Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:12, 6 September 2006

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=See lengthier request below |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=See lengthier request below |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=See lengthier request below |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Welcome!

Hello, ParadoxTom, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• 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 need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JoshuaZ 21:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s. As to your specific question, editors will sometime's revert other edits if they disagree with them. On a controversial topic like Jews for Jesus such reversions will be very common, especially if an editor has made major edits which with little or no explanation. Very often on controversial topics it is best to make changes and then if they are reverted discuss them on the talk page or to discuss potential changes on the talk page before making the changes. JoshuaZ 21:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please try to avoid violating 3RR or you may be reported and blocked. Use talk pages to discuss your changes. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You were warned and still you chose to violate 3RR. Here is your last chance to self-revert and regain good faith. ←Humus sapiens 01:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Experimenting

Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - Abscissa 10:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Jews for Jesus

I've blocked you for 8 hours for 3rr on Jews for Jesus William M. Connolley 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK... try 24h then William M. Connolley 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail... you may be under the impression that the previous block "cleared" your revert count. It didn't William M. Connolley 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re your other mail... you want WP:DR; first step is extensive discussion on the talk page. William M. Connolley 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ParadoxTom, the thrust of the Neutral Point of View policy is not that Misplaced Pages should steer clear of controversy and present only material it considers "neutral", but that it should fairly present all major points of view in a debate. Particularly in a debate about religion, religious points of view and theological content are definitely considered appropriate content, as long as these points of view are reliably sourced. This may have been the source of some misunderstanding. It's considered inappropriate to omit a source because one believes it "prejudiced" (that is, one disagrees with it). The intent of Misplaced Pages is to present the full spectrum of opinion, including disagreeable as well as agreeable ones, as long as the opinions are notable and significant. This makes it somewhat different from a standard encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One last thought -- particularly on highly controversial topics, you might be better off presenting proposed changes on the talk page for discussion rather than making them directly to the article. Many of these articles have undergone long discussions where people have agreed to specific language, and the result is that edits by people who haven't participated in the discussion or more likely to get reverted. --Shirahadasha 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And that would be fine; but every time one of us makes even a minor edit that does anything other than argue the view that Jews for Jesus are unambiguously Christian--even when we do so little as to put a 'disputed' tag on the top of the page--within seconds the page is reverted. JfJ was my first edit on Misplaced Pages; I am a disinterested party (neither Christian nor Jewish); and I can tell you that, as an objective matter, the article is factually inaccurate and instead of being empirically enlightening, it is a statement of religious doctrine. And indeed, every member of this instantly-reverting cabal is a Jew according to their user page. I am willing to assume good faith, but not maintain it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Jews have animosity towards Jews for Jesus--and perhaps rightly so. But that animosity does not give them the right to essentially vandalize a page because it contains true information that they wish was otherwise. The article is POV because it admits NO dissenting views; any additions are immediately removed. It's as if I filled the Adolf Hitler page with laudatory comments about him referenced from white supremacy websites, and then sat by my computer to revert the article if anyone meddled with it. It's just nuts.ParadoxTom 20:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

You may want to edit some less controversial articles before you try your hand at controversial ones. This will help give you experience about how to resolve editing disputes and in general how to interact with other Wikipedians. Your current editing is not very productive. JoshuaZ 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I want Misplaced Pages to work as an encyclopedia and not serve as a arena for airing POV propaganda. You need only look at the edit history of the Jews for Jesus article to see that this is going on. We cannot even put a disputed tag on the top of the page without it being reverted in a matter of seconds. Your current editing is--to use your words--"not very productive", because it is factually inaccurate and at odds with the spirit of accuracy and fairness upon which Misplaced Pages was founded.

Your intentions are good, but you need to learn the politics of wikipedia. If you want people to respect your edits you need to win them over on the discussion page first, and build a consensus for the edits you want. Or else people who have already gained popularity for there viewpoints will continue to rally their cohorts against your edits. if you want to make a difference you need to first work on gaining a coalition of people to support your cause. If you continue to act unilaterally and try to push your edits, and continue to ignore wikipedias policy you will not make any progress. MCohen20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what's the point? Someone just blocked me for 3RR, which is unfair--I only performed two reverts within the last 24 hours; the other edits were new material. It seems that there simply exists a group that wants to stifle debate and will use any means--in accordance with the rules or not---to achieve that end. Remember that people actually do use this site, and we do a real disservice by permitting POV propaganda to be protected in this fashion.ParadoxTom 20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on September 3 2006 to j4j

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Check the history. I did not violate 3RR--I did so yesterday, true, but it was my first day on Misplaced Pages. Within the last 24 hours I have only performed two reverts on the 'Jews for Jesus' article.ParadoxTom 20:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I did. You have 4R, starting with William M. Connolley 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't. 19:25, 19:47, 19:53, 20:29, and 20:31 are entirely new edits. 20:12, and 20:21 are reverts. Please do not block me without cause, and especially please do not lie about it subsequently.ParadoxTom 21:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Help requested

I am putting an unblock request on my page, but I do not know how to include justificational information in the unblock template; this has been requested of me. Essentially, the claim that I violated 3RR is false (see above). Thanks.

