets a pretty steady stream of personal abuse from various anons/sockpuppets, but this is part of why the deletion seemed fair. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Sorry about the templates tonight. You're experienced and I hate using them, but in this case they seemed to fit.

It appears that you and RolandR got pretty tangled up tonight. I'm giving both of you the same friendly advice, one editor to another, not as an admin. Perhaps you should take a couple of days off Wikipedia for a short {{Wikibreak}} and come back fresh. It seems both of you are competent editors and would probably benefit from a voluntary break. Feel free to disregard this as it's just my personal suggestion. Good luck and happy editing in the future. Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I think you should retract your last comment on Judea. Yes, his arguments have been somewhat disruptive, but it's better to "sleep on it" half a day than to make hasty replies.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalist Reverts

Please note, your nationalist reverts have no place on Wikipedia. The 3RR is overridden by the no rules rule, which allows me to break the rules in the interests of bettering wikipedia. When I am trying to include 2 'disputed' terms to describe a place, instead of one term like you are trying to edit in, that is in this case a nationalist viewpoint, I have no reason to fear a ban. As a citizen of Jerusalem, I wonder too if you really feel you can distance yourself enough from this topic to make unbiased edits on it? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As a citizen of Jerusalem, I'm familar enough with the subject, unlike you, to know that these are neighborhoods in Jerusalem. It's just a fact. Nothing political about it. Your objection to the 3RR rule noted, I will report you then. Amoruso (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Except you dont seem familiar enough with the subject to be able to get your head around the fact that the UN disputes the border changes which make these establishments a part of Jersualem. Given that this is the case, they cannot legally be considered neighborhoods of Jerusalem. So how are they neighborhoods, or where are they neighborhoods of if not of Jerusalem? I am not disputing that in fact they may seem like Neighborhoods of Jerusalem, but they are not legally so when you consider for it to be a soveriegn territory of Israel, such sovereignty must be recognised by other sovereign governments. Further, given this, you cannot deny that they are in fact settlements (being establishments built for Israeli's on land annexed during the 67 war) if not in law. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say "legally", you mean "Internationally law (doctrine of U.N non binding resolutions) legally... I suppose. So yes, they might not be "legal" neighborhoods but they are still neighborhoods... you don't understand the difference? Amoruso (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean legally under both national and international laws. National laws are only made legal by the fact that other Governments recognise them as legal, and recognise the government that made that decision as a soveriegn government. No other government in this case has recognised this decision as legally sound. 'non-binding' international law or not, it is the very fundamental recognition of it being what it is, that makes it what it is. You really need to go and study some first year politics. Los Angeles isnt a city because America, or California says it is. It is made a city by the fact that this is not de jure or de facto disputed by any other government of the world. These places cant be made neighborhoods because Israel says they are, they become neighborhoods when other governments recognise the laws which makes them neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Until this happens, they cant be considered legally neighborhoods, or as unqualified neighborhoods on Wikipedia. I certainly understand the difference, all too well. Just bcause those that live there call it a neighborhood though, isnt enough to call it one on Wikipedia. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Los Angeles is a city EXACTLY AND ONLY because the U.S, or California says it is. You don't need to study "first year politics" (where do they teach that?) you need to study FIRST YEAR LAW. Countries define this anyway they want. That is the national laws. What you refer to is the doctrine, controversial doctrine, of International Law. Here, we have the non binding resolutions or assertions of politicians which dispute the LEGITIMACY of Jerusalem's borders. At any case, they can't dispute, and they don't, the fact that these are neighborhoods. Amoruso (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course nations make their own laws. But these laws are made legal by the fact no other government disputes it. You have admitted to me that the status as a neighborhood is disputed legally, and yet you still want to lead with this and only this term? I am not referring to International Law but the International System by which governments become sovereign. International Law, binding or not, still has a very important role - in showing the viewpoint of the international community. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And you really dont think leading with 2 disputed terms, which tell both sides of the story here, would be more NPOV than simply one disputed term, which tells only the side of the Israeli Government? I really hope you don't believe that. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"But these laws are made legal by the fact no other government disputes it" - this is not true my friend. I agree that the dispute should be mentioned though... and it is. Quite prominently

Actually, that is exactly how national laws work - it is the recognition of other governments that give them the right to pass national laws. I am not sure how the dispute is mentioned prominently though, considering it has constantly been reowrded to minimise the viewpoint to simply Palestinians, when it is the viewpoint of the International Community. Surely too, if it is to be prominently enough spelled out, it must be in the intro given the intro policy of Wikipedia. And if this term is disputed, like you admit, how come we can still lead with it? When we cant lead with the term settlement, which is much less widely disputed? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets?

