User talk:ParadoxTom

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Welcome!

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

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^ну? 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Experimenting

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ParadoxTom, the thrust of the Neutral Point of View policy is not that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia; 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No. I want Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. MCohen 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] 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.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I did. You have 4R, starting with [2] William M. Connolley 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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^(talk) 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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^(talk) 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Indeed. I must confess to a certain degree of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia; 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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: [3]. In our last exchange he blocked me for a month. Justforasecond 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Tom if you get a chance, visit [[4]]. 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)[reply]

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

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 ^(talk) 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's fine, appeal away. You might want to read Wikipedia:Vandalism, which makes clear that "[a]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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Of course. I'm new to Wikipedia, so please let me know how I can participate. Nandesuka's behavior has been abhorrent; not what is expected of a Wikipedian, let alone an administrator.ParadoxTom 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the lack of "good faith edits". Some of the other editors (in particular, "Humus sapiens" and a couple others whose usernames I can't spell) have made their goals clear -- they want to "warn" people that jews for jesus is "christian". There's plenty of other language on the talk page for jews for jesus making their goals and POV clear. Justforasecond 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Translation: he admits there was no 3RR violation. Reviewing admin: please consider edit-warring by other editors on Jews for Jesus. Justforasecond 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. An equitable standard is all I ask.ParadoxTom 02:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are those other editors the ones who insert "POV propaganda by Jews" ParadoxTom mentions on the talk page? If the Reviewing Admin has three hours to waste, don't forget to read the J4J talk page. ParadoxTom has made zero-to-no effort in trying to constructively discuss changes. - Abscissa 03:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are the editors. Please do read the talk page, please do look at the history--you'll find that there are a few "editors" who, upon even the slightest edit (including the placement of disputation templates at the top of the article, will revert it immediately. Abscissa is one of them. And if you look at their talk pages, they all advertise their Judaism. It is not a leap to say that, given the long-standing (and possibly warranted) animostity towards Jews for Jesus by the mainstream Jewish community, these users are attempting to use the page to push their own POV propaganda. Which is of course not to say that their POV is wrong--I tend to agree with them about JfJ. But it is POV nonetheless, and unsuitable for Wikipedia. They are totally--utterly--unwilling to compromise on even the smallest details. And when someone like me comes along in an honest attempt to provide an unbiased opinion (I'm an atheist), they find a sympathetic administrator to bend the rules and block me. It's happened once before, and now it's happened again. Regards.ParadoxTom 05:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be perfectly clear: it will keep happening with longer and longer block periods until you stop edit warring. Nandesuka 12:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be perfectly clear: we good-faith Wikipedians will not be bullied by you, nor by any others who want to make this place a arena to engage in POV pushing. That you are unwilling to address these issues in a calm and reasonable manner, without resorting to de facto censorship, is an indication that your views are untenable.ParadoxTom 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; I am hoping an administrator will have a moment to review my request to be unblocked. Specifically, I wish to reply to some very nasty comments made about me by Abscissa on the Jews for Jesus Talk page. Thanks.ParadoxTom 05:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above, as you were very clearly revert-warring. I suggest you use your time to cool off. You can still (calmly) respond to the comments when your block expires. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathphoenix, I would then ask you to--using the standard employed to block me--block all the others users on the Jews for Jesus page under that criterion. Or, if you refuse to do so, explain why I am 'special'.ParadoxTom 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox, I do not appriciate your claim that I have made "very nasty comments" about you on the Jews for Jesus talk page. In fact, it was the reverse, as you claimed I was one of many Jews who masquerade as an editor but instead go around inserting "POV Jew propaganda" into articles. For the courtesy of me and other editors, would you please link nasty things I have said about you on the talk page? - Abscissa 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should you "appriciate [sic]" them; you should be downright embarassed. As you ask, I will copy the salient text below for commentary. Regards.ParadoxTom 21:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ParadoxTom, I will not block the other users the way I blocked you for a very simple reason: I didn't block you. However, I reviewed your unblock request, like I do with many others, and I found that the block was warranted. If another admin blocks those other users, and they request an unblock, I may just as likely review theirs... and decline the unblock request if the block was warranted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I only ask for a uniform standard.ParadoxTom 06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV commentary on Jews for Jesus