Hm, if your request ends up getting long, it never hurts to use {{unblock|See lengthier request below}}, just food for thought. Beyond that, I'd recommend linking to the page's history, to any relevant talk page sections, and to every edit you made that day, doing your best to calmly and rationally explain (with evidence, whenever possible) why you don't feel you violated 3RR. If you need help linking to particular edits, you need to click the "history" tab, up at the top of the page, and click the "diff" button next to any edit, which shows you a special page comparing that edit to the previous version; takes a little getting used to, but once you see it, it's more intuitive than you might think. Hope that helps. Good luck. Luna Santin 21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.ParadoxTom 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Request

William M. Connolley claims that I violated 3RR on the article 'Jews for Jesus'; this is not correct. I reverted the article twice in the last 24 hours, at 20:12 and 20:21. On five other occasions (19:25, 19:47, 19:53, 20:29, and 20:31), I made minor edits of totally new information in an attempt to remove some POV commentary from the article. This is only my second day on Misplaced Pages, so I must confess to a certain unfamiliarity with the procedures; however, it seems clear as a factual matter that 3RR does not apply. I do not know why William M. Connolley has sought me out in the way he has; numerous violations of 3RR apparently happen on that article without any response. He has blocked me thrice now; I do not know the man; I do not understand the source of his animosity. Thanks,

Tom.

Helpme

Hello--I have requested to be unblocked because William M. Connolley incorrectly claimed that I violated 3RR. As cited above, I did not; I reverted twice, which is within the permitted range. I have provided the relevant times and pages above; I have gotten no response. Thanks.ParadoxTom 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am looking, I will respond in a minute. Please note that whether I uphold or overturn the block, I will most likely not check this page again. Teke 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, unblocked denied. Here's the thing: you reverted twice, as well as another particular edit twice. While 3RR is the policy, it can be used in 2RR and 1RR exceptions; it's to stop an edit war. By making both edits, which you knew were to arouse other editors, you were edit warring and gaming the system by a 2RR, which doesn't exist. I'm not being harsh, I've never seen the article or dealt with yourself or William Connolley in any way. Please wait out your block, and engage in actual discussion with the editors on the talk page rather than the ineffective reversions. Teke 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I only wished to point out that William M. Connolley's rationale for my violation of 3RR--that I had "4R"--was incorrect.ParadoxTom 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom, its clear you were unfairly blocked. The rule is four reverts -- you had two. How is a new user to know about these unpredictable exceptions to the rules? Is it reasonable that another editor reports you unfairly, yet is not blocked himself? I'd also assume good faith on your part and wager that your edits are genuine attempts to remove POV. I am just returning after my own unfair block myself. I will return to editing Jews for Jesus and I will also begin a dialogue on the WP:3RR talk page requesting reform of the policy. I am not an admin myself so unfortunately I can't unblock you. Justforasecond 21:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks; that is how I see it as well. I was really shocked that my minor--and let's face it: innocuous--changes to the Jews for Jesus article were reacted to with such vigor. I find it especially amazing--and reprehensible--that even my inclusion of a 'disputed' template at the top of the page is reacted to with an instant revert. And then the POV-pushers come in, and instead of discussing things rationally, simply find a willing admin to block me.

I wish to reiterate that I have no affinity for either side in the Jews for Jesus debate; I am neither a Christian nor a Jew. It was my first article edited on Misplaced Pages, and I read it because I was approached by a 'Jew for Jesus' and was curious about their organization (though not their theology; I am a rather comfortable atheist). The article was utterly worthless and smacked of insecure propaganda. Quite literally after an hour of research and careful editing, I posted what I felt was a far more objective and enlightening text. And in seconds, all that work was gone: instantly reverted without talk, without consideration, and without commentary.