Just FYI: I have reported you here, Regards, Huldra (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Huldra your lies paid up... I was never a sockpuppet. It didn't matter, because i'm on a break, didn't even know of that sleazy move of yours, but it's a pity you had to resort to such pathetic behaviour. Figures... Amoruso (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to your language. What "lies" have I told??? I made a CU report, then told User:Amoruso about it. Interestingly, not User:Amoruso, but the alleged sockpuppet User:Robertert responded on the CU page... Figures. Huldra (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, as if this alleged sockpuppet would have liked to help you with your deliberate lies and fabrications? Your lies will be exposed. I wouldn't be surprized if that sockpuppet was actually yours. It wouldn't be beneath you. Amoruso (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, I told you below how to contest this block. One more uncivil comment out of you and I'm going to extend it. Last warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of your userpage

Following a post here, I've deleted four edits from your userpage where you may have revealed a user's real name. Do not re-add this content to your user space. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 13:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

2 months for abusive sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was on a wikibreak (still am) and I had no idea this took place. I never used sockpuppetry, and I wasn't a sockpuppet of that other user. It's ridiculous. The ban should be lifted. Please do so. Amoruso (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Use the {{unblock}} template if you wish to argue this. People won't know otherwise. Continuing discussions in this manner could result in the page being protected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pantani.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pantani.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Benito Sifaratti (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting to unblock after blaming me for sock puppetry that never occurred

[edit] Requesting again because the last administrator clearly did not investigate the issue

Sorry, let me be more clear. Your IP was checked. Regular admins cannot recheck your IP because we are not capable of doing so. The privelege to link usernames and IP addresses is given to a very few users. User:Thatcher, a highly trustworthy admin and checkuser, examined your case and confirmed what was quite painfully clear: the IP addresses you use show a connection to the others engaging in the same abusive behavior. The other users like Huldra and Tiamut were not checked because there was no cause to, and checkuser is supposed to be used only in cases where it is apparently needed, it is not done to everyone to "be fair." I could ask Thatcher what exactly the IP link was, but any link that shows you access the Internet from the same local area would be convincing enough given the other evidence here, so I don't particularly see the need to clarify it. Mangojuice^talk 15:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There's really no appeal process?

this is this editor's 4th unblock request in 6 hours. --Selket Talk 16:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's the 3rd. In the first the reason did not appear in edit conflict. But I'm now trying to present it and for someone to address my reasonings which I now outlined in detail. To say that I'm abusing the block template trying to prove my innocence here and for someone to address my proof is another slap in the face. Amoruso (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that it's unappealable; it's that you have appealed it and been declined. You can't keep posting unblock requests because you didn't like the result of the previous one. You have not been banned, only blocked. You may come back when the block expires. --Selket ^Talk 16:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The following was posted on the RFCU page. You say the "dates don't match" but you are wrong. The following shows multiple instances in which you had committed 3 reverts on various pages and once you had finished, your sockpuppet User:Robertert made more reverts. All of these diffs are from April 25th.

• Neve Yaakov: first 3RR by User:Amoruso: [4], [5], [6], then User:Robertert appear, reverting to User:Amoruso version:[7]
• Pisgat Ze'ev: first 3RR by User:Amoruso: [8], [9], [10], then User:Robertert appear, reverting to User:Amoruso version:[11]
• Gilo: first 3RR by User:Amoruso: [12], [13], [14], then User:Robertert appear, reverting to User:Amoruso version: [15]
• Ramot: first 3RR by User:Amoruso: [16], [17], [18], then User:Robertert appear, reverting to User:Amoruso version: [19]

Not only that, but your contributions "dovetail", meaning that you and Robertert do not edit at the same time. And there is IP evidence that Thatcher has looked at. And of all the possible articles to edit, your sockpuppet only edited in ones in which you were in a dispute. So, enough already with this "no evidence" thing. Mangojuice^talk 17:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence...

