STOPhaus

July 2013

Hello, STOPhaus. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. PantherLeapord (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Welcome!

Hello, STOPhaus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  PantherLeapord (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The current revision of the Spamhaus Page states that our organization is "alleged" to be "spam and malware hosters". This allegation comes from Sloudflare, a "victim" in the dispute. That statement itself is in clear violation of COI and Neutrality. The Page also contains the allegations against STOPhaus made by Spamhaus with links back to Spamhaus' direct allegations. If Wikipedia wants to maintain allegations against us and made by our opposition, then it is more than fair to include our allegations against them. By removing them and calling us "spam and malware hosters", Wikipedia is participating in libelous censorship and The STOPhaus Movement is being left with little choice but to gradually become hostile.

And that will only prove their point. Two wrongs do not make a right. If you be the more civil party in this dispute then you will see more people start to understand your point of view, however your aggressive attacks in response to these allegations only make you look like the bad guy! PantherLeapord (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Spamhaus Project shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. PantherLeapord (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

We Understand the Game

We understand what is going on here. We see the direct attack on us coming from your community. We are prepared to fight any war you want to fight and we stand united on this issue. There is no discourse on censorship and propaganda. We will stand steadfast and strong and bring a force you will never believe we had. That is not a threat, that is a Declaration of War!

Operation Wikipedia War is Preparing to Begin...

We have been nice, we have tried to play by Wikipedia rules, we have attempted to be fair, we have been reasonable, we have waited for Wikipedia to do the same, yet the Wikipedia Community feels obligated to maintain the perspective on The Spamhaus page that we are malware and spam hosters and wants to avoid allowing counter-allegations to be included on a sections concerning us. Since this is becoming a malicious war to continue the libel, we feel it to be a directive against STOPhaus. Because Wikipedia is essentially attacking STOPhaus and it's supporters, we will prepare our teams for an Operation to combat such activity.

- NOTICE: This will be a completely legal and ethical operation. We will be using blackhat SEO tactics to create confusion within the Wikipedia Community and distort their ability to engage us. We will then be using mass content distribution methods and we will cause Wikipedia more issues than they ever dreamed of until they stop reverting to libel propaganda supplied by Spamhaus. This is NOT AN ANONYMOUS OPERATION! Although you can believe we recommend being an anon in STOPhaus Operations, this is an operation that will not violate any laws and the only way it can be a legal matter is civilly. We welcome a civil suit from Wikipedia, it will save us the filing costs on the counter-claim. STOPhaus (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Today User: STOPhaus aka Andrew Jacob Stephens, as ROSKO listed spammer posted this threat on his facebook page;

http://facebook.com/stephensboy

Andrew Stephens Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:36pm

Tonight we are going to research the Wikipedia Spamhaus Page edit history. We are going to track every editor that turned this page into a propaganda page, every contributor that wrote, edited, added, or deleted data from it...and we will show how this page was created with Conflict of Interests written all over it. I ran a query on 3 random entries and can tell you exactly who each IP address corresponds to and their affiliation with Spamhaus, so this should be interesting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.58.97 (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You talk a big game...

And that is ENTIRELY the wrong thing to do here! Your actions today have only proven the allegations by spamhaus. Believe it or not I used to think that you had a point; but your actions today have told me that it is not the case. If you had decided to engage in civil discussion I would still think that you had a case, but since you have decided to go down the path of war I now have no sympathy for you whatsoever. PantherLeapord (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

We have been civil.

Do not blame a response to a malicious publication for the effects. Wikipedia started this war, not us. We have been extremely civil and for many months. We have been more than willing to wait and work with Wikipedia Editors, we have minimized the edits we are adding/removing, and we have been extremely torn on whether OpWikiWar was the proper way to handle this issue. It is the WP Community that keeps firing rounds at us, so we are obligated to fight back at this point. Do not try to reverse the root, PsyOps tactics are well-understood in our community. STOPhaus (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

{unblock|reason=We are aware of these silly games you are playing by saying that Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia Foundation Inc. are not responsible for persistent libel, but we are also well aware of Florida State laws on libel and responsibility. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is a Florida-based Corporation and subject to Florida State Law. It is apparent you are extremely unfamiliar with The STOPhaus Movement or you would already know the significance in that fact. Chances are there will soon be an injunction on the Wikimedia Level3 allocation and the opinion on Wikipedia may be swayed throughout the State of Florida quite quickly.STOPhaus (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)}}

Tripling down on a legal threat is even more stupid. Do you even have lawyers? I'm bettng you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be so bold. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:29, 10 July 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Operation Wikipedia War has been canceled and The STOPhaus Movement will seek legal rememdies in The Great State of Florida. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that purposeful libel, provided by a biased source, that includes name-calling, be removed from a page. It is further reasonable that an event is described in a manner that provides unbiased facts and not one-sided libel. If the Wikipedia Community wishes to persist this libel and Jimmy Wales has, personally, been notified and responded, we will be obligated to handle it in The U.S. Court System and with an injunction on Level3 Communications and the WikiMedia allocation at AS14907 STOPhaus (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That's quite enough. Talk page access removed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:47, 10 July 2013 (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.

Doubling down on your legal threat will not get you unblocked at all, and in fact may pique Ken White's interest. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What they said. You retracted one threat yet you put out another threat that is a clear violation of WP:NLT. The only way to be unblocked is to be civil and talk about this petty indifference with us rather than just making more threats. PantherLeapord (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Also for those wondering if this a legitimate account of STOPhaus, the wording has been mirrored EXACTLY on their website. PantherLeapord (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)