This sort of thing is what gives Misplaced Pages a bad name and what will, if nothing changes, sink it in the end. We must all remember that--whether it is warranted or not--people are using this site to learn about the Universe in which we live. School children, college students--even professional academics. And a misleading, obviously POV article has real ramifications for the society in which we'd like to live. Misplaced Pages as it stands now is an instantiation of the superiority of elitism--not egalitarianism. And I find that truly regrettable.ParadoxTom 22:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For a new user you claim a surprising familiarity with the rules for dispute templates. My advice to you is: slow down. Read the definition of revert carefully. Read WP:1RR. Read WP:DR. And edit nicely when your block expires William M. Connolley 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your advice is noted and rejected; you have already displayed your true colors, and I will not capitulate to your false flag of 'nicety'. Conformity is not what is needed here; there is something very wrong when the mere mention that the Jews for Jesus article might be POV gets me banned without cause. That article will be at the vanguard of my edits, and I am going to strive to make it clear, NPOV, and accurate. I am of course willing to do so in a constructive and collaborative manner; however, when my work is instantly (within seconds) reverted by what are likely insecure religious dogmatists, my suggestions ignored, and my editing ability banned without cause and in a prejudicial manner, I am left with little recourse. Regardless of whether or not the rules permit a ban under 3RR for two reverts, you know as well as I that that is not typically employed, and it is violated--especially on the Jews for Jesus article--constantly. If you are truly unbiased, as is required by your administrator status, I would ask you to ban for 48 hours the other two-revert violators on that thread. That would be equitable. If you refuse to do so I'm afraid you lose credibility in our eyes and consequently your opinions cannot be given what otherwise would be their due weight. Regards.ParadoxTom 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- if Tom is blocked for 2 reverts, fairness says others should be as well. BTW I've proposed some changes to WP:3RR at the talk page. One was an end to any 2RR blocking Justforasecond 00:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That proposal will be roundly rejected. Three reverts is a tripwire, not a right. Edit warring is prohibited by policy. You can be blocked for edit warring even if you come nowhere near three reverts. Nandesuka

Nandesuka, that is fine; I read 3RR, I understand that it can apply to fewer than three reverts, and I accept that as policy. Whether or not it should be changed is a separate issue. The salient problem is that there are several others on that Jews for Jesus article who conducted three or fewer reverts in the same fashion that I conducted two reverts. They were not banned. And indeed, they were the ones who viciously sought out a ban for me. They are absolutely unflinching on that article, inserting their clearly POV information if any change--no matter how mild--is effected. Indeed, one of the edits used as justification for my ban was my putting of a 'disputed' template on the top of the page. It was removed. I assumed good faith in those other editors, but the record has demonstrated that that assumption was incorrect; they are putting POV information on that page in order to protect their personal theology. And this is reflected in the beliefs that they advertise on their Talk pages. It is not, I think, an invalid inference to make.