Here is the text that Abscissa refers to:

"[REMOVE] Only if JfJ is Christian does the important criterion obtain: 'is JfJ sufficiently Christian to warrant a Christianity template'? First, there is no consensus that Jfj is Christian. However, even if we assume they are, the latter criterion is certainly answered in the negative. Jews for Jesus is an impotent organization within Christianity itself. The standard used for the template addition produces the fact that the article on Thomas Aquinas does not get the Christianity template. If Thomas doesn't get it, JfJ certainly do not. Its inclusion is pure POV propaganda by Jews who wish to push their own theological claim that Judaism and a belief in a divine Christ are incommensurable ideas. They may be right, to be sure, but it is POV nonetheless.ParadoxTom 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)"

"On a personal note I would like to say that is possibly the most outrageous, offensive comment I have ever read: there are "POV propaganda Jews" who are "pushing their own claim" that Judaism is not compatible with a belief in christ as G-d? - Abscissa 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)"

There is a tacit claim of anti-Semitism against me by Abscissa here; a claim that I consider reprehensible. And it goes without saying that it is factually false. If my (true) statement that there are Jews who wish to fill the Jews for Jesus page with anti-JfJ theological propaganda is truly the "most outrageous, offensive comment [he has] ever read", then it is probably best for his emotional livelihood that he refrains from serious intellectual debate. JfJ consider it possible to reconcile belief in a divine Christ with Judaism; that is their POV. Most mainstream Jewish sects consider this impossible; that is their POV. My POV is that of the mainstream Jews. But they are--all three--POV positions that are ipso facto unwarranted in that article. I am perfectly happy with including in the article that it is the overwhelming belief of the vast majority of Jews that JfJ are not a Jewish organization. That is fine; that is NPOV. Why is it NPOV? Because it is empirically accurate. However, certain editors include claims that are not empirically accurate; to wit: JfJ is unambiguously Christian, JfJ is so important to Christianity that the JfJ article requires a 'Christianity' template (when ‘Thomas Aquinas’ does not), that it is a logical truth that belief in a divine Christ and maintenance of Judaism are incompatible, and so on. And these editors will immediately--without commentary, without consideration--instantly revert any edit (whether it has consensus on Talk or not) that does not fit with their personal POV theology. And when you go to the User pages of all these editors (Abscissa among them), they all advertise their Jewish heritage or beliefs. 'Assume good faith' does not mean maintain it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is not an unfounded inference, I think, to say that many Jews feel their religious tenants threatened by the evangelical influence of JfJ, and wish to marginalize JfJ as much as possible. Indeed, I can't say I blame them for harboring such a desire. But I do blame them for corrupting what is supposed to be an accurate and informative encyclopedia with their POV commentary.ParadoxTom 21:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors have tried to explain to you, on many occasions and with source material, that a belief in Jesus as a divine being is not reconcilable with Judaism. This would be like asking one to accept the faith of Islam while denying the prophethood of Muhammed: it simply cannot be done, it runs contrary to everything in the religion, it violates the most simple, basic, straightforward, fundamental princple and concept. It's like asking someone to believe 2+2=5. Furthermore, you have now accused Jews of: spreading propaganda, editing articles to push their own theological claims, and corrupting Wikipedia. Next, none of us "corrupting" Jews are ashamed to declare our bias. You, of course, have not declared your bias, such as whether you are a member of Jews for Jesus. (Of course you are under no obligation.) Your argument for the impossibility of truth due to the intersubjective nature of reality is popular in academic circles, but certainly tiring. Everyone is going to have a POV. This includes science. Science is not "truth." Judaism is not "truth." Jesus is not "truth." Truth is subjectivity. You will have to learn to deal with that. In light of your recent comments against Jews, and your three recent blocks for edit warring, I can only conclude that you are trying to aggrivate people on Wikipedia and I choose not to be a victim, so I will no longer respond to your trollish comments. - Abscissa 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "response" is a factual and rhetorical disaster.