What was posted above by Mangojuice is not evidence. It says nothing about my supposed guilt. Let's examine your evidence. Your evidence seems to suggest that since he was in the same RV fight as I, then he must be a sockpuppet. Interesting. I think you're confusing WP:3RR (which didn't take place) with Sockpuppeting. It's not evidence to suggest that since this person and I were doing the same reverting, then he and I must be sockpuppets. The summaries were different like I explained. But my evidence which refutes this sockpuppet claim is:

• If you look at the history of the page: first history page you'll see that this user posted his first message on 29 January 2008 but my last edit in the article before his use was on 10 December 2007. This right refutes the idea that it's a sockpuppet created by me to fight on this article. After almost 2 months, we're supposed to believe that I created a specific user for this article, and used it FIRST without using mine. Then, I went back to my user on God knows when... oh yeah on 23 April 2008. Right, that makes a lot of sense....

• Then if you look at another page for instance second page we can see that he indeed posted on the same January 29 (date user was created by someone) January 29 2008 but if look at the last time I posted it was on May 29 2007 8 months before. But that's not enough, btw, I butted in the rv fight only at 23 April 2008 3 months AFTER this user !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• btw, looking at the edits, we can see that it's not even the same edits !!! Just because later it was the same RV fight on those dates, we're now suddently sockpuppets of one another ??? Me, a user since July 2006?!?!?!

• You say "your sockpuppet only edited in ones in which you were in a dispute" - but that's only because you didn't read the nature of the dispute !!!!!!! All RV's were on the same subject - Settlement vs neighborhoods in these specific places in East Jerusalem - that's why they were the same RV. THESE ARE NOT 4 different pages. He just followed on that dispute most probably.

• "dovetail"?? Looking at the evidence above that I presented to you, I don't think this means much. Of course when someone rv's then it's the other side's turn then "your" side. Are you saying it's evidence because you didn't find 2 edits we did at exactly the same minute????????

• To show sockpuppetry, you probably need to show evidence of a similar rv summary. Not even one was shown.

• And no IP evidence was shown. "Likely" means we're either from the same ISP (there are only 3 or 4 in Israel) or from Israel, from what I gather from the personnel. So there's no IP evidence to make this preposterous ruling. You don't want to change that - don't. The shame is on you and the corrupt system.

• last note. His user was a sockpuppet of someone else. It was deemed Certain that he and that user were sockpuppets, but for me it was "likely". So for some reason, he used different tactics for me and for that sockpuppet? That is truly mind boggling. You can also see that he requested to be unblocked immediately and I didn't even know all this occurred until now !!!!!! I must have had some diabolic mind btw to put on such a newbie message "Does this work?" on the user page [20] at a time I wasn't in wikipedia at all for months. Amoruso (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say for the next reviewing admin that I am the only one who has really reviewed this block, and I would appreciate an actual second opinion. Mangojuice^talk 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you Mangojuice :). I want to thank you for your time, and I appreciate your honesty. It's true - you did give it a thought and I wanted a second opinion. The other replies were curt and it's why I kept insisting. You're a fair guy. Amoruso (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to adminstrator: I would even be content if you change the blocking reason from sockpuppetry to "disruptive behavior" and not change the duration of the blocking/shorten it a little (most of it already passed i think). Because RV fighting is disruptive, I admit, but I'm NOT this Robertt guy. Amoruso (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser evidence

