Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk)05:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Master Of RSPW is a suspected sockpuppet of Chadbryant, which in itself makes the account questionable. However, that aside, the changes this person has made to rec.sport.pro-wrestling are both invalid and inaccurate, and were decided lonnnng ago by Wikipedia administrators to be of inappropriate use to the entry, due to their lack of content, amount of opinionated material, amount of personal attacks, and invalid outside resources used as internal and external links. All I am attempting to do is ensure that this version is NOT used for rec.sport.pro-wrestling. If this means that by Wikipedia definition on a technicality I am in violation of the Wikipedia three-revert rule, then I apologize. What you must realize is that the LAST time this occurred, Mr. Bryant was behind it as well. It is, in fact, his version which was declared essentially null and void by Wikipedia administrators; thus, it comes as no surprise that his sockpuppet...excuse me, SUSPECTED sockpuppet Master Of RSPW is causing trouble through this entry. This is not the first time Mr. Bryant OR Master Of RSPW has done this, nor, I suspect, shall it be the last, given the extensive abusive behavior of both (or the one, depending on your point of view) parties/party. --FARVA05:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 3RR is not a technicality - it is a fundamental rule which is in place to prevent stale edit warring. It does not call upon an admin to evaluate content at all, and I will not step into the conflict on that level. However, continued reversion by either party will result in a block. There is never any reason to revert a page more than three times (or even that many) in 24 hours - we have many other dispute-resolution mechanisms to deal with these situations. (ESkog)(Talk)05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous reports HAVE been made about Master Of RSPW. There is even one or two reporting him for violation of the three-revert rule itself on Wikipedia. If someone would at least investigate this and block him for his actions, part of this problem would be solved. I and others have had numerous run-ins with this troublemaker and rec.sport.pro-wrestling is just one of those times. --FARVA05:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Don't be fooled (I dare you to hold your breath and read this whole essay)
I'll tell you the censored version of what I told Chad through e-mail.
I'm going to butt out of it, as it relates to the Rec.sport.pro-wrestling article, sockpuppet tags on sockpuppet pages, and personal attacks between you RSPWers. I don't know the full facts, and I never will. Chad sent me some pretty convincing links about this alleged Signorelli guy. Can you prove that the links are full of horseshit? If you think you can, I'll send it to you. Yes, Chad has been a major prick to me here on Wikipedia, but I'll still need a reason not to believe those links.
If, after that, there's still doubt in my mind as to what the hell is going on, I'm going to move on and start distancing myself from the whole issue, like Mel Etitis did a while ago. I made the mistake of getting way too involved in it. Just keep the fighting to the Rec.sport.pro-wrestling article and your various talk pages, and I won't intervene in the war, unless there is blatant vandalism like the one I reverted on Chad's talk page today.
My honest opinion on it all is that, since my first-hand knowledge of the fight only pertains to Wikipedia, I think that Chad is in the wrong. Wikipedia's policies generally follow a pattern of Policies relate only to what happens on Wikipedia. To clarify, in my own words, If I say my name somewhere on the internet, but have never said it on Wikipedia, it would violate WP:HAR to call me by that name. What doesn't happen on Wikipedia, stays off of Wikipedia. Using that, anything TruthCrusader may and/or may not have potentially allegedly whateverly done in the past, is irrelevant. I look at him based on his Wikipedia contributions and I like the guy. I look at your past, and I see immaturity and trolling. Today, I see a rational and well thought-out contributor. Yes, you're the DickWitham sock. Who gives a shit? Trolls deserve second chances.
You know, as I sit here and find more excuses to see myself type, I regret that I might have to take something back that I said to Chad in the e-mail, and up above. I can't butt out of it all and then continue on to edit in other areas. That would just be wrong. It goes against my moral beliefs of right and wrong. I'm already involved, and I might as well stay involved. Things like who that Colonol guy is can be sorted out amongst yourselves, but 3RR violations and personal attacks, I will still try to step in and help with.
I realize you 3 have some sort of hate filled triangle that goes back 10+ years, so I won't bother wasting words trying to make you all kiss and make up. All I ask of you guys is to please be more considerate of your surroundings. Increased personal attacks and subtle jabs only take away from whatever point you're trying to make. Your previous fights were on an inmates-run-the-asylum type venue, where that type of behaviour got you "points" with the crowd. Wikipedia is the opposite. This crowd hates personal attacks and subtle jabs. Personal attacks and subtle jabs take away from whatever point you're trying to make. It causes an admin to block you for the attack, without dealing with the issue. Wikipedia has rules to try to prevent fights like yours' from breaking out. There are numerous dispute resolution methods and people who can moderate wars like the one you're all in. I don't care who does it, but someone please take the first step forward. Show the initiative and the willingness to move forward. The next time the other person makes a point, don't twist his words or discredit his point, but use his point to move to the next step.
TEN YEARS
is a long time. Take the next step in resolving this long and drawn out dispute. Please.
Even though the bottom half of my ramble contradicts the top half of my ramble, I've left it in, since it shows my thought process in reaching this "decision". Thanks for the message on my talk page, and for lending your talk page to allow me to think this thing through, with my typing.
I guess it wasn't so censored after all. It was more than I e-mailed Chad, and completely different in the end. tv31609:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Naconkantarie|t||c|m03:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that you've added several sock puppet tags tonight without clear cause. Please do not use those tags frivolously. If they are indeed sock puppets, or if there is some wider issue that needs resolving with other users, please let me know if you would like me to try to mediate the situation. But do not continue applying those tags if they should not be on user pages. JDoorjamTalk03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you might want to talk to Chadbryant about that. He's doing the exact same thing, only with a greater fervor and in a more blatant and vandalistic (is that a word?) fashion. The only sockpuppet tags I have placed are on Master Of RSPW and I believe one other, while Mr. Bryant has for months now been placing sockpuppet tags all over the place without any recourse taken by the Wikipedia administrators. --FARVA03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. He doesn't play well with others. Ever. He seems to have some sort of obsession with me thinking I'm someone he's hated for years on rec.sport.pro-wrestling. He's demonstrated similar behavior towards TruthCrusader. At any rate, long story short is that he is not *ahem* exactly the type of person you would want to have as your roommate. No, we haven't been (or ever shall be) roommates, that was just a metaphor to give you an example of why he does what he does. I'd really like to put it into better words, but if I did you'd cite me (and probably block me) for violation of Wikipedia policy on civility and personal attacks.
Well, you clearly feel strongly about it, and I thank you for your restraint. I'd advise you simply steer clear of him, and if he bothers you, let me or another administrator know. JDoorjamTalk03:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh believe me, I'd like nothing more. But you know what I would REALLY like? To take a vacation from Wikipedia, say a week, month, whatever, and come back to not find a sockpuppet tag placed on my user page just because some idi^H^H^H^H excuse me, MISINFORMED PERSON, thinks it belongs there and he can put it there because, well, he is who he is and thinks that he shouldn't be told otherwise. That's part of his problem, you see, his blatant egoism and anti-authority behavior. At any rate, when I see him do what he does in placing the sockpuppet tags on someone else's page, it really bothers the crap out of me. Mind you, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, but when someone places a sockpuppet accusation on another account that states it may be HIS sockpuppet, he removes the accusation. Period. End of story. He doesn't even give a damn about being blocked for the 3RR rule violation. He'll still remove it. So what we have here is a case of "It's okay for ME to do it because *I* say you are, but you can't say that *I'm* doing it because you're not as good as me." Armchairing...I hate that shit! --FARVA03:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! Sounds like an unfortunate feud that's built up between the two of you. While I understand that you probably weren't trying to ask for this, if you are going on a trip or something and would like me to monitor your page, I certainly can do that. I know this is totally useless advice, but try to forget him. We have an encyclopedia to write, neh? JDoorjamTalk03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would very much be appreciated and I'll have to keep that in mind. I do not appreciate this ... PERSON ... placing information on my user page that he knows to be false yet doing so just because of his own personal agenda. And after all, Wikipedia is a cool place. I would love to edit more entries but sometimes I don't know where to even begin! So many!--FARVA04:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