(1) It is true that "Many editors have tried to explain to [me], on many occasions and with source material, that a belief in Jesus as a divine being is not reconcilable with Judaism." I agree with them. That is our POV. Others--the Jews for Jesus specifically--hold another view. 'Is Jewish' is not a logically unambiguous predicate; i.e. there exists no way to demonstrate its atomic members within the confines of a predicate calculus. So you cannot include that 'all Jewish groups regard JfJ as not Jewish', though of course you can epistemically conclude that 'nearly all Jewish groups regard JfJ as not Jewish.'

(2) It is not "like asking someone to believe 2+2=5". 2+2=5 is an analytic, logical falsehood. It is a priori and makes no reference to the empirical world. Certainly, the tenants of what we label 'Judaism' have changed over the last few millennia.

(3) I agree that "none of [you] 'corrupting' Jews are ashamed to declare [your] bias"; I'm making a normative claim: I'm saying that you should be.

(4) I have "declared" my bias, repeatedly. I am not a member of Jews for Jesus. I do not believe in the divinity of Christ. I am not a Jew. I am not a Christian. My beliefs are made known here, on my talk page, and on the article. That you are not aware of them indicates you have not taken the time to consider the opinions of others.

(5) Again, the last refuse of insecurity and a flaccid intellect is charges of 'trolling' and acts to censor. If you wish to debate my views in a rigorous and fair manner, I welcome you. If you only wish to engage in ad hominem, wild, and logically unfounded "argument", you have no place here on Wikipeidia. Regards.ParadoxTom 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very logical argument, Tom. Justforasecond 03:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Again-3RR Violation on Jews for Jesus

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.

The duration of the block is 168 hours. Here are the reverts in question. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly aware of WP:3RR, yet your pattern of violations has persisted (4 prior blocks for this article). I'm blocking you for one week. Expect the length of blocks to increase steadily with further 3RR violations. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom,

Sorry to see you are blocked again. I'll bring your issue up on the administrator's noticeboard -- there is a lot of edit-warring on that article and all should be spoken to.

Justforasecond 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

This is getting ridiculous. Could an impartial administrator please review my case? 3RR was not violated; all the relevant information is on this page. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadoxTom (talk • contribs)

It does seem to me that you have violated WP:3RR, remember that even if removing the same content violates this rule even if it's not full revert - r1, r2, r3, r4. I say just take a break, come back after your time is done and avoid the same mistake in the future.--Konstable 03:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same template was removed repeatedly...making it a 3RR violation. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock reviewed

Tom, you seem to be having some difficulty adjusting to the reality of the situation. This is a fairly clear 3RR violation, if for no other reason than you were constantly reverting the addition of the {{christianity}} template. Furthermore, this is your third such violation in, what, about a week? You need to understand that these blocks are not being imposed on your because administrators feel rancor towards you, but because the particular way you are choosing to edit is disruptive, and it must stop. It will either stop because you choose to stop editing in this manner, or it will stop because we will stop you from editing at all. Those are your only two choices. You cannot negotiate over this. At least, not successfully.

That being said, if you are willing to voluntarily conform to the principles of WP:1RR on the Jews for Jesus article, I am willing to reduce your block from a week to 24 hours. See Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle for the sort of behavior I am expecting of you. Basically, I'm asking you to limit yourelf to one revert (including partial reverts, such as the aforementioned tag) per day on that article. That means that there may be things in the article that you don't like. If you don't like those things, then you're going to have to develop your objections, civilly, on the article's talk page, and persuade enough of the article's editors to form a consensus.

Or you can continue to go the way you're going, which I don't think will end happily for you or for Wikipedia. The choice, as I said, is yours.