To start with, Amoruso and Robertert use the same ISP, and use IPs from the same ranges. The IPs are dynamic, lasting generally a day or so before changing. One way to rule out that they are the same person would be to find days when the are both online from different IPs. However, they more or less alternate editing days, and there is only a single day within the current checkuser records where they both edit on the same day, 25 April. However, the edit pattern there is a bit unusual, which I will detail in a few hours. (Right now I have something pressing to attend to.) Thatcher 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Thatcher !. So that day is the only day we were both on-line. I think that counts for something. Looking forward for the rest... Amoruso (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The context here is that between April 20 or so through April 25, Robertert was edit-warring with Colourinthemeaning (talk · contribs) over four articles. Amoruso reverted those four articles at 07:58 on April 24. This table has the next series of edits. What strikes me as unusual is that these are the only edits by Robertert that are not on the usual ISP he has in common with Amorusa, and the user agent is completely different. A suspicious person might think that Amoruso was determined to revert the articles but did not want to go over 3RR, so he left his usual place of editing and found an alternate location, and that he did this twice that day. Perhaps a neighbor, or an internet cafe, or an open wifi hot spot. Amoruso could point out in his defense that it was an unusual time of day to be editing (I will not say more in case Amoruso's time zone is not public information) and that there are only 17 minutes between edits. A suspicious person could reply that obviously he and Robertert were both editing despite the unusual hour, and furthermore if Robertert really is a separate person then he was not home at that unusual hour because he was using an ISP that he never used before or since. Time is relative; for me, the nearest open access point outside my home is a 15-25 minute drive, depending on the time of day, but I was recently in a big city where there was a Starbucks or Tim Hortons with wifi in the lobby of seemingly every other high rise condo. To the objection, "who would go to such lengths to disguise their editing just to revert an article," I can only say, lots of people.

Amoruso	Robertert
10:45, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Nishidani‎ (→Eretz Yisrael)
10:44, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Nishidani‎ (→Eretz Yisrael)
10:29, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) United Monarchy‎ (the picture is sourced to bible history online)
	09:35, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Ramot‎ ("not a neighborhood according to the UN" - you are inventing that & your own sources contradict you)
	09:35, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Ramot‎ ("not a neighborhood according to the UN" - you are inventing that & your own sources contradict you)
	09:34, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Pisgat Ze'ev‎ ("not a neighborhood according to the UN" - you are inventing that & your own sources contradict you)
	09:33, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Gilo‎ ("not a neighborhood according to the UN" - you are inventing that & your own sources contradict you)
09:17, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Palestine‎ (→The name Palestine)
07:45, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Neve Yaakov‎ (rv per talk)
07:45, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Pisgat Ze'ev‎ (rv per talk)
07:45, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Ramot‎ (Please note that you should discuss changes in talk.)
07:43, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Gilo‎ (rv pert talk. Please note WP:3RR and CONSENCUS.)
	01:16, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Neve Yaakov‎ (your own conclusions not supported by the sources)
	01:16, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Pisgat Ze'ev‎ (your own conclusions not supported by the sources)
	01:15, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Ramot‎ (your own conclusions not supported by the sources)
	01:13, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Gilo‎ (your own conclusions not supported by the sources)
00:54, 24 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Steven Plaut‎ (→Update)
00:53, 24 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Steven Plaut‎ (→Update)
00:37, 24 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qiyamah‎ (→Al Qiyamah)

The basis for the checkuser finding of likely is that both editors use the same ISP, the same range of IPs, in the same geographic area, and are almost never on line at the same time. After conducting this more thorough review of April 25, I still can not rule out that these are the same person. On the other hand, there is room in the technical evidence for doubt. Thatcher 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My reply: Thank you very very much Thatcher for your due diligence and care to find the truth. I can point out for my defense that (a) there's no Starbucks or Tim Hortons where I live, and pretty much everything is closed here at night :) (b) One may note that by the check above, you can see that I took the trouble to edit more sensitive articles at the same time, like Palestine and United Monarchy where I was having some RV "fights" as well. The user Robert didn't edit there, yet he edited in the issue of settlement/neighborhoods that was going on - this is the issue that annoyed him it seems, and there are other users who were supporting my position on the page and could be interested in the ghost (or the other version who did this deliberately, who knows). (c) I wouldn't go to those lengths to disguise my edits. Why ? Well first of all I've never done so in the past, for 2 years in wikipedia and I had much worse fightings. Secondly, the evidence is that RIGHT NOW the articles are not in the version that I fought for !

