User talk:Proabivouac

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

Merkey

I was thinking of removing the proposals for that very reason. Also see my recent suggestion for a conflict of interest section in BLP. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Funnypop12

So I see. I've addressed the issue, for the time being. You'll probably find I have too much faith in people's ability to reform. Cheers, WilyD 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, WilyD.Proabivouac 00:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Per CU

"as per the checkuser, OWB is not a puppetmaster…" You misunderstand CU. It doesn't say who is the same individual. If one posts even the very same thing from two different places from two different computers, it should register as unrelated, provided one has not deviated from this plan. CU showed the accounts to be from the same metro area, which, while not in itself mandating sockpuppetry, is not in any way inconsistent with it (or with user bio claims,) or specifically with the work/home scenario which was painted even before the CU results. There is no surprise here.Proabivouac 10:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect I understand CU better than you seem to think I do. I am working on WP:AGF and the statements on wikipedia from the report - specifically Jonashart and Oldwindybear are Unrelated -- no IP-relationship exists between them or the other two. Whatever evidence you have or believe you have is not relevant to my statement at ANI that the CU identified seperate IP's for OWB and SS. Whilst other things may point to evidence of sock puppetry it has been implicitly stated to the satisfaction of a third party wikipedian with CU rights that the IP's are different. Pedro |  Chat  11:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What on earth has

"Jonashart and Oldwindybear are Unrelated -- no IP-relationship exists between them or the other two."

to do with it? Of course Jonashart has nothing to do with it. This isn't contested, and should never have been requested, any more than Dan what's-his-name should have been requested.Proabivouac 11:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just copied and pasted that direct and thought you had seen the comment before. To clarify - the point is the second part no IP-relationship exists between them or the other two - the other two being StillStudying and his sock. Pedro |  Chat  11:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I post from Starbucks down the road, there should be no IP relationship, besides us being in the same metropolitan area.

From Barneca's (since deleted) report:

"There is currently an RFCU in place Here. Please note a common misconception, that I am expecting OWB and SS to be editing from the same computer. This is not the case; my evidence #1 [ed. - re edit times] implies to me that the user is editing from one location, then travelling and editing from another location. The purpose of the checkuser is to verify that they (including FWS, too) are all three editing from the same geographic location; to investigate the two cases where FWS edited within minutes of OWB; to see if there are any times when the user slipped and edited from the wrong computer; and to see if there are any other potential sockpuppets that I have not found. A checkuser that simply says they are not editing from the same IP is not going to convince me; it's what I expect."Proabivouac 11:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your perogative of course, to not be convinced by CU alone. I merely replied to your query and commented at ANI based on the evidence so far presented. Best. Pedro |  Chat  11:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you ever sent an e-mail, I can't find it

Perhaps it's not important.

Did you notice, Pro, how the same debate has erupted with a different cast of characters, just a week later?

What do you think is going to happen next week? And the week after that?

Such concerns, and such editing patterns, keep (for instance) Jesus from looking quite the way I, a single user, might want it to look. And not that this is actually on my agenda, but I repeat the point because it is illustrative to the present case: No matter how many rules someone may cite, no matter how right about relevance someone may be, Jesus is simply not, as a practical matter, going to incorporate a satirical picture illustrating recent discussions and controversies about theories concerning the Messiah's domestic life. Relevant or no. Why not?

Same deal with Eric Robert Rudolph, a clear case of religiously inspired terrorism that doesn't happen to involve, you know, my religion. Can't say he's a Christian and a terrorist in the same sentence though, because ... well, because Christianity is special, I guess. Can you think of a better reason?

Same deal with Zionism. Has Noam Chomsky ever had an opinion on this topic, or published a book on it, or been regarded as notable for doing so? Funny how the text of the article contains no quote from him. Why do you suppose that is?

People agree not to stomp defiantly on others' gonads, almost by definition, when they agree to follow WP:CONSENSUS. You are now among the stompers. BYT 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help with new sock

A new sock (probably of Kirbytime) is stalking me, see [1] and [2]. Arrow740 07:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be User:His excellency.Proabivouac 07:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So he was just blocked for 3RR, but no one has done a checkuser or a permanent block. What should we do? In this situation where no checkuser has been done, it should be alright to go over 3 reverts to stop him from contributing, right? That has been the situation with DY. Arrow740 23:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As we've seen, that is true in theory, but in practice, it depends on who is handling the report.Proabivouac 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Should I file at AN/I? Currently he is being allowed to influence the project, as his reverts have not been undone. Arrow740 23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here to thank Proab for his anti-sock efforts (so "thanks"!), but hope you don't mind me butting in: Arrow, I don't think we actually ever went over the third revert with DY71, although I was warning people I was about to. Ie, we never actually tested it - but I agree in principle. Try it, but for your protection, make it very clear in the edit summary what you are doing. quote WP:3RR, WP:BAN, WP:SOCK, WP:IAR. Tell a few admins too before you do it - it would help i think.

You could also try posting on AVI, but that also depends on your luck. It worked for me a few times - immediate blocks - but then recently, another admin didn't like that and directed me to rfc. But, make sure you know it who you think it is before you request action that circumvents the red tape.

It is this read tape that the socks are using to their advantage - ie, they game the system. But sometimes you need to, as Arrow is alluding to, it affects the project. A recent rfc showed there were at least two DY71 socks we didn't know about on the now closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force/Watchlist. regardsMerbabu 08:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me know on my talk page if this spreads to other pages and I will be glad to semi-protect them for you. Regards.--Chaser - T 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Chaser!Proabivouac 02:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure you saw my post here [3]. There's limits to how much I feel comfortable helping with this. Sorry.--Chaser - T 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad

I don't know if you meant to edit the version you did: [4]. Also there are references to the event in the Qur'an and hadith (though not explicitly). You should say according to Lewis, Watt, Cook, etc. Arrow740 10:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all from Tabari. There's no problem with saying "According to Tabari…," then including others following Tabari in the references.Proabivouac 10:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the mention in the hadith of pagans worshiping along with the Muslims when those verses were revealed does not make sense unless it is true, as the redacted version is very negative towards their goddesses. There are more extra-Tabari sources. Arrow740 10:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change that Tabari is the immediate source of the story. Unless I am misunderstanding something, which is possible.Proabivouac 10:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That is true. But to say "according to Tabari" obscures the evidence from the hadith, and the fact that the prominent scholars seem to agree it happened is more relevant. Arrow740 10:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The story goes back to Ibn Ishaq, see Guillaume pp. 165-166. Beit Or 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I had meant to say it's found in Tabari's recension of Ibn Ishaq, but not Ibn Hisham's.Proabivouac 10:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Ibn Hisham censored it is a small indication that his teacher probably wasn't inclined to fabricate it. Arrow740 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't assume that Ibn Hisham had made it up; obviously not. As there would be nothing whatsoever unusual about this from the standpoint of human history and politics, it's credible on its face, just (as with much of reality) doctrinally inconvenient.Proabivouac 10:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the original of Ibn Ishaq's sira did not preserve, it's probably meaningless to say every time whether a certain passage comes from Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, or al-Tabari. The least burdensome approach would be to stick to Guillaume's reconstruction and live with it. On a similar note, my greatest concern with this article is that it hops between various secondary sources for no apparent reason: "Watt says", "according to Welch" tec. If it is a "biogrpahy based on Islamic sources", then it must indeed be based on Islamic sources. Beit Or 11:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC

as an uninvolved editor in good standing, may i request you spare some time to review the dispute occuring on Historical persecution by Muslims? the RfC section can be found here. regards. ITAQALLAH 21:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look…been busy on a few other things.Proabivouac 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to sleep

Jesus Christ, did you sleep at all?? You were editing when I left last night...