Let me know what you decide, and I'll check in on your talk page tomorrow. Nandesuka 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look: Nandesuka is the reviewing administrator. What an amazing coincidence.ParadoxTom 03:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize, I think I may have drawn him to your page. The template is vandalism as far as I'm concerned. This article is not about Christianity by any stretch. Justforasecond 05:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You did violate WP:3RR and regardless you were edit warring which is disruptive and blockable. Simply, do not revert at all. If there is a dispute, discuss it on the talk page. You should never be doing a complete revert more than once, and only then if it is a new, previously undiscussed change, and the revert should be with a full edit summary that would reasonably convince the other user that his edit was incorrect. Except in such special case, do not make any reverts in a content dispute. You have been edit warring before, and you should realize that aside from being blocked, it is simply not productive. The change you want is not going to be implemented by reverting. You must convince the other editors there why a change ought to be made. I happen to agree that the template does not belong, but if I were to get involved I would not even remove the template right now; it is a controversial change that needs to be agreed on the talk page. —Centrx→talk • 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You violated 3RR again

You worked hard and deserve a block. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you and "Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg" are fair, objective, dispassionate, NPOV editors. Please.ParadoxTom 22:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that a warning would be enough, but you continue that silly edit war. The difference is, I try to upkeep WP policies, while you keep violating them. BTW, I am not responsible for anyone else but myself. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Do not push your POV on that article, or anywhere else.ParadoxTom 22:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox, it is standard practice on articles concerning Christian organizations to, you know, actually label them as Christian organizations, without the wordplay. Admittedly, some of the time, small groups of editors label organizations Christian even when most people might think that their not, but this is not one of those times. Labelling them as Christian is not the same as labelling them "Non-Jewish", especially as their basic thesis is attempting to pretty much argue you can be a Christian and a Jew at the same time. I don't think the perspective you are trying to show in the article is actually being shown by your edits. Homestarmy 22:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on September 28 2006 to Jews for Jesus

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.

The duration of the block is 1 week.

If you seriously wish to contribute to wiki, then please give up this pointless edit war. If you just want to be blocked, then please say so and you can be, indefinitely

William M. Connolley 08:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

Hello. I am requesting two things; I hope that an Admin will see this and assist me.

(1) A ban of Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg for violation of 3RR on the page Jews for Jesus. I placed a 'totally disupted' template on the top of the page, enumerated my reasons for doing so on its associated talk page, yet he has, over a span of fewer than 24 hours, reverted the tag away.

(2) On the Jews for Jesus talk page, I was the target of a slanderous remark by Humus sapiens; he charged that I conducted "attacks on mainstream Judaism". This I consider extremely opprobrious; both because it is false and because in the past I have taken up arms in service of, in part, the Zionist cause. I am requesting sastisfaction for his remark.

Thank you.

(1) Report 3RR violations to Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/3RR.

(2) Report to Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard.

Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 18:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like your own block lifted, please contact the blocking admin. —Xyrael / 18:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Just so you know, that was your third revert :/. Homestarmy 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of vandalism does not count towards. And reverting away a 'totally disputed' tag is obvious vandalism.ParadoxTom 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the WP:VANDAL policy: "Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule. " Homestarmy 20:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point exactly.ParadoxTom 20:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it applies to you too, you were placing it back along with me that one revert, remember? Unless of course you wern't that IP address. Homestarmy 21:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was that IP address; I don't know why I wasn't logged in. Note that Wikipedia policy is that "removal of dispute tags" is not ipso facto vandalism; however, it certainly can be when those tags are appropriate and well-documented, which in my case they are. And indeed, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has been banned for his actions.ParadoxTom 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[6] made on October 16 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.

The duration of the block is 7*24 hours. William M. Connolley 08:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock, please

I'm not sure what else to say. I'm hoping a thoughtful administrator will come around and take a hard look at what's been going on at Jews for Jesus and how I've been treated by some people; I have had the most vile insults directed at me merely because I regard that article, as many do, as pushing a very specific POV agenda. I have the right to put a 'totally disputed' tag on that page. There is no question that the article is totally disputed. I placed the tag and enumerated my reasons for doing so on the Talk page. Some POV pushers came around and removed it out-of-hand, without even discussing the points I noted on the Talk page. That is de facto vandalism, and I restored the template. I do not see how it can be construed as a violation of 3RR. Thank you.ParadoxTom 18:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might of messed that up myself, you were only around 3 or so hours away from being able to revert again, I mean, I would of reverted the tags deletion myself since it was obvious we were deciding to make changes now if I had seen it in time :/. Homestarmy 19:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise I sympathise with you here. I said you wouldn't be blocked for editing the Jews for Jesus article, and technically you weren't. I'm not in a position to unblock you, since you did step over the line and violated a pretty strict Wikipedia rule. I would counsel you not to give up here. You were indeed provoked. DJ Clayworth 19:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not endorsing the behavior of others, but you really need to get the 3-revert rule clear in your head. This is about the 7th time you've been blocked for violating it, and you should know it by now, so I've denied your unblock request. The removal of the {{totallydisputed}} tag is not "simple vandalism" - vandalism is clear and obvious attempts to deface encyclopedia articles: removing the totallydisputed tag may be something you disagree with (and maybe others, too), but it's not vandalism. When you come back, you should simply assume that any edit you revert on Jews for Jesus counts for the purposes of the 3RR. Mango juice^talk 19:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock/mediation

I would like to be unblocked so that I may request mediation on the Jews for Jesus article. I will make no other changes. Thank you.ParadoxTom 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock denied. Please return when your block expires. Naconkantari 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban

It has been proposed that you be banned from the article Jews for Jesus due to your persistent disruption of the article. If you choose to accept this then you will probably be allowe dot carry on editing other articles. If you refuse to accept the idea then you will likely be banned from editing altogether. Please indicate your thoughts here. Guy 10:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to oppose any such measure. Jews for Jesus is a highly disputed article and the user was provoked. His only offence has been a couple of 3RR violations; certainly not enough to warrant a permenant ban. DJ Clayworth 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this as well. I would be in favor of short term bans of User:Humus Sapiens for personal attacks, incivility, and edit-warring. Enlightening 06:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

(preserving unblock template here for posterity): {{unblock reviewed|Request for mediation|decline=Nice words, and appreciated. But, really: you've been blocked for 3RR on this article umpteen times. You're just not learning from the blocks (and they are applied so you will cool down and learn the established procedures that hundreds of editors over five years have agreed upon. For the final time, please use this block as an opportunity to fix [[WP:3RR]] in your head - words and spirit. Learn and appreciate Wikipedia rules and guidelines. When you return, file your request for mediation, but stay away from the article in question or at least edit to accepted conventions. The next time you are blocked for 3RR, it ''will'' be a permanent block. The disruption to Wikipedia you are causing is too great. See you in a week, better informed and receptive to compromise. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]][[User:Redvers|<b style="color:red;">ЯEDVERS</b>]] 21:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)}}

I am going to take you at your word and unblock you so you can engage in mediation. However, as far as I am concerned, you are now required to observe WP:1RR on Jews for Jesus. If you edit war on that article again — note, I said edit war, not "violate 3RR", then I will impose the community ban that has been discussed without hesitation. Nandesuka 12:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Paradox, this time, don't start reverting, from what I can tell from the AN/I post concerning you, this is basically your last chance :/. Homestarmy 19:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the mediation case just got accepted. Homestarmy 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Tom, you may want to edit articles in addition to the J4J article. This may give you a better feel for Wikipedia policy and may make editors take you more seriously and not see you as a single issue editor. JoshuaZ 22:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time. Trying to make J4J objective and reasonable is wasteful enough of my resources.ParadoxTom 06:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why not drop the J4J matter and let more long term editors like Homeest try to deal with it? You would probably be far more productive on less controversial comments. JoshuaZ 06:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a terrible mess. That article is theological propaganda. People come to this site for objective and honest information; if they read that article, they receive neither. This is a major--and potentially fatal--problem with Wikipedia.ParadoxTom 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the article does have problems, I think it stems more from lack of comphrehensivenes at this point, there just plain isn't that much external reporting on JfJ that isn't slanted extremely to one side of the issue :/. Until then, the criticism is almost the meat of what we can write in terms of verifiability. It's not like I haven't tried googling info on JfJ before, but I stopped looking at page results past like 15 because it was filled by mostly hatred and vehemanence for JfJ. Besides, there are too many editors on both sides concerning this article to quickly change things. (Plus, I think the mediation system isn't working quite right now because Essjay isn't here to run the bot or something :/. )Homestarmy 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[7] made on November 6 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.

The duration of the block is 24*7 hours. William M. Connolley 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J4J

ParadoxTom, your block history speaks for itself. You have now been blocked eight times for edit-warring on a single article. The community's patience is great but not limitless. Please reconsider your philosophy concerning the J4J article before it's too late. drseudo (t) 09:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unreasonable to ask for a 'totally disputed' template on the J4J page. Especially since the article is totally disputed, and we are in the middle of mediation.ParadoxTom 10:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you feel that the article is totally disputed, but after the third editor reverted your addition to the template, it should have occurred to you to take it to the talk page rather than violate 3RR. The policy can't have come as a shock to you, considering your block history. drseudo (t) 16:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Paradox's defense, we have been discussing the issue that first brought up the totallydisputed template on the talk page constantly for awhile now, it certainly hasn't stopped being disputed just because some people's patience for the debate seems to be wearing thin. Homestarmy 18:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that doesn't "come as a shock to [me]", drseudo, is that fair, honest, and empirically well-founded debate is being squelched in favor of religious propaganda. How shocking.ParadoxTom 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

We are attempting to conduct mediation on Jews for Jesus. We have agreed, on the Talk page, to include a 'totally disputed' template on the article until the mediation reaches its conclusion. People are removing the template without cause or consensus. I was merely reverting de facto vandalism. Thank you.ParadoxTom 10:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at your recent contributions [8] indicates a lot of reversion but no mediation William M. Connolley 10:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A closer look, rather than a "glance", is necessary. Cf. [9]. The request for mediation was filed about three weeks ago, and accepted only a few days ago. The page is grossly biased, and hotly disputed by me and several other editors. We have decided to include the tag until we resolve the issues in mediation. Removal of the tag is de facto vandalism. Thank you.ParadoxTom 10:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I can understand your reasoning, you need to understand that it is not acceptable to simply revert other's edits repeatedly. Please discuss changes that might be controversial, even if you thought they were accepted. I realize it's difficult at times to deal with edits you disagree with, but nobody is benefited by reversions and accusations of vandalism. I'd encourage you to continue participating in any mediation when the block expires (next Monday). Alphachimp 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is "acceptable to simply revert other's [sic] edits repeatedly" if those edits are vandalism, according to Wikipedia policy. They are vandalism because it has been conceded, as the Talk page indicates, that the article is totally disputed. Instead of making edits to the article, it was decided that we would maintain the template on the top of the page and seek mediation. That is the consensus of the editors.ParadoxTom 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, that does not excuse you from following the 3 revert rule, particularly given your obvious awareness. There does seem to be dispute of that tag. I'm declining your request and upholding the original block length. Sorry. -- Alphachimp 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please stop

Please either get another user to put the tag on such as Homestarmy or please follow Ignimatus's request. In any event, a large number of admins have told you that the removal of the tag does not constitute vandalism. If you continue you will likely be blocked for 3RR again. JoshuaZ 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed ad infinitum. That article is totally disputed. Look at the Talk page. Look at the mediation page. The template deserves to be there.ParadoxTom 07:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. However be careful about reverts. DJ Clayworth 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar metter, I suggest not going straight to arbitration on this. Arbitration is likely to be as slow as the formal mediation. We have severl less formal approaches we could try first, including Request for Comment and the Mediation Cabal. DJ Clayworth 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox, you reverted DJ's removal of the POV-Section tag in the section you wern't even disputing, and even though the Aims section was totally disputed, nobody seems highly interested in elaborating at the moment. Homestarmy 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh; sorry about that. I'll just add the tag to the latest edits.ParadoxTom 03:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during November 28 2006 (UTC) to Jews for Jesus

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. 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. Thanks. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. You will have to be more specific. Thanks.ParadoxTom 06:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Ryulong is referring to your most recent edit which reverted the article to a version from a few months ago and in the process removed large sections of the article. Now, to be blunt, many editors have been looking at this page in the last few weeks and you have made almost no comments in that time. It is therefore unreasonable for you to simply revert to your preferred one from a month ago. This removes a large amount of work from a variety of editors. JoshuaZ 06:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, thanks for the note. I must say, I'm at a final loss about what do to. I've tried to be collaberative--many of us have--tried to build consensus, tried to hold mediation, tried to discuss things reasonably on the Talk page, and so on, ad infinitum. But the page remains simply a font for religious propaganda. You know that I've tried as hard as anyone to make that page encyclopedic and fair. I'm not sure what relevance any criticisms of my recent edits have.ParadoxTom 06:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that there is no deadline at Wikipedia. If an article has a dispute it won't be the end of the world if it takes a while for it to be resolved. Also, please be aware that content issues regarding POV are generally not viewed as vandalism unless they are much more obviously POV than this. And once again, please be mindful of 3RR JoshuaZ 06:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that the current version does have a neutrality marker on it which Homest finds sufficient. Please don't keep reverting. JoshuaZ 06:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your views.ParadoxTom 06:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, can I recommend keeping changes to Jews for Jesus to a minimum at the moment. Several of the editors who have been insisting on the POV version are starting to realise that their version is not quite neutral. Big changes at this stage will just muddy the waters. And for heaven's sake, if you want to keep editing Wikipedia you will have to learn to count your reverts. Edit wars are always pointless. Calm discussion is much more effective. DJ Clayworth 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Calm discussion" is not, as this three-month record indicates, "more effective"--in fact, it's not effective at all. I've tried it, and it simply doesn't work. Discussion, including mediation, has consistently failed and the page remains mere theological propaganda. I'm not sure what else to do.ParadoxTom 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend trying one little thing at a time. Perhaps don't even edit the page itself: just pick one thing you dislike, and are fairly sure you can source, and discuss it on the talk page. If that gets accepted, move on to the next. As DJC has said, large scale changes and reverts will just arouse resistance William M. Connolley 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That too has been attempted, to no avail. Something so minor as wishing to include a 'totallydisputed' template on the page (when that template has consensus on the Talk page and is obviously correct given the contentiousness of the article) has gotten me blocked. And why is it always you, William M. Connolley?

You're right Paradox, in terms of changing the article, it hasn't worked, and will likely not work anytime soon. However, the mediation failed for reasons outside of our control or related to JfJ, (Essjay had been away for awhile) and really, what's the actual harm with not having a great JfJ article right now? As it stands, there's hardly much to add in terms of verified content, and while it does get rather off-topic with the expounding of Judaism, the way Wikipedia works pretty much insures it won't stay that way forever should enough references come along to make this into a very comphrensive article. Too many editors with an apparently very vested interest against JfJ are involved, and trying to force changes through hasn't worked before, (and I don't think has ever worked in similiar situations anywhere in Wikipedia) and I don't think it will work soon in the immediete future. Why not edit something else once in awhile, what sort of topics mean something important to you? Homestarmy 18:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't have time. I just feel bad that people coming to Wikipedia to learn will instead have to deal with this dogmatic garbage.ParadoxTom 09:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[10] made on November 28 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.

The duration of the block is 7*24 hours.

You need to find some way of dealing with this article other than reverting it. You didn't enven bother add anything to the talk page this time. It must be obvious by now that breaking 3RR will just get you blocked. Next time the block will be longer.