The bottom line IMO is what Thatcher wrote: "I still can not rule out that these are the same person. On the other hand, there is room in the technical evidence for doubt". It's not that likely anymore it seems and you have here a man who did all he could to explain himself. I feel a little like Lincoln Burrows ;) Thanks again Thatcher. I'll shut up now and wait for someone to make the final call. Amoruso (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I gotta ask, was this account doing anything wrong when it was blocked? If we have a "maybe" sock accusation with no actual disruptive editing, then personally I'd rather we err on the side of not blocking. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was, actually: he was breaking 3rr on several articles.

Also: Normally, I would believe somebody making so much noice.....exceeeeept for a couple of things: I was involved when Amoruso got blocked for 3rr the first time, in fact I filed the report back then: User:Amoruso reported by User:Huldra (Result:24 hrs). The story: User:Zero0000 and I were working on the bio. of Moshe Levinger, a leader of the religious settlers on the West Bank. Amoruso tried to remove the Category:Criminal and a "see also" link to Gush Emunim Underground in the bio, arguing for hours (see the talk-page) that to put Levinger in the "Criminal"-category was a BLP-violation. However, Zero and I could show that with the numbers of criminal convictions that Levinger had, he clearly "fulfilled" the requirements for inclusion in the "criminal" category. What happened next was interesting: seeing that that his first argument didn´t hold, he simply changed tack, and said he removed the two pieces of information, because there was nothing linking Levinger to the group mentioned in the "see also" section: Gush Emunim Underground. And then followed all the normal personal attacks and big-talk ("Bogus report obviously"). Of course, there was, and is, plenty of material linking Gush Emunim Underground to Levinger, indeed, both the things Amoruso edit-warred to get rid of have been in the article ever since. Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to tell you: when the blocking admin actually linked to articles where it was shown that Gush Emunim Underground was indeed linked to Levinger, what does Amoruso do? Well, remove it all, of course: [21]. Regards, Huldra (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (I cannot help it, but some people just make it difficult to AGF.)

Huldra has a strong political bias against me, and I wouldn't give it too much input. We had a legitimate discussion whether it's appropriate that the category 'criminal' be applied to a leading rabbi and a political figure in Israel for some offenses for which he never sat in jail for a long time. The Gush Emunim underground was perhaps linked to Levinger but he wasn't one of those who were imprisoned for trying to blow up places. Huldra's words here are manipulative and he confuses indirect link with direct involvement. I don't really know what he quoted here, but it seems I removed something from my talk page, which is actually the wikipedia policy - to remove it after you read it. Just to explain to you Huldra's bias, it's enough to see his POV edits in the article Hebron like here [22] recently , in here [23] which is the same discussion we had on Har Homa but he refuses to acknowledge that it's a neighborhood, and which is a geographical part (and therefore his motivation to ban me to fit his POV), and basically him being involved in the fight over these articles and rv'ing this Robert guy all the time, make him a biased party. One should only pay note to an involved party I believe. This user was also involved in vote coercing/gathering in the past [24] and has a clear political agenda. As part of this political agenda, he even resorts to removing whole chunks of hard-work WP:RS without any edit summaries - see here [25]. Also I think that's a lie, I wasn't breaking 3RR or someone will have reported that, in fact had 3 and not 4 edits. It was user:Colourinthemeaning (and perhaps user:Huldra himself) who was breaking 3RR. Amoruso (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(To Huldra) This happened in November 2006? That's not recent at all. -- Ned Scott 14:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed the SSP case, but if anyone feels like scrolling through the edits on Talk:Steven Plaut starting here, they'll see Amoruso appearing rather extensively to troll that talk page (see i.e. edit here and summary here]. I find it hard to see how this is good faith editing one way or another. Mackan79 (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I guess someone e-mailed all those who have political agendas to come and make irrelevant comments. Mackan is referring to to when I tried to restore legitimate material on a talk page from being blanked for no reason [26]. An administrator, unbiased one, ruled that I was correct in trying to restore the blanked material from a TALK PAGE here (same issue) [27] and reprimanded user:RolandR. Now is User:Mackan79 and user:RolandR the same person? Maybe? and how is proving someone has been violating wikipedia policies and being praised by an outside party user:IronDuke, is trolling? Like I said, if you have something against me politically because I'm Israeli or Jewish or don't hold ultra left wing opinions, it is not relevant to the discussion. Thank you. To the point, User:Ned Scott, yes that WP:3RR was ancient, like you duly noted. After the evidence of user:Thatcher it's pretty clear I haven't used sockpuppeting. So it seems strange that I'm still blocked, to meet the political agenda of some users perhaps. Amoruso (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, I don't know anything about the 3RR report other than that it was called "likely." If that's all it is, I wouldn't block you on that ground. However, I had something against your replacing a comment from an IP to Roland saying "are you plain stupid?" and "you must be a moron," and then replacing the comment about Reinhart, then capitalizing it for effect, and then even placing the same thing in the edit summary all in caps, and I think it's relevant if people are going to assess the situation. Otherwise IronDuke isn't an admin, and I'm not sure for that matter where he praised you. Mackan79 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, and you know it. What I tried to restore is the Reinhart parody issue with Steven Plaut, not the personal attack, which is out of place obviously and is wrong. You know very well that, and if you don't, then you know now. I may have reverted too much or something but I think it was obvious what I was trying to revert and user:IronDuke administrator or not CONFIRMED it. Amoruso (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Mackan79, you acknowledged this yourself right here in my talk page and said "fair enough", you thanked me, I thanked you, all politely, and you agreed to my edit that you're now attacking. What gives. Amoruso (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(To Ned Scott:) Breaking 3rr occured the same day as this CU was filed: 25 apr.2008.

As for my first 3rr report on Amoruso: you are right: that is indeed ancient. However, it is the only time I have interacted with Amoruso outside article-space. And the barrage of accusations that time (my "obvious" "bogus report", my "abuse of the system", my "gaming" and "not good faith") left a very bad taste in my mouth. I have, frankly, tried to avoid Amorusos path ever since. On the 25th of April it was just a bit too much, and I filed a CU. And got an even worse floodgate of abuse ("your lies paid up".. your "sleazy move", your "pathetic behaviour", your "lies"...). Anyway: I urge everybody to check Amoruso´s diffs! I stand by every one of them. With about 5000 edits behind me, there are of cource edits I would have done differently. But not the ones above! Take e.g. my "POV" edit at Hebron (in April), whaw: what I inserted has remained in the article undisputed ever since... And even better: my "removing whole chunks of hard-work WP:RS without any edit summaries": The socalled "WP:RS" I removed were statements from Holocaust-deniers and anti-Semitic groups like Kevin Alfred Strom, National Vanguard and Adelaide Institute! WP:RS?! Hey, when Holocaust-deniers become WP:RS; then I´m out of here! (Also: and all that in an article which comes under BLP, no less...) Oh, and my vote coercing/gathering (in November 2005) ..was trying to get an editor to *not* vote *against* a candidate at a RfA...just because the candidate was nominated by SlimVirgin. I very much stand by my edits there. In fact, all my edits mentioned above stand uncontested...*except* those edits about settlement vs. neighbourhoods. Have a nice evening. Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Huldra, your excuses for why you inserted WP:POV material, why you removed WP:RS without any summary, and why you thought that an ancient WP:3RR (no 3RR ever since then, one was overturned) has any significance on the question of whether I sockpuppeted where the technical evidence points to the contrary, is not very interesting, I'm sorry. Since user:Ned Scott asked you a relevant question, I won't delete what you wrote for now, but it's all very irrelevant and is a distraction from the issue. I guess that's what you wanted to meet your political agenda in this meddling. Basically, you admitted you want me out of the game because I contested your neighborhood/resettlements diffs, and this was your motivation behind it. We get your bias. Amoruso (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Amoruso, thank you for confirming that you actually do think that Kevin Alfred Strom, National Vanguard and Adelaide Institute are all within WP:RS. Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's WP:RS to report WHAT THEY SAID, not the content of what they said to be true. It's WP:RS to say: "they said that Giladi is...", not "they are right in saying that...." Yes, it's WP:RS just like Lee Harvey Oswald and Osama Bin Laden are WP:RS reporting what they said. Bad people are WP:RS too. But it's off topic. Amoruso (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Israeli Apartheid?

currently there is a vote going on in removing allegations of an israeli apartheid. i would appreciate your opinion on this matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_%288th_nomination%29Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)