I just added a couple of sections that I'll fill in when I have breaks; I'll only give one or two examples for each, but I hope it helps. I think this is what you were asking for last night. Take a look at the sections I added; is that the best place/way to organize them? And finally, I'm not duplicating work you've already done am I?

And good lord, you've been busy; 6 more?! Bravo. --barneca (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it occurs to me that not everyone on the planet lives in the US. --barneca (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New sock

Appears to be HE, can you look at the edits and tell me if you think it's his style? Here's the history of the article he's at: [5]. Arrow740 04:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I need to be sure that he's the one to put in a checkuser request for. Arrow740 08:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely, but I'm not certain.Proabivouac 22:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OWB

What are you doing? Just let him go. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He's stated he's leaving many times before. Actually, I don't want him to leave. He's made many valuable contributions. He's just got to straighten up, that's all. It's the community's shortcoming for not having demanded this at a time when he'd not have lost too much face in doing so. There is no sense in allowing what we will hold someone to account for later, but that is what we do again and again..Proabivouac 10:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The incident is finished and done... We'll open an arbcom case if he comes back, but it will be unnecessary stress to do it when he is about to leave. --Dark Falls ^talk 10:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I supported this guy in his RfA. This makes me sad. Proabivouac good job. I noticed you were attacked by people while going through the process, but I guess that's why we do these things. But what's particularly difficult to comprehend is that he slipped through the RfA process unscathed (in fact, I think it was unanimous). Now I'm going to be so skeptical of any further applicants. Anyways, I'm glad you did this work for all of us. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Unreal detective work. The grammatical and colloquial nuances alone are the result of excellent wiki-forensics. In fact, the initial discovery would have to be impressive as well. Nice. the_undertow ^talk 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For me, the smoking gun was when Stillstudying signed one of OWB's comments by accident, then claimed someone else must have changed the sig. But certainly as a whole it's quite convincing. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That particular piece of evidence was e-mailed to Barneca who e-mailed it to me. Not sure who found it.Proabivouac 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That diff was supplied by New England. I should note (and should have noted somewhere before this) that New England and Roundhouse0 both supplied several diffs that made the case stronger. I'll go to the report talk page and make a note of that now; thanks for reminding me. --barneca (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

the sock report is perhaps one of the most comprehensive i have seen here. of course, this raises questions as to how effective WP:SSP actually is (i think it, like a few other pages, is broken), how closely RfA candidates are scrutinised, and how this ever managed to occur as long as it did with almost all of us oblivious to it. well done. ITAQALLAH 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with WP:SSP is that too few people investigate the reports, there's a low signal/noise ratio, and the investigations themselves are often quite time-consuming. All of which leads me to encourage Proabivouac to continue to contribute there. Yes, we need more admins on the board too... I burn out pretty quickly on dealing with the reports and the inevitable barrage of innocence-proclaiming emails after each case is closed. MastCell ^Talk 03:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing work. - Merzbow 08:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Orangemarlin, The undertow, Itaqallah and Merzbow!Proabivouac 10:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar It is difficult and tedious, and sometimes people do not want to hear it, so you deserve credit for your hard work and diligent research identifying abusive puppet accounts. Tom Harrison Talk 13:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see Tom beat me to it, but by God I'll add another one, for the same thing, right below it. Barnstar inflation be damned. --barneca (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Proabivouac took the reins when the horse was a little too wild for me to handle. The care and dedication he showed in preparing an incontrovertable case saved the community from a long, tedious, divisive battle. Thank you for your help. barneca (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One more won't hurt.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Well, you won't be getting any from OWB, so here is a barnstar from me. For the incredibly detailed work in exposing the OWB/SS sockpuppetry. Thank you! Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big barnstar-giver-outer, and it looks like they're piling up too fast to be archived anyway, but I'll say this: as an admin who frequents WP:SSP, I don't think I've ever seen a suspected sockpuppet report so detailed and convincing. You and Barneca both deserve a huge thanks for putting in the time to review the situation so exhaustively. The report confirmed what was, on my part at least, no more than a strong hunch. I'm sorry to see things turn out as they did for Oldwindybear; I don't relish seeing a reasonably productive contributor leave Wikipedia, but it was clear he did not have the community's trust to carry the admin bit, and he preferred to leave rather than resign adminship, which is his prerogative. Anyhow, notwithstanding the outcome, which was not ideal but under the circumstances reasonable, I just wanted to thank you and convey how impressed I was by your and Barneca's report. We need more admins who are interested/skilled at looking into that sort of thing. Regarding RfA, I agree that the scrutiny we apply is far too hit-or-miss; I've become much more choosy, but I'm not sure how to "fix" that particular system, or if these occasional lapses even indicate that it's "broken". MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm blown away. Thank you Tom harrison, Barneca, Flyguy649 and MastCell!Proabivouac 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what's said above, simply amazing work. It's people like you who help keep Wikipedia on-track. Oberiko 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I just had a chance to read the report after I saw the link to it on WP:AN/I, and I'm impressed by the work you all did in putting it together. As a new user I'm a little surprised (maybe even scared) that one person could use so many accounts for such a long time and get away with it. Hopefully this won't happen again. Pats Sox Princess 17:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just piling on the kudos to you for your seriously impressive work on this case. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting into the Award thing...

For keeping the Integrity of Wikipedia intact by working to report puppeteering by OldwindyBear, you get the "Upholder of Wiki Award". Thanks for Your Efforts Pats Sox Princess 18:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation, so to speak

Hey dude, I hope you're doing alright. I hate to be a bother but I was wondering if you could throw in your two cents on something. I wanted to see if I could get some third party opinions to chime in on this.
On the page for Bin Baz, some anonymous users were making some edits that I felt were inappropriate; the same set of users (the same user or group of users was using multiple IP addresses on this one) were also making edits to Albani that I also felt were inappropriate. When I reverted them and explained why on the talk page, User:Chubeat8 created his account to argue his case, he apparently being at least one of the anonymous users. He made some more additions which, as you can see from the Bin Baz talk page, were very dubious; all of them containing original research and most of them very obviously misquoting the guy. I did a point by point breakdown of all his edits on the talk page. User:Swapant showed up soon after, arguing the same points and also occasionally editing from a similar IP address up in the Montreal area. User:Uss-cool is the latest one of their friends to join, all of them having only contributed to these two articles. I tried to assume good faith but they've really worn that thin; it seems like a group of friends just up and decided to bum rush the talk page when I started quoting various Wikpedia policies and behavioral guidelines.
Maybe i'm out of line, which is why i'm asking you to take a look, especially at the Bin Baz talk page. You seem to be a very level-headed guy so I figure you could help sort things out. Any help would be much appreciated. MezzoMezzo 19:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi MezzoMezzo…I am alright, thanks for asking. Although exhausted. I'll try to take a look in a little bit.Proabivouac 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man, something seemed a bit funny and I was starting to think maybe I was just assuming things. Get some rest soon though man! MezzoMezzo 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Aminz!