William M. Connolley 09:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this block indefinite, per discussion here and here. Dmcdevit·t 05:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was unblocked to pursue Arbitration. Read the discussion on this page about a ban. There is little support, and much opposition.ParadoxTom 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erg, it seems others are piling on support for a community ban, it seems you submitted your RFAr just in time. However, I just want you to know, if the case gets accepted, then if you want to present any evidence, e-mail it to me (or DJ, if he agrees) and we can post it for you. (I think, I don't think there's any rule against it, though there might be some understood thing against indefinently blocked users, we'll see.) Also, a word of caution, I have seen altogether too many editors from all walks of editing who, upon being indefinently blocked, starting sockpuppeting or something else out of frustration, and I just want to warn you, try not to do something like that as it just cements the block pretty much forever :/. (It happens more often than you might think) Homestarmy 05:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need not worry about that; I'm about out of patience with these banalities.ParadoxTom 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

I would like to be unblocked so I may file a Request for Arbitration. I will not make any other edits. Honestly, I'm not sure what else can be done here. Thanks.ParadoxTom 10:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK William M. Connolley 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox, I just looked at the ArbCom page, and I don't see the request? On a side note, I think that there is enough ground to have an ArbCom at this point, but be very careful, the ArbCom will not typically make any rulings at all on content, concentrate on the grounds of the NPOV dispute without actually asking the ArbCom to endorse any particular way for the article to be written. Also, I suspect the other side of the case will try to get you perma-banned or blocked from JfJ or something like that due to your extremely long block log and contribs list filled with pretty much nothing but edits to JfJ, (If I was on the other side of this coin, I'd do it, and it wouldn't really be bad faith either in Wikipedia policy terms) since the ArbCom normally investigates user conduct in these situations, (Though I think i'd like to make a little list of my own about user conduct if the case is accepted) So be extremely careful not to concentrate on the actual content of the article, focus primarily on the NPOV dispute and user conduct, it's instrumental in my observations of ArbCom cases for getting a case to be accepted. Homestarmy 03:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing it up now. Thanks for the advice.ParadoxTom 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know its not exactly very good faith for me to ask this, but now would be a good time to accept the parts in WP:VANDAL about how template placement doesn't count as vandalism. I suspect that, otherwise, Arbitration Committee members will see a single-purpose account who has an extensive block log, a long history of not accepting policy concerning 3RR and what constitutes vandalism, and possibly even a vandal, because you've reverted to very old revisions of the articles several times. Now, I know you're not a vandal, and being a single-purpose account on its own isn't a crime, and that you have your reasons for believing that WP:VANDAL allows people to revert template placement as much as possible, but i'm concerned that if you go into this arbitration case without changing attitudes, even if they conclude that other editors have acted in bad faith concerning NPOV and whatnot, that you might be banned for a very long time, and I don't think that's really good. Arbitration Committee members have handled cases about Wikipedia policy for a very long time, and from what i've seen of many of their cases, they aren't likely to be persuaded by an argument which, for the most part, appears to go against the literal wording of WP:VANDAL. Homestarmy 03:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing, unlike Mediation cases, Arbitration cases are more open ended concerning participants, I don't know exactly where the rule is written down, but i've seen many instances in which many parties add themselves or are added to an Arbitration request before Arbitrators either reject or accept it, so don't be surprised if many other involved (or not so involved) editors jump into the case. Homestarmy 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Again, thanks. The request is now posted. I hope something will come of this approach; this is just not worth my time. . . .ParadoxTom 03:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Community" ban

Since when do 10 out of 100,000 wikipedia "editors" count as "widespread support" of a ban? I'd normally think "widespread support" requires at least a percentage point or two. What a sad day for wiki.

Justforasecond 06:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the noticeboard type discussions fly by really fast, and not every administrator looks at it. I don't think it was the 10 people supporting that was the thing, but rather the lack of any administrators opposing :/. Oh, and welcome back Justforasecond :D Homestarmy 06:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]