So, again: we only seek equality. If I am to be blocked, so be it. However, the standard used to block me must be used to adjudicate all those other editors on that page; and it was not--they remain free to edit at will. Indeed, the user that complained about me to William M. Connoley, Mantanmoreland, "violated" 3RR in this fashion even before I did. Yet I was blocked and he was not. That kind of subjective application is totally unacceptable. Even more egregious is that, unlike me, those other editors employ Misplaced Pages as a font for pure propaganda. There is something very wrong here, and it needs to be fixed. Indeed, if you look at the Jews for Jesus Discussion page, you will see the little cabal strategizing about how to protect their article: "JFJ has enough motivation to fight what they see as threat to their mission. Note the recent influx of new users, all focusing on one thing: attempting to hide that JFJ is a Christian evangelical group and not a Jewish group as they try to portray themselves." (Humus sapiens). The implication is that those of us who are objective, NPOV editors are somehow in the employ of Jews for Jesus. Which is factually not the case. Again, I am an atheist and care only for an empirically accurate, NPV characterization of JfJ. It is not, I think, too much to ask.ParadoxTom 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the actual block, so you may well be right that others should be blocked too. That being said, in my personal experience I find that it's better to move on and marshall persuasive arguments on the Talk page to convince other editors than to just hit "revert" another time (or stew over the injustice of unfair admins). Just my $0.02. Nandesuka 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I must confess to a certain degree of unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages; I have been an editor for only a few days. This of course is no excuse for violating 3RR, but I suppose I was a bit too naive in thinking that all editors were interested in a fair, non-biased appraisal of the facts. I can promise cordiality, always: that I have not violated, and will not. However, I will not just "move on". If I find instances of obvious slander or propaganda--whether it comes from Jews, Nazis, atheists, whatever--or administrators failing to discharge their duties in an equitable fashion, I am going to stop it and work to bring it to as many people's attention as possible. My impression thus far is that problem is a very real one that Misplaced Pages faces--perhaps the most potent threat to its accuracy and its future. We cannot allow this site to be used to spread views that are not in accord with factual information. That, I am afraid, I cannot compromise on.ParadoxTom 01:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom -- glad to have you at wiki. I couldn't agree with you more about Jews for Jesus. I found it in awful shape about a week back and set on improving it. For the relative importance of the group, it has some of the most hostile editors I've come across. In any case, you are a great addition to the 'pedia. We need more of your type. Whiskey Rebellion is another wikipedian for truth and I've run into a few other kindred souls out there. One word about unblocking, it rarely seems to happen. Even the more reasonable of admins are hesitant to step on another's toes. You can see Nandesuka spent the time to write here to you, but wouldn't unblock you. And, as far as I can tell, its obvious that unblocking you wouldn't cause some sort of collapse of wikipedia (which is the only real purpose for a block). You also might be charmed to notice Nadesuka's latest threat on my talk page: . In our last exchange he blocked me for a month. Justforasecond 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Censorship is the final refuge of insecure intellect, as far as I'm concerned. The Jews for Jesus article is such an obvious mess . . . and even the simplest, most measured edits are reacted to with anger and calls for supression. That sort of response does not indicate a desire to address the article fairly and with care. After I get more familiar with Misplaced Pages I'll try to come up with some remedies; it is clear that administrator status does not, ipso facto, indicate that someone is an unbiased protector of this site. In time a course of action may become clear; I hope so, anyway.ParadoxTom 04:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom if you get a chance, visit ]. The idea I'm trying to put forward is to have a standard 3RR policy, not an unpredictable one. This would have prevented at least one of your blocks. I have some more ideas that I haven't written up yet, such as standard "sentencing guidelines" Justforasecond 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll definitely check it out; thanks for the support.ParadoxTom 22:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

You may have violated the 3RR rule at Jews for Jesus. Any undoing of another editor's work — in whole or in part, whether dealing with the same material or different material each time — counts as a revert. Please review WP:3RR very carefully, and try to reach consensus on the talk page rather than simply removing properly sourced material. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No. 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Do not use Jews for Jesus as a forum to air your POV theology. It is supposed to be a balanced and empirically enlightening article.ParadoxTom 01:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

48 hour block

I have blocked you for for revert warring on Jews for Jesus. Since this has happened so soon after your last 3RR block, it is for 48, not 24 hours. Subsequent blocks will likely be longer.

Please be advised that Misplaced Pages is not a formal legal system to be gamed. Despite bad advice you may have received, you can't avoid the consequences of your actions by merely labeling the edits of those you disagree with as "vandalism'. In the future, please act with more discretion and maturity.

Kind regards, Nandesuka 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not material. As a factual matter, vandalism is occuring on Jews for Jesus, and 3RR does not apply to combatting vandalism. I will be appealing the block.ParadoxTom 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, appeal away. You might want to read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, which makes clear that "ny good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." It's clear that those you are edit warring with are editing in good faith, just as you are. Content disputes are always called "vandalism" by those participating in them, and they almost never are. i encourage you to learn to work more collegially with your fellow editors — even those you disagree with — rather than pursuing doomed attempts to portray them as simple vandals. Nandesuka 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Those "editors" have already demonstrated that they are NOT acting in good faith; they have articulated, on the talk page and their user pages, paranoia about their particular relgious beliefs and a desire to fill the page with POV content. "Assume good faith" does not mean maintain it in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary.ParadoxTom 02:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I will be lodging a complaint agains Nandesuka for abuse of administrative privilege for his 1-month long block of me. When you return, I'd appreciate if you take part in my complaint. Justforasecond 02:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

3RR did not occur on Jews for Jesus. At 22:56 (1) I made an entirely new edit, including the addition of a new template. At 22:56 (2) I fixed a typo made at 22:56 (1). At 1:23 I reverted the page after an incident of vandalism. At 1:30 Humus Sapiens again (now twice) reverted. This I reverted at 1:31. At 1:34 I reverted again, in response to SlimVirgin's edits. At 1:39 I made a new edit, with new material, which was vandalised two minutes later. That was reverted. Please see my comments above as to why this article is such a POV mess. Thanks, ParadoxTom 02:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing admin: please note that the block in question is for revert warring. Nandesuka 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock