Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 10

message: I would like to add a section on this PW incident, illuminating the hypocrisy of PW, who insist that they have a right to counterprotest within the ranks of groups they oppose, but deny that same right to others.
<I>"Another counter-demonstrator tried to be clever, by holding up a sign that read “NUKE IRAN.” We politely asked him to take it somewhere else. When he declined, we followed him around, blocking his sign with our American flags, until he eventually gave up and crossed over to the opposite corner "</I> Are we all OK with that? 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as the information contained is, verfiable, supported with citations, and not original research. :-) Lawyer2b 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actions admitted to by PW and documented by same do not fall under 'original research' when sourced. This is the after action report by a PW 'chapter leader' and speaks volumes about their hypocrisy. Your use of a 'smiley' demonstrates that you are not taking this issue seriously and are probably just playing 'games'. Keep it up and I will ask to have you banned from this article NBGPWS 21:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if my use of :-) offended you.  It was a sincere smiley and I assure you I'm taking edits to this article, as with all articles, very seriously.  I will again ask that you WP:AGF. Please read about WP:No original research as simply adding information that is verifiable does not ensure the edits are not an example of "original research".  Lawyer2b 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [[User:Kuzaar|Kuzaar]'s sentence was removed, because while he tried to make it more neutral, the meaning was completely removed. I tried to rewrite the sentence to have some meaning - but using "the group" and "these groups" and never defining either meant that the sentence had no point and I couldn't fathom what it meant. Feel free to re-add it if it can be not only WP:NPOV but coherent as well. --Neverborn 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charges of hypocrisy 

message: :I'm not going to let this become a bulletin board for you to repost things you cribbed from external websites, and which you have no permission to post.  
:Furthermore, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, which-need I remind you-is IMPROVING the Protest Warrior article. 
:Got it?
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: :You have no power to ban anyone, Neocon.
:Our tolerance threshhold for your nonsense was reached weeks ago, so I suggest that you end it, now. 
:Seeing as this is going nowhere, and this page is longer than both of the previous two archived ones, I think we should move on to a new talk page. 
:Just a suggestion. 
Ruthfulbarbarity 11:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality Check

message: First off, they both violate WP:V (see sources of dubious reliability - they may only be used in articles about themselves) and WP:NOR. WP:RS also states that for web-sites, self-published sites are not acceptable - this means RockNRev's "PWNED!" site is not acceptable. In addition, the entire "Scott and Jerry" article is just that - Scott and Jerry's [[WP:NOR|original research], which is not acceptable. Do not put the RockNRev site or the Scott and Jerry ARA site back without posting here as to why you feel violating 3 Wikipedia policies is okay. --Neverborn 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NBGPWS, 1) That an organization has more or less members than Protest Warriors has nothing to do with whether it is allowable as a verifiable source under wikipedia policy.   2) Organizations, by their nature, are designed to operate without their founders.  In fact, a hallmark of a successful organization is often its ability to survive not just the departure of its founders but successive managers.  While it would be interesting to note what, if any, role PW's founders play in the management and administration of the organization, don't you think determining the organization's status should revolve simply around what its members and chapters are doing?  Lawyer2b 19:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RockNRev and the "Scott and Jerry" indymedia article 

message: <B>Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-20 Protest Warrior</B><P>Mediation Requested<P>
NBGPWS 10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-20 Protest Warrior

message: NBGPWS is in violation of 3RR.  The edits in question are , , , , .
In addition, User:Caelestissurf has popped up out of nowhere and reverted Morton's edit re the Rush section back to the version preferred by NBGPWS.  This editor has no edit history, in fact, no other edits at all.  Coming when NBGPWS is at 3RR, this is a little suspicious, to say the least.
I'm not sure how to file the relevant reports on the admin pages; the official formatting is pretty confusing.  Perhaps someone with better knowledge of wiki code could take that up.  Otherwise I will just have to see if I can make sense of them.  TheKaplan 07:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NBGPWS, May I suggest that you are too concerned with the letter of rules (something called Wikilawyering). Assuming good faith doesn't mean we have to ignore things that appear to be made in bad faith, and it doesn't help that you continue to make tenuous connections to other Wiki policies. The Caelestissurf account seems quite a bit like sockpuppetry - now maybe it isn't you, but nobody is talking about taking any action against you, but we should have the issue investigated by an admin and I intend to enter the request. You are new to Wikipedia and I would suggest you lurk around some articles and talk pages to see how well this process can work. Again, I just want to stress that I have no personal interest in this article (I'd never heard of PW until I saw your request on the mediation page). Vpoko 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to Vpoko's suggestions, I would suggest that you beware the tigers.  In fact, that advice could go for a lot of people in this discussion, myself included at times.  Rogue 9 14:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, User:NBGPWS is guilty of many things, but as far as I can tell, the edit diffs TheKaplan presented at the beginning of this section do not show a violation of WP:3RR.  The edits need to be of (substantially) the same material edited four times within a 24 hour period.   I could be mistaken, but I don't see it. Lawyer2b 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur, I do not see a 3RR violation in this case. Vpoko 16:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that they do not need to be of the same material. This is from the WP:3RR page: Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count.  [emphasis theirs].  If you're looking for this phrase on the policy page, it's at the bottom of the "detail" section.  All the edit diffs I listed were the reversion of another recently made edit.  Even though there might be several edits between the time the edit was made and NBGPWS reverted it, that doesn't make it any less of a revert.  Should I have listed the diffs with the original edit contrasted to the revert? I thought that would be too confusing because of edits in between.  The diffs show the revert in contrast to the previous edit.TheKaplan 16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  While the reasoning above has not changed, it is possible that NBGPWS has saved himself from a block by reverting his own revert , although this still leaves 4 reverts.  TheKaplan 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am embarassed and ashamed.  That the reverts do not have to be of the same material is an aspect of WP:3RR of which I was not previously aware.  (mumble something about needing to reading more than just the warning template of a policy to have an understanding of it) That being said, I still don't think User:NBGPWS' actions here constitute a violation (but I'm not sure) because those particular edits don't seem to be involved in an edit war and preventing an edit war was the intent of the policy. Lawyer2b 17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agreed, Lawyer2b. The 3RR policy is intended to keep a user from repeatedly making the same change (whether through reverts, edits, or putting the same unwanted information elsewhere in the article). It seems like NBGPWS was careful not to cross the 3RR line (though he may have crossed the line in other ways, such as when he asked User:Damburger to alternate reverts with him so neither would hit 3RR). There is also the alleged sockpuppet account, but we'll have to wait and see on that. Vpoko 18:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I don't think there exists a more clearly cut case of 3RR as edit warring, although of course I'm sure others disagree.  I reccomend that the issue be referred to the admins who specialize in this sort of thing through a listing on the 3RR report page, where they can decide.  Even if this is not pursued, I would like to put on record that i do not invoke blocking policies frivolously and still consider it to be a valid citation of a 3RR violation in letter, despite disagreements over whether it is in spirit.  Now we just have to wait for the sockpuppet inquiry to be resolved.  Cheers,   TheKaplan 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An admin has agreed that User:Caelestissurf is a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/NBGPWS), however no determination was made as to who's sockpuppet it was. I would suggest, for the sake of improving the article, that we move on. Vpoko 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm confused, User:NBGPWS, do I owe you an apology? Lawyer2b 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (said like Foghorn Leghorn) I say, boy, I say, what's all these charges of wikilawyering?  I declare this discussion to be in violation of subchapter X of article Y of subpart 2.31415 of the wikipedia clause on legal obfuscation, intimidation, remediation, and dilation.  I further declare an that I am per se, pro se, pro bono, (but not Sonny Bono) and definitely not ipso facto flagrante delicto.  (wiping brow) So, after this ad hoc discussion, let us not post hoc ergo prompter (ham) hoc  ad infinitum, ad nauseum, like an advertisement.  Lawyer2b 20:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR and possible sock