User talk:Kevin baas~enwiki/Archive5

Conspiracy theory vote

Please consider voting at:

to rename articles that use the pejorative term "Conspiracy theory" to denigrate the content of the article.

Do the titles of WP articles generally pass partisan judgment on the subject under discussion? Should they? BrandonYusufToropov 02:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Kevin, what you're doing is tantamount to page-move vandalism. I haven't been involved in editing these pages, and so I don't know the full background, but from a glance at the talk pages, it seems that a number of editors have been moving several of these pages back and forth recently to the great frustration of other editors on the page. As a result, Cberlet started a discussion and vote at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory to resolve the issue, and yet here you are moving again before that vote is over. If you continue to move this or related pages before the voting is finished, I will protect the pages from further editing, but I hope that won't be necessary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am not valdalising. You are moving the page against consensus. That is vandalising. The relevant vote lies on the talk page of the article, and it has been stable for a long time. Also you micharacterize when you say "again". You are not allowed to use your adminstration powers on the page, because you are involved in the dispute. You are obliged to recuse yourself. I would appreciate it if someone protected the page form your page move vandalism. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:08, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Kevin, I'm not involved in that dispute, and have never edited the page. However, I will consider recusing myself as you request. But could you explain to me first where the consensus is to move that page, because I know that recent moves of this and related pages have caused other editors a great deal of frustration, and I don't see the point of continuing to do it. However, if there has been a consensus that I'm not aware of, please let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory#Title_vote_.28various_options.29 is a simple majority. And it is the main vote as concerns that article. The page cberlet created is not effective policy, and even if it were, would not supercede resolutions on specific pages. The main vote as concerns the article in question is on the article's talk page. The vote has been dormant for some time. A move from majority support to minority support is controversial, at best, and it is for this reason that i take issue with your move from complicity to conspiracy. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:24, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I didn't move the page from complicity to conspiracy; I only reverted your move. The reason the vote at that page is dormant is that the vote is now taking place instead at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Also, if you look at the dormant vote on the article page, I think it's about even numbers wanting conspiracy in the title as compared to not wanting it. The best thing to do is to argue this out on Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory. As you'll see there, there's a convincing consensus to retain conspiracy, so your moves had almost no chance of surviving anyway, which is why I wondered what the point was. Perhaps leave it until Monday when more editors are around? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it anyway, I see. ;-) Well, I recused myself as an admin as you requested so I won't revert and protect it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

For all your good work on the "Conspiracy theory" mess. Hope we can keep in touch. BrandonYusufToropov 12:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"tenability"?

Hi Kevin, just to clarify, what exact context did you have in mind for your "tenability" post to my talk page? zen master T 14:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"conspiracy theory" voting

Hi Kevin, I think the additional proposal and vote option distracts from the core issue at hand. Namely the ambiguous multiple definitions of the phrase which are being used to discredit. Decide on case by case basis is effectively the status quo as the POV pushers already have "conspiracy theory" in place on every article they want it. zen master T 03:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

A discussion whose topic is

Conspiracy_theory

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Conspiracy_theory; the following points describe the discussion:

6 msgs, 18:44, 8 thru 05:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
3 participants: Jerzy~t~*; User:Zen-master~t~*; Kevin Baas~t~*.
general topic(s): Use of that phrase in article titles; definitional terminology.

88 89 110 90 Competition with CNN

I edited to "Conyers, with 87 other members..." 87 + 1... -SV|t 23:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - the impression I got from the previous (long version) was that totalled 88. Good catch -SV|t 23:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

90. OK, got it. -SV

"You did not change the "In the news" section to reflect the truth, as I pointed out, and as corroborated by CNN... I hope that in the future, we can, instead of doing worse than CNN, do better. This is not only my hope, but my endeavor. I hope that others on Wikipedia share this ambition. Kevin Baastalk.

Certainly! - But where did you suggest that I do the changing? I hope its not still there - or am I just assuming that you have access to do it? Yes, its indeed embarrasing for all of us when one makes such a prominent mistake. -SV|t 05:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Next time strike while the iron is hotter. :) TTYL -SV|t 06:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush incident

I agree with your edit summary in your edit to the George W. Bush article: "rv. -the info on the skull-and-cross bones society incident is not substantial enough to merit inclusion". I hope the pro-Bush folks appreciate how we're bending over backward to accommodate them. :) JamesMLane 03:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What if....

putting 2 and 2 together here,

What if:

"Bolton documents"
- [1]
- [2]

and:

"career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war"
- [3]
- [4]
- Downing Street memo: "intelligence facts being fixed around the policy"

were connected?

How would that play into

User:Kevin_Baas#The_case_for_impeachment_of_President_George_W._Bush

as elaborated by

[5]
[6]

inspired by the Downing Street memo?

Wouldn't that be silly?

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 07:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Uh yeah, but wtf do you want, Cheney as our president? ;) --kizzle 00:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Did I call it or what?

[7]

Galloway is my new gay lover

(Which is surprising, given my hetrosexual orientation.) [8] Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:23, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

And I masterbated to this video starring him: [9]. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:29, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

whats up

Need a little feedback :)... I'm currently fleshing out the voting machines section on my userpage, take a look at the organizational structure. I first introduce HAVA, give a brief primer on the different types of voting machines and the process from a voter touching the screen to the vote being added to the main count. My current version then goes directly into describing Diebold, which I have a frickin mountain of information. The only problem is, I'm discussing several different conclusions (like partisanship, insecurity, centralization of power over votes, lack of quality auditing procedure) which apply to all the other companies, so when I get to describing ES&S, I feel like I'll be repeating what I said before. But if I describe all the voting machines at one time, I feel that it will be too much information overload for the viewer, its somewhat better in my opinion to go through each company separately so that the viewer can digest the info. Also, keep me honest and tell me if you see anything that has been refuted/updated or is plain wrong. --kizzle 20:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you have some time to research, I'm trying to find the last-known vulnerability report on Diebold, because citing the Hopkins report and others when they were written a year or more before the election leaves it open that Diebold actually fixed the problems, although highly unlikely considering that most of the known vulnerabilities between reports weren't fixed. --kizzle 20:38, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Awesome, people need to know the truth about the memo, keep it up :) --kizzle 22:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

New account

I suppose you're moving this to fix the B in your username. Could you please register the account first and edit this page with it? I almost blocked you for impersonation. At least a note on the top of the page to explain what's going on would be helpful. Mgm|^(talk) 22:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Spoilage.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Spoilage.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you.

NPOV vs. TotallyDisputed

That Saddam/Al Qaeda article's accuracy is indeed highly disputed. Not sure why you made that change despite the action in 'talk'. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi there - I saw you removed the 'TotallyDisputed' tag again, without explanation. Why? -- RyanFreisling @ 18:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i just assumed it was vandalism. my bad. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:57, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

September 11, researchers

Kevin, would you consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/September 11, researchers debate? Ombudsman 16:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FOX News

Would you mind checking out Talk:FOX News and helping us in our conflict? I don't care what your FOX alignment is, or what your opinion is on the issues there, I'm just trying to bring more editor attention there (and I saw your username as one of those making archives in the talk page, so I figured you were on there). Thanks. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 28 June 2005 23:37 (UTC)

whats up

I see we both have our pet projects :). What are you planning on doing with yours? --kizzle July 5, 2005 23:48 (UTC)

poll you might want to check out

NPOV tag on Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq?

I'm curious what you'd consider necessary to change in Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq in order to remove the NPOV-dispute tag. I wrote the bulk of what's currently in the article, and was striving for NPOV while doing so (in part because I thought the previous version of the article, which basically just quoted Sen. Roberts' Bush-friendly whitewash from the press conference announcing the findings, was itself highly POV in the pro-Bush direction).

From what I can see of your edit history, you share an interest in a lot of the same subject matter I find interesting, and seem to have a point of view fairly similar to my own. (See my personal weblog, http://www.lies.com/, for a sample of my unrestrained-by-concerns-for-neutrality perspective.)

I only found one of your recent edits that I thought needed reverting, and did so just now, with an explanation on the article's talk page. Otherwise, I think what you've done is fine, and hope we can continue to improve the article, to the point where you no longer think the NPOV-dispute flag is necessary. Thanks. -- John Callender 01:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed I don't have that much time lately. I'd consider it reasonable that the NPOV-dispute flag be considered "expired", and removed at the discretion of others, such as you.

I'm pleased to find such a cooperative voice. :-) I'll take a look and discuss when I have time. Perhaps an RFC would be more fitting, if for no other reason than because an article of such central political importance deserves more attention from the community than it seems to be getting. Cheers! Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 02:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Liddle analysis3.gif

Image deletion warning

Image:Liddle analysis3.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Image copyright tags

Thanks for uploading Image:Ohio demographic.gif, Image:Ohio long lines.jpg, Image:Ohio machine problems.jpg, Image:Ohio reg.jpg, Image:Ohio reg mult.jpg, Image:Ohio turnout increase.jpg, and Image:Ohio vote mult.jpg. I noticed they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add one to let us know their copyright statuses? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much, ABC D✉ 00:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move "Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda"

Hello Kevin, You've moved Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory twice without any discussion or vote. As you probably know, that article causes heated emotions, and the current name compromise was the result of a lot of discussion and several votes. If you think that such a move would not be controversial, you're certainly wrong. If you wish, you are welcome to go through the proper procedure for a controversial move, namely discussion followed by a vote on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please do not move the page again without doing that. Sincerely, ObsidianOrder 09:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin - PLEASE move the article back to 'conspiracy theory'. PLEASE. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2. A discussion that you were involved in. You took the position, against considerable opposition, that among other things, "conspiracy theory" is a NPOV phrase; that it does not stigmatize or prejudice an article. Thus, clearly, you do not have a POV dispute with the move. So what do you consider controversial about the move? Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 02:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Impersonator?

Is this you? Mr. Billion 00:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That was me. I haven't looked over it thoroughly, but i remember writting that somewhere, and that's something i would say. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 13:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Plame affair article

Kevin, I've observed you to be a good and temperate editor on other articles and wanted to invite you to have a look at Plame affair an article I started initially based on Karl Rove (now blocked pending resolution of issues). The Plame affair is developing into a major issue of current history which is larger than any one individual similar to Watergate, Iran-Contra affair and other such matters. We seem to have a good group of editors at Plame affair and I'd appreciate your input and contributions there, if time allows. My best, Calicocat 18:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam/Al-Qaeda article

That move to the "conspiracy theory" version of the name waswas based on a "vote" with a grand total of 4 for, and 3 against, so there was hardly a consensus for the move. Also, on the talk: page for that article, there was in the recent past an extensive discussion, and vote, on what to call the article, one that attracted on the order of 50 votes (don't recall without looking at it). Given this pair of facts, I have no compunction at all in saying that the move was not appropriate, and reverting it. And I'll do it again if it was moved back (haven't looked yet). Noel (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If there is agreement to do the rename, I'll cheerfully do it myself, but short of rough consensus on the move, I maintain that the results of the previous extensive vote should hold. Noel (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. The move was based on a policy established by Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Having now had a chance to review not only Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2, but also Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory, Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, AIDS conspiracy theories and Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories, I am in a position to flatly dispute that your interpretation of that vote is correct.

First, the actual vote was on "Rename 'conspiracy theory' and similar titles" (i.e. to something without "conspiracy theory"). Voting for or against that does not mean people were voting to rename articles to "conspiracy theory".

Second, many people really preferred a case-by-case handling; note the "yes" vote (!!) which said I don't think one catch-all renaming policy is necessarily apt. Renaming should be on a case-by-case base, not to mention all the "no" votes saying things like Decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, on a case-by-case basis, not as a blanket rule, Decisions can be made on an article-by-article basis.

Your persistent claims that this vote was a vote to add "conspiracy theory" to article titles is at best tendentious, and at worst lends credence to those who say you're merely violating WP:POINT. Noel (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I don't see any refutation of what I said in there. BTW, the decide-on-a-case-by-case was informally counted by yours truly, and even if those votes are subtracted from there respective totals, case-by-case does not gain a plurality. In fact, it is second-last, second-last to an option with only one vote. The reason I counted them up is because I, like you, would prefer not to have articles titled ".... conspiracy theory". As you can read on the relevant pages, i consider this term to be POV and to prejudice an article, and simply to not belong in titles. However, my opinion, as apparently is yours, is among the minority. So although I would vote "no" on the vote on the "Saddam Hussien and Al-Qaeda" discussion page were it a matter of my opinion, it is not a matter of my opinion - it is a matter of established policy that, like it or not, I have a civil obligation to follow and protect. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Just saying hi and thanks for your great work. If you didn't have a barnstar already, I'd give ya an anti-propaganda award. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Holy crap, that's awesome news. :) Forward it to Olbermann. --kizzle 00:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Psst.

[10] -- RyanFreisling @ 01:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

After perusing the Ohio article and making a few changes I have seen a number of questionable assertions, presentation of opinion as fact, and mistakes. Hoping to improve the article without angering anyone I would like to ask how changes that I see as necessary can be made/discussed. I don't want to step on anyone's toes and I see that you are the originator of much of the article, so I thought I would ask you. Would it be okay with you if I made some changes and then set forth reasons on the talk page? That is the way I've made a few changes, as you can see. I recognize that this is a controversial topic and my hope is to add context, clarify facts and opinions, and do general houskeeping (such as the removal of an article about Franklin County, Indiana). I'll be out of town for a few days, so feel free to take your time with any recommendations/requests. I would like to thank you in advance. Rkevins82 - TALK 05:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture - comments requested

My photo of the bust of Antinous, currently under comment for featured picture

[11] I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI my image lost by one vote - wish you'd participated. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

Thought you'd want to see this 'interesting' series of articles by Klonimus - [12], etc. See his user page. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And

And me, with nary a one! Ah, to be appreciated in one's own lifetime... :) -- RyanFreisling @ 21:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi - yer tireless efforts are always appreciated!

Naw, but there's an overabundance of 'em anyway. The best praise is that which we give ourselves. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Policy wrt merging articles

You seem to be under the false impression that some kind of vote is required in order to merge articles. This is flatly not true. Please stop claiming it is so. →Raul654 21:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

you are the one that is mistaken. please read the policy guide lines and take some time to think about what a wiki is and what is required to get along with tohers and work cooperatively. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, since you claim that such a policy exists, please cite it (with specificity). I want to see exactly where it says that a vote is required in order to merge two articles. →Raul654 21:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Also, you are in blatant violation of the three revert rule, having reverted that article 5 (6?) times in the last 24 hours. You have also been reverted by 3 or 4 other people, which should give you some idea of who is in the distinct minority. →Raul654 21:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am protecting the page from vandalism. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Block

Kevin bass, I have blocked you for 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation on 9/11 Bush Administration complicity theory. Please remember that it does not matter who is "right" or "wrong", but that you should not revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour time period. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that Raul654 and Carbonite have also been blocked? And what is the status of my page protection request? Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I only reverted that page twice in the past 24 hours. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

See WP:AN/3RR; Raul provided the diffs. I checked the page history, and I don't think any one of them violated the WP:3RR rule. If you think so, please compile diffs and place them here. As for your protection request, I have not done anything; I'll leave that to other admins. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything here. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs:

notice that the edit before the blanking - un-blanking was a page move.

As you can see by the diffs, both times i was reverting vandalism. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The reverts/deletions of Raul, carbonite, jayjg, span multiple pages in their attempt to remove this article entirely from wikipedia with out a vote for deletion. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

According to the diffs Raul provided at WP:AN/3RR, you reverted on 15:56, 16:28, 21:42, 21:51, and 21:54 on Sepetember 5. While I'm not endorsing what the other did, it is not clear-cut vandalism (in fact, I do urge you to assume good faith), and you should have stopped after the third revert. If you think any of them violated WP:3RR, please provide the diffs here, and I will act accordingly. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On September 5th, I reverted the page 9/11 Bush Administration complicity theory twice:

And I reverted the page 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories once:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=9%2F11_Bush_Administration_complicity_theory&diff=22648895&oldid=22642009

I reverted 9/11 U.S. complicity theories twice:

In no case did I violate the three reverts per page per day rule. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, had those mentioned not hijacked the redirects, I would have been able to move the page back to it's original, undisputed title. In that case, had a reverted their vandalism in the sequence that I did, I would have violated the 3RR rule. Due to their hi-jacking, I was unable to move the page back to it's original title, and incidently could not revert the same page anymore. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The history, [[13]], shows the page moves. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

But the history does not show what went on on the other pages. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've got to run an errand; I'll be back in 30 minutes or so, and I'll take a look at it again. My apologies if I did anything wrong. :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of User:Raul654 attempting to orphan the page by looping a redirect back to it's source: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=9%2F11_domestic_conspiracy_theory&diff=22559560&oldid=22558866 (history: [14])

and here's another: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=9%2F11_U.S._complicity_theories&diff=22648683&oldid=22648471 (history: [15])

following which, he blanked the actual article and redirected it, as well, to the page linking to it: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=9%2F11_Bush_Administration_complicity_theory&diff=22568449&oldid=22549535 (history: [16])

effectively removing the page's content and rerouting all links/redirects linking to it back to the page that linked to them, including the article itself. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs at WP:AN/3RR, and they all seem to be on 9/11 Bush Administration complicity theory. Are you saying that Raul violated 3RR? After looking at your diffs, I don't see anything wrong, though perhaps both of you should have discussed on the talk page first. If you wish, I'll contact another non-involved admin and see what s/he says. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are all under the history for 9/11 Bush Administration... because when you move a page, the history moves with it. The history, however, also shows the history of moves. i'm saying that Raul654 attempted stubbornly and passionately to subvert the wikipedia community, specifically in deleting the content of and erasing any trace of a page without a vote for deletion or even a deletion request, without consensus or any discussion whatsoever. He cleared all page content and replaced it with:

#redirect [[9/11 conspiracy theories]]

in ~~more~~ than 5 instances in one day. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I think a fresh voice would be beneficial; if you don't object, I'm going to contact another admin, and hear his/her opinion. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raul:

Carbonite:

... more to come

Talk page: Carbonite:

Raul history: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Raul654&offset=20050905032951&limit=50

The fact that the article was moved twice while Kevin was in the middle of a revert war on it does not excuse his violation of the rule. He himself did one of the moves (What is to stop others from doing the same thing to get around the rule?) That's the only reason this is confusing at all - because Kevin has been a prime participant in moving it around to 250 variations of the name. The fact of that matter remains, however, that Kevin reverted 9/11 Bush Administration complicity theory 5 times, claims that a policy exists that requires a vote in order to merge two pages (it doesn't), and refuses to answer repeated requests (from people who know policy better than he does) to point to such a policy. →Raul654 23:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortuantly, after looking through the history, I have to agree with Raul on this one... technically, he was reverting under seperate page names but the fact remains it is still the same page. That being said, I don't think this user has been warned about 3rr and it is pretty confusing so I would suggest that he be unblocked and warned (well, guess he has already) as long as he promises not to revert the page in question until all issues are sorted out on discussion pages (afterall, Wikipedia should be about discussion and consensus building, not edit warring). Sound fair enough? Sasquatch讲看 23:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page because it had been moved from an undisputed title to a disputed title - i would do the same thing in any cicumstance. It was not to avoid reversion - i did not expect you to be so insistent about deleting the page without any input from the community. The policy is three reverts per page per day. if it needs to be reworked, then it well should be, but no ex-post-facto. And let me make this clear: this is not a "merge", this is a delete. A delete by way of circum-venting the wikipedia community. I was trying to prevent this unjustified and unacceptable action. Raul made no attempt to justify his actions, or even discuss his action. You must vote on a merge or delete. You cannot do what is shown in the diffs above. Kevin Baas^{talk: new}

He was warned after th 4th revert by me. He then proceeded to revert it a 5th time and call me a vandal, at which point I reported his violation. So I don't see any reason for leniency. →Raul654 23:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I assure the entire wikipedia community that i have no intention and taking any action that is disputed without discussion. I have been a vehement defender of the 3rr, as mediation/arbitration history shows (against VV). I did not call Raul a vandal. I called his action vandalism, and technically it is: it is page blanking, though he doesn't seem to realize that. though he may have posted a message prior to my reversion, i recall reading it after my reversion. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin baas, after listening to Sasquatch's outside opinion, I have decided to be lenient and unblock you, provided that you do not edit any of the relevant pages. I feel that this is a good example of WP:IAR. In the future, though, I urge you not to revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, and attempt to discuss it civily first. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When a change i make is reverted, instead of reverted it, i will discuss it with the user who reverted it. Inext time i will request page protection earlier. i had not realized that in my attempt to return the page to the status quo before starting a discussion with raul that he should have initiated with me, him being the one who made the disputed change, that i had returned the page to its original state that many times. I apologize, and humbly appreciate the leniency. I wouldn't have requested it, as I had, in the case against VV, requested that the 3rr be applied consistently, and stand by that position. But thankyou, and I understand. (btw, i haven't read WP:IAR, and am going to read it now.) Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, WP:IAR is short. Really short. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yes, I highly encourage you to discuss on the respective talk pages. Yes, feel free to edit any pages after the 24 hour time period is over, though I recommend that you not violate WP:3RR again. Thanks for your cooperation! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]