This was impressive. --Aminz 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, Aminz!Proabivouac 00:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your support there.

I appreciated it. It's not the best picture I've ever taken, but then, I had 2 minutes in a darkish theatre (and I seriously thought she'd talk for more than 180 seconds, and I'd have a chance to take more than 4 pictures). I didn't think it was terrible, and well...it's more than anyone else has ever released. I'm not a good photographer, but then, since I don't get paid to do it, it's no lost profit when I then give it away ;-) --Thespian 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oldwindybear

I don't know if you spotted this yet, nor do I know if you wish to include on your User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying page; however I will comment to you that both Oldwindybear and Stillstudying botched thier rfa requests: SS incorrectly filed OWB request (which I later refiled in good faith), then when OWB went to nominate me he botched the rfa nom as well. In OWB's case, ElinorD pointed out that he botched the rfa nom and helped OWB refile it correctly. You may want to look into that to see if they both botched the nom in the exact same way. If you would like to see the paper trail scope out these links and advance them accordingly: bottom of the page [6]. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TomStar81, for your suggestion. There's actually a bunch of other evidence I haven't added (including pretty much every post to the last ANI thread, it's quite uncanny) - however, at Barneca's suggestion,, someone had already checked this out for me and the errors are different: the first was misformatted, but was on a proper RfA page; your own was created in mainspace; hence there is a deleted article TomStar81.Proabivouac 06:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

No, but I do like Pink Floyd and King Crimson. Connell66 06:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like them. I love Roundabout by Yes. Genesis is cool.Connell66 06:42, 29 July 2007

Request for mediation involving you -- please reply

[7]BYT 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What about everyone else?

Also, what are we trying to mediate?Proabivouac 21:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See the description there. If you want to propose other users, I'm amenable, as long as one from each side is represented. Also, please discuss (here or on my talk page) changes in the description of the dispute you think are worth proposing. I'm amenable to reasonable rewrites of this. BYT 21:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems very strange that you'd single me out of everyone there - I didn't broach the subject, and I'm not representative of either polar position - my involvement was to write a relatively brief deadpan description which attributed claims and characterized the undisputed points 1) it appears in the earliest biographies 2) later Islamic scholars came to reject it. It seems you want us to go further and lay out the Islamic arguments against its historicity, but if we do this, we'd also obliged to lay out the findings of academic scholarship. The result is to grant this undue weight relative to the rest of the bio. The right place for these detailed arguments is Satanic Verses.Proabivouac 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, I've addressed your most recent edits on Talk:Muhammad. Please raise the issue of mediation there, making clear what there is to mediate, and between whom.Proabivouac 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

further discussion moved to Talk:MuhammadProabivouac 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonder

I'm at a loss to understand how the Hagia Sophia exemplifies respect. Arrow740 05:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about such drivel. The first two are fortresses, yet no one thought to mention that they exemplify "well-justified paranoia" (or in the case of the Acropolis of Athens, an unfortunate place to have stored ammunition.)Proabivouac 06:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Satanic verses

In the case of alcohol, which was permitted at first in Islam: The Quran began by gently reminding Muslims (many of whom drank at the time) that they should alcohol is bad. This later escalated to a ban on alcohol when prayer time is approaching. Much much later in Medina, alcohol was completely banned. Yet the verses earlier were not expunged from the Quran, they are still there today! Satanic verses were supposedly uttered by Prophet Muhammad as part of the Quranic text, yet we do not find them in the Quran.
I would like to remind you that I am not against mentioning the 'incident', but I am against mentioning it as though it is fact. Check my edits to the section. Thank you. Unflavoured 08:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For showing me that guideline, and I'll admit the 'mossad' wasn't intended seriously. However on a serious note, there has been alot of speculation both on and off wiki with regards to an editor's motivations. When I saw you had removed all the discussion, it looked a bit like a coverup. Is there an appropriate place on wikipedia where it is/has been discussed objectively? --Hayden5650 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is - and must - be found off Wikipedia. There's a whole worldwide web out there which we do not control, and that (though I'm certain some would disagree) is as it should be. I read what is said about editors here (including me,) and have learned a lot from it. However, Wikipedia should not be a platform for the harassment, or for the enablement of the same, of its own volunteer contributors. I don't claim or imagine this to be an ideal solution - I understand completely why someone might say this reduces our accountability, that we are creating a detached bubble, etc. Good points, no doubt.Proabivouac 12:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing discussions

Your recent edits are an embarrassment and do you no credit. Catchpole 11:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Catchpole, I do what I think best to protect our contributors from harassment, per."Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action."[8] If you think it misguided, you've a right to your opinion, and I encourage you to dispute my conduct in the appropriate venue(s), in some way which doesn't enable (intentionally or otherwise) the harassment of our valued contributors. I am "Proabivouac," and my address is right here, so fire away…and leave other people's purported real-world identities out of it.Proabivouac 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your disingenuous responses to RFM for Muhammad

I really had expected more of you.

The dispute is, of course, about the appropriate description of the "Story of the Cranes"/"Satanic Verses" material in Muhammad, a dispute that has been ongoing, and that has involved you personally, since approximately July 20.

Your claiming not to understand the nature of the RFM, or the conflict, is deeply disappointing and, frankly, more than a little disturbing, as I had thought of you as a person who brought a certain intellectual integrity to these matters.

On a more practical note: One either does or doesn't agree to take part in mediation. Which is it, please? BYT 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, thank you for your message. Of course I understand what the mediation would be generally about; to pretend otherwise would indeed be disingenuous. That does not, however, answer what is disputed. Specifically, what will (or won't) be disputed after the regular process of talk page discussion has taken its course. You say there has been a dispute involving me since July 20. Whatever it is, it hasn't involved you since July 25, when you quit the talk page. I've attempted to discuss your last edit, and you didn't respond. Other people are discussing things there that hadn't even been brought up last week. What do you think about them? We don't know. What input could you have offered during this time? We don't know. As for what version of the passage I'd support, that, too has changed, not due to inconsistency of principle, but because new materials have been added to the mix of proposed inclusions, new arguments have been offered, etc. I don't see that we're at a point where we can say we've hit the proverbial brick wall. If and when we have - and presumably at that time, what is disputed will be much clearer - then naturally I'd agree to mediation. But at this moment, there is an active discussion on talk and I see no reason to abandon it, or to conduct our conversation in two places. If there is a broad consensus to move the talk page discussions to the mediation page, then naturally I'll follow, for the same reason (i.e. if you can bring everyone else on board, you can count me among them.) I hope that I've addressed your concerns.Proabivouac 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so much. Will you be saying, one way or the other, whether you will take actually part in the mediation I've requested? (Aminz has agreed to do so.) Or will you be, as it were, waiting for the clock to expire? These are fair (and concise) questions that deserve, I think, responses that are equally direct. BYT 20:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it strikes me as premature, because there is still an active and non-redundant discussion underway on talk. If there is consensus among the talk page participants to move this discussion to the mediation page, then, naturally, I'll follow.

Now for another direct question: why won't you participate on the regular talk page?Proabivouac 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like playing out the clock to me. (That's just a personal observation, mind you.)

I am not participating on the talk page just now because I believe there is an organized, obstructionist effort from someone (I do not know who) that has as its aim the prevention of actual, collaborative editing on this paragraph.

I was so hoping to work with you in a cooperative way, Pro. If you ever decide you're up for it, try actually placing a draft of something on my talk page. That wouldn't break any principles of yours, would it? BYT 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This content dispute has become quite dramatic. Arrow740 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Make it routine, then, Arrow. Make it just as boring as all hell. Sign on for mediation and work out a draft that results from actual collaboration with an editor with whom you happen to disagree. BYT 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought an acceptable compromise would be to just state the facts and keep the arguments out of the article. That's quite a concession, because the arguments for the side of historicity are more numerous, held by more and more authoritative scholars, and far more convincing. Aminz has not been able to do that, and has been putting in one argument, his own, even after saying on the talk page that we should leave the arguments to the main article. Who is preventing collaborative work? You're just wasting our time with baseless accusations. Arrow740 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"I thought an acceptable compromise would be to just state the facts and keep the arguments out of the article."

The doctrinal bases for its eventual rejection are interesting, provided they're briefly presented (as they currently are.) What we definitely don't need is another unencyclopedic face-off a la the Aisha age "controversy," where we set up a dichotomy based upon our own beliefs, then try to find sources to back them up. The inclusion of the Hawza link demonstrates exactly this kind of thinking; the only conceivable case to be made for including it is a doctrine of "equal time" for editors' own beliefs, now operating under the black-boxy label of "consensus" (this bothers me, therefore I don't agree/there's no consensus,) with random websites providing the fig leaf of WP:V.Proabivouac 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I may not be communicating clearly here.
• Reality check time: If we don't engage in mediation, there is going to be an endless series of revert wars about this, even if I get hit by a bus tomorrow and even if Aminz decides (understandably) that dealing with the endless obstructionist reverting is simply not worth the effort.
• On the other hand, if we do engage in mediation, we can point to a) a version that editors with different world-views, but equal respect for the encyclopedia, developed together, far from the trained gang-revert artists; b) greater stability in the article; and c) who knows, perhaps the possibility of future collaboration on equally sticky topics. That's what we're here for, Arrow, you and I.
• If your arguments are so very strong and your documentation is so very good, bring them to the table and let's work something out that we can all sign off on and thus prevent future quality-shredding convulsions in this important article. Check my edit history. I think you'll find I've learned to be quite responsible when it comes to incorporating the viewpoints of others.
• One more thing: Mediation resulted in pictures of the Prophet appearing in this article. I wasn't crazy about that, but it was the result of the process, and it is the consensus on the article, and this is a secular, not a religious, encyclopedia, so that's what I go by. Howsacome no go both ways, dude? BYT 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, please see my latest comments to the mediation page. I'm not even certain that there is any significant dispute.Proabivouac 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there is. That you wouldn't notice it is, perhaps, significant. BYT 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is it?Proabivouac 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Check my edit history. I think you'll find I've learned to be quite responsible when it comes to incorporating the viewpoints of others." I've seen nothing but blanking and propaganda websites from you recently. Arrow740 04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, let's keep it productive: I just want to know what is in dispute/what I am being invited to mediate. "That you wouldn't notice it is, perhaps, significant," doesn't help.Proabivouac 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to edit Muhammad at all in the next twenty minutes? I noticed you are active and don't want any edit conflicts. Arrow740 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All yours.Proabivouac 05:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, what do you think? Arrow740 05:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Hi, thanks for your friendly warning. However, let me clarify that I reverted only once and never indulged in a edit war. You reverted my edit saying that the front page source isnt a good source, so I added an additional source. Addition of information is not a revert. I reverted another users edit (my first revert) after I responded to him in talk. Thanks NapoleansSword 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: your message on my talk page

Responded by email. Rebecca 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As have I. Orderinchaos 08:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, OIC. I'll be in touch soon.Proabivouac 07:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You did some good work on the OWB case yourself. We'll have to talk at length one of these days. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. And I'm wanted at Talk:Cherokee, I know…shortly…Proabivouac 07:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New sock

You may not be aware of this new sock. I can't follow it up myself today. Arrow740 20:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Initiating

Thus initiating... the attacks provoked. No, Muhammad was deliberately setting his community on the path of "aggressive political violence" as Peters puts it. I know that your goal (and mine too) is to keep speculation about the thoughts and feelings of those involved to a minimum. However, this will be extremely difficult and my feelings about your completely detached tone here are mixed. Arrow740 07:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I chose that language only because is is shorter. I didn't consider this difference in meaning. Still, isn't it trivial? When one party attacks another, one is obviously aware that one has initiated conflict, and observers can safely conclude that the action is deliberate. In this regard, I suppose the question I have is, was the goal to provoke Mecca into responding, or merely to appropriate their monies and merchandise? The latter seems both more rational, and more in line with events later in his life, and in the lives of his companions/immediate sucessors.

Detached tone…what's the alternative? It's the only thing that reasonable editors can agree is acceptable (if not ideal,) despite different points of view.Proabivouac 07:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Raids vs Razzis

Proab, here we are talking about a concept that can be best described as Razzis and not the english word "raids". The word Razzis as understood in Arabia of that time was for example a "natural and legitimate act of war". The word "raid" itself does not automatically convey a package that contains the meaning of say "natural and legitimate act of war". When we use the english term "raid", we are imposing the sphere of the meaning of the term "raid" to Razzis (much like clothing a word with another one). That's why we should not use the word unless we restrict its meaning: i.e. it is a special type of raid that Arabs of that era were doing and had such and such connotations/meanings/understandings. Muhammad didn't involve himself in raids, he involved himself in Razzis. --Aminz 07:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are horribly misinformed; see Ghazw.Proabivouac 07:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a fitting conclusion to tonight's editing. I hope the conflict has subsided. Arrow740 07:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Proabivouac, but I can not understand why I am misinformed. Ghazw is the name for those battles that Muhammad himself participated. A Razzi might be a Ghazw but not vice-versa. --Aminz 07:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, "razzi" is only a French spelling of the Arabic word.Proabivouac 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghazwa is used (by Muslims) to specifically refer to the battles that Muhammad himself participated. Regarding Razzia, Watt says:"the raid or razzia was a normal feature of Arab desert life". Watt uses it in its general sense(the one I did). But for God's sake, what does this have to do with my argument above. --Aminz 08:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not getting it, Aminz: there is no Arabic word, "razzia."

"Battle in which Muhammad personally participated" is not even a genuine attempt at translation; that is the fault of that article and its lead.Proabivouac 08:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about "The raid or Razzi" that Watt is talking about. The one that was a normal feature of Arab desert; the one that Muhammad in his time participated. The one that was viewed as a "natural and legitimate act of war". --Aminz 08:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, it's the same word. The version with R is just a French transliteration. It means roughly "raid for plunder." Nothing to do with naturalness or legitimacy at all.Proabivouac 08:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's proceed in this way. I "define" a word "Youresh" to represent the action as understood by Arabs 1400 years ago, and today is approximated by terms such as "Razzis, Raids, etc etc." I hope the definition is clear enough. Now, please rename all the terms "Razzis" to "Youresh" in my original post in this section and read it again. --Aminz 08:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone reading the above discussion will plainly see that you thought there were two different Arabic roots involved here, one beginning with r and one with gh, an impression that was strengthened by the misleading lead in the Ghazw article. You came around to teach me a fine point of Arabic semantics which is lost in translation, and were caught not having the remotest idea of what you were talking about. Now you're just flailing.Proabivouac 08:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was misinformed about the linguists of the matter but I didn't want to teach you anything about semantics. My point was that Muhammad engaged in an act that can not be accurately translated into the word "raid". But the way I expressed my point had a flaw (which I've tried to correct by my last comment). --Aminz 08:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent massive removals of facts and insertions of opinions does a great disservice to readers of this encyclopedia, who are interested in the details of Muhammad's life for religious or non-religious reasons. Arrow740 08:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

socking on Hornplease thread

Hello Proabivouac, I am the one who started a thread on Hornplease block. I had the distinction of being blocked months after I left the account. If it were not for my noticing and reporting it, nobody would have raised it because Blnguyen never left a message on Hornplease's talk page. Hornplease is currently inactive. I am hardly a constructive editor now. But even constructive editors are not spared. For example, you can check the contributions of Rajamankkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was not me but he was on my IP. Not a single problem edit from that user, still he is blocked. The admin who blocked most of my accounts has also blocked a vast range of IPs used by thousands of users in India. See

• 16:46, 2 August 2007 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Talk | contribs) blocked "59.91.252.0/22 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Whole-sale abuse by a banned editor on a dynamic-IP network.)

But I am not bothered about that, as you can see.Yuyutsun 10:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to be talking to banned users…now I have two of them on my page. I suppose there's no need to blank your comments, so long as you refrain from attacking other editors. Calling Baka a "criminal troll" was pretty ridiculous, wouldn't you agree? You're lucky anyone even looked after that poor start.Proabivouac 22:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Partisan sources

I would like to restore Mubarakpuri to Safiyya bint Huyayy (although have not done so). But you will probably object that he is a "religious/partisan" source. However, so is Ibn Hisham. I think it's highly unfair to include one but omit the other.

Anyways, can you please provide me the link the to policy that says "religious/partisan" sources are unacceptable. I believe it existed but no longer does.Bless sins 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bless sins, something happened to it in the course of the proposed merger into WP:ATT, but that didn't quite get completed. I'm not certain what the state of it is now. However, that doesn't mean that there is any kind of consensus to equate partisan sources (religious or otherwise) with academic ones; to the contrary, this distinction is broadly accepted by the community. The last time I checked, WP:V did have language emphasizing a preference for academic sources, though this changes all the time, so I don't know where it is now. Ultimately, these policies are based on and evolve with the longstanding practices of the community, which have been moving towards stricter source policies, not away from them. Unless we want to take this discussion over to WP:RS (which might be a good idea, actually) as a practical matter, the question is, do you want to make a point about purported systemic bias by repeatedly asserting that religious ideologues are as reliable as academics, knowing that your edits are likely to be reverted on this ground, or is your goal to work collaboratively towards improving the articles? I ask this because, per our previous conversation, you've resisted efforts to separate these issues so that we can move forward in one area while agreeing to disagree about another. What I see instead is you bundle good edits with ones that you know will be contested on this basis, and when someone reverts you, you ask (disingenuously, so it seems), "Why have you reverted Stillman (or whoever else is not contested as a reliable source)?" Such an approach has made your edits probably the most frequently reverted of any regular editor's in the articles on my watchlist. You'll have a much bigger impact if you focus on material upon which you're more likely to attain agreement.Proabivouac 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just three things. Ultimately all of edits start out as individual and clearly separated edits. I have no intention to "bundle" good edits with poor ones (as that means that even my good edits won't stick). For example, take a look at Safiyya. First I restored Stowasser (no one has disputed her as a reliable source).[9] And in a completely different edit, I restored Nomani (and Watt).[10] Yet Beit Or comes along and blanket reverts my edits.[11]

Anyways, our discussion is about Mubarakpuri. I understand that you think he is a reliable source because his writings are incompatible with secular Western thinking. However, how can Ibn Hisham (who even you have used as a source) and Bukhari be considered "academic" sources?

Finally, I never meant to use Mubarakpuri to state "facts". Certainly what Mubarakpuri says can't be considered a fact by (primarily non-Muslim) Westerners. However, Mubarakpuri's writings reflect the Point Of View of Muslims. Thus in an article about Safiyya, known mostly for bieng Prophet Muhammad's wife, the Muslim POV deserves to be mentioned.Bless sins 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Excellent job on the His Majesty case. You know what? I don't know where they keep the barnstars or whether there even is a sock-catching barnstar, but let's just consider this an unofficial barnstar. Again, excellent job. LOZ: OOT 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
And that was massive sockpuppetry he did, too. LOZ: OOT 21:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Proabivouac 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way. Is this a real Wikipedia policy: WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LOZ: OOT (talk • contribs)

It's more or less a restatement of WP:POINT.Proabivouac 05:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. The best way to avoid consequences already faced is to learn from the decisions you made to face them. That is a saying I made up in my head. LOZ: OOT 05:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you know something? You would make an excellent checkuser. LOZ: OOT 07:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

IP question

Does the IP of the anon who did this edit remind you of anything from the past? Arrow740 01:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What did you have in mind?Proabivouac 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 07:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thought you'd find this familiar

(Background: I've had the task of hunting puppets at a number of places since '91-'92, when I was doing it for a very large BBS and a MUD. When I naively jumped into a political topic here, and was suspected of being an SPA sock myself, I proceeded to STFU on all political topics for a couple of months; I realized that any attempts at defending myself would be futile, so I might as well just get on with editing. The situation didn't upset me very much because, had I been an observer rather than one of the accused, I would have found the accusation of my account to be fairly reasonable. That said, take a look at this page and enjoy the irony of this all too familiar scenario.) [12] Poindexter Propellerhead 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OIC

Hey, im going to ask that you withdraw your comments from OIC's talk page, although you certainly have the right to ask him about the situation, i think its been adequately dealt with, and he should just be left alone. Remember that he is a quity sysop and thats what matters, is it not? Twenty Years 08:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Years, I am not evaluating whether OIC is a good sysop, or a productive editor, but only the narrower question of whether User:DanielT5 and/or User:Zivko85 are the same individual as one another or as OIC. It should be obvious that I should not have asked such a specific question had I not equally specific reasons for doing so.Proabivouac 08:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the other information on wikipedia (if you look a little) will tell you the answer. There are three separate, completely different people here. Please consider reading the information on the talk page of Elonka's RfA and the Administrators noticeboard stuff. Cheers. Twenty Years 09:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on your post on OIC's talk page. Please think carefully before posting a reply, if at all. Cheers. Twenty Years 11:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 09:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for relaying the message from oldwindybear regarding Council House Fight; I think the article is the better for it. Ewulp 04:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem.Proabivouac 04:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Safiyya

I can understand when unreasonable users (who refuse to join discussion on talk) make edits like these. But I'm surprised that you did this. You reverted what were, essentially, my edits, restored by an anon. But my edits only restored content from Watt, Nomani and Stowasser. And you basically removed Watt, Nomani and Stowasser. In addition you don't seem to have left a message on talk explaining why. Bless sins 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You are surely aware that Karl Meier and Arrow740 have been the targets of anonymous wikistalking, most notably from a certain banned user. Wherever I see it, I'll revert it, without considering the substance of the edit. My summary, "rv wikistalking anon" should have made that clear. As for joining talk, have you suggested that to the anon, who didn't even give an edit summary? If you have a good reason to revert the material again, by all means do so (although I continue not to understand why you insist on bundling Watt and Nomani, that's another issue.) Should ever face the same problem, let me know and I'll do the same. Proabivouac 00:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No Proabivouac, I' not aware that Karl Meier and Arrow740 are victims of wikistalking, nor do I know who that "certain banned user" is. However, it appears to me that Karl Meier and Arrow740 have a habit of following me to articles and other users' talk pages, and then either reverting my edits, or opposing me.

"...I'll revert it, without considering the substance of the edit." Doesn't that sound a bit unreasonable? We should judge edits by their substance, not by who made them. In any case, the fact that you revert it, makes it seem like that you support Karl Meier's edits, which I find very dissappointing.

Why don't I ask the anon to join the talk? I have never really seen anon participating in discussions. If an anon was serious about editing wikipedia, he/she would get an account.Bless sins 04:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know you weren't aware of it. Now you are: a banned editor uses anon IPs and throwaway accounts to follow them around and revert them with pop-ups. As each IP and account is blocked, a new ones is created until the pages are semiprotected and he/she gets bored or runs out. It's been discussed for months in several places, including ANI, my talk page and at RfCU. This may or may not be the same editor, but the behavior is indistinguishable. The best way to stop it is to revert and ignore, but this is premised upon no one trying to take advantage of his/her behavior, or using them as a point of contention later on. You're an established editor here, in good standing, and there is no reason for you to worry about it. Ignore the anons reverts, ignore my or anyone else's reverts of the anon, and proceed as if nothing had happened. Okay?Proabivouac 04:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that settles it (and clears everything up). :-)Bless sins 21:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool.;) You probably know that most of what I do around here these days is related to sockpuppets…got a big report in the works, caught another one and let another go on the condition of good behavior.Proabivouac 06:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

hello Proabivouac. this particular discussion caught my eye, as did the essay linked in the discussion. i recall that you previously removed Islam#Criticism on pretty much the same grounds (i think). i've not been averse to such a section in general, but i can see why it's discouraged. one thing i don't like about the section is that it is quite recentist in the second paragraph, and i personally doubt whether documentation of such critiques is even prominent in academic works. the first paragraph is better, but i still wonder if it can't just be forked into other sections. the mention of John of Damascus, for example, may go well in the History section if mentioned alongside polemical rebuttals to him which came from the Muslim world or something (as an example of some of the literature prevelant during these times). what are your thoughts? ITAQALLAH 14:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Itaqallah. I wasn't aware of this essay, or I'd have quoting Jimbo this whole time. Thank you for forwarding it. I'll have to put some thought to the specific material therein, but the section should go immediately: we shouldn't be using mainspace as a sandbox (an even more widespread misunderstanding.) We could probably do much better anyhow - for example, Pope Benedict quoted a Byzantine emperor to similar effect as the critics we currently cite. Amazingly, neither the emperor's words nor the Pope's are mentioned in Criticism of Islam, which is strikingly weighted toward contemporary criticism.Proabivouac 17:04, 12 August 2007

(UTC)

removing criticism is not WP policy it is not even a guide line and it is every where on WP and I and many others like it that way, now you might not like it but this is not your world also quit deleting templates, read the instructions on the tag and "oh behave!" :) also go read the new testament specially the sayings of jesus I'm sure you'll learn a great deal I'm an athiest and even I find those parts of the bible "a good thing".Esmehwp 06:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What does you being an atheist or reading the gospels have anything to do with anything? Real encyclopedias don't have "criticism" sections, do they?Proabivouac 06:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"real" encyclopedia's don't get edited by anonymous users online "real" encyclopedias aren't brilliant experiments in anarchism, "real" encyclopedias don't report on 10 second old statement by steven colbert.... i'm just trying to put up information that i think is important your trying to stop me. have a nice day Esmehwp 06:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I stand corrected. I wasn't aware of the new style. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blnguyen, it's possible I'll be reverted again…I've been trying to do this for awhile, for basically the same reasons this essay gives.Proabivouac 08:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay rather than a policy or guideline; we are not obliged to follow it. In addition, please see the enlightening comments by Shirahadasha on the essay's talk page. Beit Or 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Such criticism is only relevant to the extent that it plays a significant part in the history of the given movement - in which case it has a rightful place in the body of the article - or to the extent that the article is promotional in nature - in which case the proper response is to fix this. The strongest criticisms suggests themselves, anyhow, when a subject is fairly presented.Proabivouac 10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I've reverted this edit [13] as he does raise an important point - I will ask him to self strike some of his comment about tom as they are unfair. Sophia 08:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re "stuff" - you gave that as a prime example of how similar the editing styles are and I disputed that undeniable likeness. You now saying the likeness is subjective, that he was obviously not trying to sound too like the Alienus account, and not to worry too much about the details. Good grief - I hope I never end up on the wrong side of a jury with you on it. Sophia 11:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was everything except "stuff" which matched: "unexplained removal of…cited…" There are four consecutive words right there. I grant you that one might be able to dig up something like this going through all of someone's edits, but this was right there at the top in both cases. Coincidence, no doubt, like the fixation of Rand/Satanism, Dawkins, Christianity and monotheism, C.S.Lewis, etc., etc. Everything is a coincidence; nothing is real.Proabivouac 11:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want him banned bring a case. Wikipedia is too large that anyone can expect to push things through by force of personality. Go to Jayjg for a checkuser - that should solve this and I have never said I would not accept real evidence just that subjective evidence requires proper investigation. Why are you so against this if it's as obvious as you say? It will take time I admit but that has got to be worth the lack of bad feeling and cries of "censorship" "cabals" and "corruption" that will inevitably turn up on the sites that disgruntled WP turn to when they feel they have been the victims of injustice. If it is Al then serves him right for being too stupid to sockpuppet properly and he will deserve a lengthening of his ban or a reconfirmation of the perm ban. I may be wrong but I genuinely thought he was smarter than that. Sophia 12:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec - you registered after he was banned. You can never have interacted with him on pages so how can you be so sure what his style was? Trawling through a contributions list gives snapshots - without actually going through the repartee of the conversations it's real hard to work out how someone responds in various situations. Sophia 12:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Snapshots are all one can expect when reviewing sock reports - otherwise one is involved, and is suspect for that reason. We cannot define qualifications such that no one is qualified. There is no reason for these "snapshots" to consistently match, unless we are looking at the same individual.

As for CU, I'm not against it, I just think it a waste of time - I have two CU reports that have waited for weeks to be dealt with. In one memorable case CU was wrong and I was right (subsequent CU confirmed my finding) - in another, I ruled out one otherwise suspicious account based on usage alone, and that was the only one which came up unrelated. All I can say is that CU is more accurate than the most inept contribution-based id's, and of course usage analysis is completely ineffective when someone doesn't talk (e.g. revert-only accounts.)Proabivouac 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record I was a systems security specialist for 7 years so do not need lessons on how one handles data and involvement from you. I love the twist - anyone who worked with him and really knows his style is suspect! No doubt especially if you agreed with many of his points (note that I often pulled him up on his methods). It's great that you are good at this stuff - you now need to couple that with the humility to accept that your judgement will be challenged. I say again - bring the case. I will not dispute evidence but will challenge claims of "this is so obvious we don't need to bother". As I said - if you have caught him then he is more stupid than I thought. Sophia 12:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do so. However, it will have to wait a few days, as I've another report in the pipeline.

"anyone who worked with him and really knows his style is suspect!"

That's not my twist, I don't agree with it at all - it's just something that's guaranteed to be said on WP (for example, G33's response to Tom's report was…?)Proabivouac 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I'm not trying to cause you work but genuinely don't think it's Al. There is no reason for him to use an account as I know he edits away quite merrily when it suits him [14]. I've added a comment at the CU as I agree it's pointless checking with Al's contributions as they are stale. Where are you going to compile your main body of evidence? I'll add my stuff there. Sophia 06:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's so labor-intensive, I'm hoping to avoid a comprehensive study: as several who were involved in his case have stated, it's an obvious call. There's also a CU request which might make all this moot.Proabivouac 18:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence" subpage

User:Proabivouac/Orderinchaos&DanielT5&Zivko85

May I ask your intentions as regard this page? The consensus in the past has been against people amassing "evidence" against other users unless they are drafting an RfC or RfArb. Are you planning on going down any of those routes?

If your intention is to prove that the three editors concerned are one person, I can assure you that several adminstrators (including checkusers) have received evidence in private to confirm that 3 people are concerned. There are to my satisfaction good reasons of privacy why further details of the parties cannot be disclosed on-wiki and I can assure you that Orderinchaos' refusal to provide further information does not stem from an unwillingness to undergo scrutiny. Your analysis of their contributions must show you that I far from an ally of theirs - the three were all critical of a block I made, all took an opposing view to me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out Now Consulting (2nd Nomination) and all opposed Elonka (who I nominated for adminship). As a result I assure you that I exercised due diligence in discussing these matters with Orderinchaos. Other administrators I respect have been able to confirm much of the story and reach the same conclusions that three people are involved here. It is not unusual for friends to support each other's perspective when they hit conflict - this becomes problematic when there is a close geographical proximity but the same effect is reached if too editors on opposite sides of the world always support the position of the other. We tend to agree with our friends and become friends with those who agree with us.

I would like to ask you to drop your pursuit of him - I cannot see what positive result it could have other. If you believe the three accounts are the same person, you are mistaken. Best wishes. WjBscribe 16:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WJScribe, perhaps RfC or RfArb, or SSP (which I gather you'd agree is also legitimate)? I have seen no such evidence; all I have seen on- or off-wiki is a story, which isn't sufficient to explain the evidence and is fundamentally inconsistent with the edit times, which suggest one computer at a time, not two (OIC's and Z85's, per his explanation,) among other obvious flaws. OIC e-mailed me as well, but I was not convinced by what I read, and it did not contain any actual evidence. Perhaps there exist people called Daniel and Zivko, perhaps they even edited from those accounts at one point, but I am presently convinced that most of these edits are the work of a single individual. My e-mail is enabled, and if you or anyone else shows me evidence to the contrary (which I assure you will remain confidential,) I will certainly consider it. What I see presently is that an administrator can be caught red-handed by CU, having stacked innumerable discussions, possibly sunk an RfA, voted in his own, driven a user off of Wikipedia (apparently) through tag-team harassment, etc. - that an administrator can get caught in serious ongoing sockpuppetry - caught as red handed as hands can be - and all one has to do is generate some sympathetic tale of domestic complication. Even were it mere meatpuppetry (and I don't believe it is), we are still looking at a serious and longstanding corruption of the process. Orderinchaos must be desysoped.Proabivouac 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hope you would have more faith in the other users (including admins and checkusers) who have been in a position to investigate this matter more fully than you. A witch-hunt is in no one's best interests and your pursuit of Orderinchaos is likely to be interpreted as one. The evidence can be interpreted in the way you have done - but I urge to assume good faith. I will defend Orderinchaos to the utmost in either an RfC or an RfArb. I don't think an SSP report would get you anywhere. I believe you are well-intentioned but in this case you have picked the wrong person and are merely prolonging an embarassing episode for all concerned. I request, politely but firmly, that you let this matter drop and focus your energies instead on something constructive rather than destructive. WjBscribe 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe, there is no witch hunt underway, nor do I see anything destructive about ensuring the integrity of our administrative staff and community procedures. I have total faith that you are calling this as you see it; it's just I am not convinced, and cannot be convinced, by evidence to which I'm not privy, when I have a rather large heap (to which I can substantially add, if necessary) of very visible evidence pointing in the other direction. It's not reasonable, is it, to suppose they are chatting simultaneously on Wikipedia and MSN while sitting around the same computer?[15][16][17] It's not reasonable, is it, to suppose these friends are so close that one remembers himself doing things that in fact the other had done?[18][19] Additionally, OIC declined to answer a very direct and relevant question posed to him: did he at any time post under the DT5 or Z85 accounts?[20] If so, that's not just sockpuppetry, but account-sharing and impersonation. My e-mail is enabled, and I will consider any evidence which is forwarded in my direction.Proabivouac 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an irrelevant (to the discusiion) technical comment: Proabivouac, I think a "shared phrases" section needs more statistical analysis. I think if we take any two random persons, there will be some correlations; please see Birthday paradox; also please note that in that example, the random variable of day can take 365 different possibilities which is too much compared with the number of different forms lingustic expression can take (and hence increasing the probability of agreement in the case of linguistic expressions). --Aminz 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also see Bible code --Aminz 02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course there will be some correlations. For example, OWB/SS/FWS used "I'm sorry, but…" on very many occasions, while Alienus/ThAtSo (currently under investigation) has many edit summaries beginning, "Sorry, but…", and even one which begins, "I'm sorry, but…" There's a correlation.We are, after all, using the same language, and there are very few truly unique short phrases. What you should not often find is the very same set of correlations between two indidivuals, and if you did…what is the chance they would be backing one another up in dozens of deletion debates on Wikipedia? The smoking gun isn't any one item of evidence, but the sum of evidence which consistently points in the same direction.Proabivouac 02:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen private evidence and I am satisfied. Frankly I'd suggest that you drop the matter. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I Didn't Forget About You

I realize that I should've taken the time to give you this earlier, but I hope you will accept it anyway.

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your efforts in exposing the fraudulent sockpuppetry used by OldWindyBear New England (C) (H) 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, New England! As you can see, I need all the support I can get.Proabivouac 03:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that when I gave it to you, but I'm happy I helped. You and Barneca helped me out alot by doing what you did. New England ^{Review Me!} 20:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740

Do know what happened with our good buddy Arrow? I really miss him at the moment. I hope he is ok :( Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 23:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I, too, was worried about him; I e-mailed him when I saw that message. Fortunately, he's just busy.Proabivouac 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:His excellency

User:Cheszmastre‎.Proabivouac 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by Tom harrison.Proabivouac 00:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate Pro. I was on my way to use my microscope when i received your update. I was also going to talk w/ you about User:Matt57 and the recent AN/I apparitions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate. This is the second user he's successfully set up to be blocked. Who's next? There may (or may not) be some problem with Matt57's edits to the "Elonka articles," but the fact is that the ANI thread wouldn't exist if it weren't for our number one resident jokester's latest tricks.Proabivouac 00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro. User:SlimVirgin and User:Elonka. Who is next? Me? I just don't think so. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Arrow740 and Matt57, both of whom have been blocked due to His excellency's games. Here, His excellency set up socks to edit war for Matt57's edits, which generated the ANI thread and got Matt57 blocked as a sockpuppeteer; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matt57.Proabivouac 00:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

His excellency"s games. I dunno Pro but isn't there any Matt57"s games? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't socking; follow the link and also this one. You see, we've been tricked.

I'm not certain if all his edits are appropriate - I've been buried in sock reports, and haven't had a chance to review them all - and I'd wish her RfA to have succeeded, but on a purely thematic level, I see nothing wrong with ensuring that the "Elonka articles" are scrutinized: someone has to do it, and it's not likely to be her sympathizers. If he needs some pushback on the specifics, then he does (and it appears that he's getting some,) but I haven't seen any game playing. Perhaps I'd change my mind if I looked at it more closely? If you have something specific to share, I'll certainly take a look.Proabivouac 01:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi,

I did see your message on my talk. Insha'Allah, I will drop you a more detailed response later.Bless sins 12:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Proabivouac 03:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may ask, what are the reasons you would like to become an admin? --Aminz 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To deal with issues on backed-up noticeboards, such as SSP, which require an administrators' response, to speedily block the most obvious throwaway wikistalkers of the sort we've seen in recent months, and harassment-only accounts such as those very recently banned by ArbCom and to quickly delete posts which attempt to publicize personal information of users such as H and Musical Linguist (both of whom were driven off completely.) Things which deserve lots of discussion and aren't time-sensitive don't usually need to be done by me, and I'm already feeling quite empowered in talk space. Things I won't do include fully-protect articles in the spaces which I've edited, block users with whom I've been involved in disputes or where I might otherwise be seen to be less than impartial (in fact, I'd hope to not block many users at all,) etc. I also will be willing to evaluate and, if necessary, act upon situations which arise on AN and ANI (which I do a lot already,) but the most compelling reasons - things I am entirely helpless to deal with now - involve protecting people from stalking and harassment, and other plainly disruptive/anarchic activity which now goes unchecked just because no one with the right buttons is watching.

It won't happen right away, so we have time to discuss whatever you'd want to discuss. I'm just sort of asking about at this stage.Proabivouac 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Proabivouac, you certainly have a number of positive qualities and you are generally a good and helpful editor (and other good qualities that I don't need to mention), but I will unfortunately oppose on several grounds: One is that (my feelings, sorry if I am wrong) I think you are very self-confident of your views. I would personally never go as far as saying "William Montgomery Watt is a poor translator indeed, perhaps even a dishonest one". Or for example calling Asma Barlas's book (University of Texas Press, 2002) unreliable. Of course, this is all so in my view but you have all the rights to disagree. Another concern, probably most important, is the way, to my perception, your friendship with other users(such as User:Arrow740, User:Karl Meier, User:Beit Or, etc etc) affects the comments/edits you make (or do not make but is expected). Of course this is also true of me; I am not like User:Tom harrison who is able of evaluating the case without thinking about the people who were involved in it. I need to make something clear here: I am not making my measurements relatively but absolutely. You are a good contributer to wikipedia but since almost of your edits are made to Islam related articles and you usually represent a party in the arguments, I really don't know what impact a successful nomination could have. In other areas such as dealing with sockpuppets, however, I am sure you can be a great help. My assessment was only one-person's assessement. Regards, --Aminz 10:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Aminz. If you imagine in your mind a nightmarishly rogue admin Proabivouac, what would I be doing/what would worry you?

And, since you write about Arrow740, Karl Meier, and Beit Or, what would concern you there?Proabivouac 10:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on my past experience, adminships affect the content disputes in the following way: Since wikipedia is not written by experts, when two parties disagree they have to bring in a third party in to help them resolve the dispute. But the third party is not an expert either. Adminship of one member of one of the two parties affects the third parties judgment (partly because admins by default are supposed to be more aware of the policies); undoubtedly at least in the tone of the comment but usually more. I have had some disputes with certain admins but when I brought the case to a third party, I felt it was treated differently (naturally).

I do not claim that in our past content disputes, I have been always right; certainly not, but I was psychologically in a better situation than when I had content disputes with admins. --Aminz 11:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So, are you just waiting for a nominator? El_C 09:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a few nominations, but I've turned them down. I've been involved in some pretty contentious articles, as well as some contentious noticeboard threads, and I want to verify that the community - especially those with whom I've frequently disagreed - trusts that I will not abuse the tools.Proabivouac 09:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Good luck! El_C 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to say that I fully endorse you running for adminship, and I really do think that you'd make an excellent CheckUser. LOZ: OOT 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Dev920 3

No. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

No, I never actually hd. It sounds like a good band though. LOZ: OOT 17:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OWB

I just read your question, and pondered it for a little bit. Unfortunately I can't give you answer right now. If you wait a few days, I can think it over more. If you want to, tell OWB he can email and we can discuss it there. New England ^{Review Me!} 04:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop being a drama llama

• yawn*

--In The Wavy 07:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling the noticeboards, okay? Go find something else to do. I mean it in all sincerity. No one is stopping you.Proabivouac 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So providing evidence that Matt57 violates WP policies/guidelines is considered "trolling"? Thanks for letting me know, I'll go post that to the Muslim cabal so they can refine their strategies now.--In The Wavy 07:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Creating socks to attack other editors is disruptive trolling.Proabivouac 07:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you don't have any arguments against the evidence itself?--In The Wavy 07:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even look at it, except to notice that it was lengthy, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the thread in which you posted it. Just because Matt57's sig appears somewhere doesn't mean you can turn the thread into an arbitration case. Anyhow, banned users can't initiate arbitration cases. Your first step has to be getting yourself on the right side of the law, if not in theory then in practice. As long as your only real interest is attacking Matt57 or any other editor, you're not welcome here. Honestly, should you be? You wouldn't even allow you, the way you've been acting. No civilized place would. So stop proving that the decision to ban you was right, and start acting in away that would lead people to take a second look. That's my advice. Right now, you're just causing trouble, so why should anyone feel bad for you?Proabivouac 07:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the 3rr on WP:ANI. Please revert yourself or I will report you.--In The Wavy 07:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Go report me - reverting disruptive socks of banned users is exempt. Just do me a favor and give me a link so I can point that out. Think: you just registered yesterday. How would you know Matt57?Proabivouac 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

From WikiIslam. He visits other sites too, ya know.--In The Wavy 07:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm-hmm.Proabivouac 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

TOR

I know nothing about TOR servers and very little about our open proxy policies, but I noticed the IP that left a message on SOD's talk page comes up as "The IP Address you entered matches one or more active Tor servers" when entered into torstatus.kgprog.com. Is this an address that needs an indef block and {{tor}} tag? - auburnpilot talk 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi APilot. The IP is hailing from Germany. According to that link it is an active Tor server. For the rest i am sorry because i don't know how to deal w/ TOR proxies. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, that same individual has been reverting Prester John and Karl Meier with pop-ups:

• 84.138.70.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.31.186.224 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.214.122.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 89.247.28.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 89.247.124.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Naturally, when I ask who he is on ANI, someone pops up and says "AGF!" The socks are running the show, FayssalF.Proabivouac 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But i don't know how to block TOP proxies Pro! I said it to APilot above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it might throw some light onto the motives of his post to SOD and that ANI report: likely, nothing to do with MONGO v. ZF/NU/SOD at all.Proabivouac 01:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to response

My IP address is shared. Just check User:24.70.95.203. LOZ: OOT 02:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)