Your protection banner on this article was till the 22nd ....on the 23 when it was removed there were blanket deletions by user Tigeroo again . This blanket deletions of sourced content by Tigeroo has been going on for months ...I have been making efforts at concensus building on the talk page ...how is this deletion by Tigeroo going to stop ....what is the next step ??
Please advise .
Cheers Intothefire05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went over the Israel FAC. I think it's going well. What you need to do: (1) Deal with Tony's objections, (2) get rid of the tag in the history section, and (3) find out if there's anything substantive to Tiamat's objection (that it is lacking). If there is, (4) fix them. I agree with you, though, that it is not reasonable to expect the article to talk about every single thing that one could possibly talk about with regard to Israel. As far as overlinking - there are a lot of links, but my spot-checking the article didn't come up with any links that obviously shouldn't be there - at best there are some debatable ones. I disagree with you on the use of encyclopedias - of course they can be used. They are reliable sources. Raul65420:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't heard much about Tiamut's objections recently. The other items, in my opinion, were already addressed at the time of your first comment. A few things have appeared on the talk page, however – namely #Why now?, regarding the intro, and Talk:Israel#Gilabrand.27s_recent_changes, regarding some changes a day or two ago. I don't know what to make of the current situation. -- tariqabjotu20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What have I missed? I have responded to each of his objections by either complying with them or explaining why they are not needed (often because they are a matter of preference). -- tariqabjotu04:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He left comments there yesterday: There are still little things to clear up, such as the following, which are only random samples: "comprised primarily of Zionist volunteers" is wrong ("composed"); no hyphen after "-ly". "administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status"—over the status of the UN? Apparently Americans don't like superscript 2 on their units (it's inconsistently applied here). "4,040-mi."—MOS says no dots for abbreviations, nor hyphens. "40 km (25 mi) by 8 km (5 mi)" --> "40 × 8 km (25 × 5 mi)"? "Membership in the Knesset"—wrong preposition. "and the two countries have had a long history of economic and military cooperation despite Arab pressure. [126]" Errant space and vague statement: pressure on whom? For what? And more. Tony (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Raul65404:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the work you have done on Israel. I am concerned that without your guidance the article will rapidly deteriorate. Dealing with Israeli stuff, even in a neutral manner unfortunatley involves dealing with ignorant, hate-filled people. They drive me up the wall too. We should probably minimize dealings with the loonies the page attracts.
Telaviv108:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Don't give up, and please let me know if there's any sections you'd like any assistance with. I was skeptical about the FAC drive at first, but tegwarrior and his ilk have convinced me it is worthwhile. Schrodingers Mongoose17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to be accepted are the opinions of the source. "Freedom House's international research on the degree of political rights and civil liberties in the nations of the world found Israel to be the only one of eighteen Middle Eastern countries to qualify as a democracy--electoral and liberal.[1]" Now, what, really what, can be wrong with that? It says that Israel was the only one of the eighteen countries Freedom House surveyed in the Middle East group to qualify as what Freedom House calls a liberal democracy, and credits the statement as belonging to Freedom House. We are stating the words of the research. That cannot be changed. It has been matched practically verbatim. Try to accept that. --Shamir104:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your tireless work on Israel article. You worked through various edit wars, acts of vandalism, passionate arguments, and controversial reverts. Despite all this, the article was built into something neutral and eloquently written. Due in a significant part to your efforts, it become a featured article on September 30, 2007. Excellent work!--Jdcaust16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the barnstar; I'll put it on my user page. Also, you should probably create a user page, even if it's just a blank page; the red link just screams "newbie". -- tariqabjotu17:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
Congratulations for Israel becoming a featured article. I know it is already long, but you removed one of the sources I provided[1], which could be helpful to those who would like to understand the history of the Middle East very quickly. I understand that, the article is too long, but maybe if you look at it, you could find some space for it. I trust you on your decision, you're an expert and that's official. Squash Racket05:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a respected encyclopedia would make a better source than a flash movie (although the flash movies are quite interesting). -- tariqabjotu17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You blocked this user as "sockpuppet or otherwise a single-purpose account", and he is requesting unblock. Could you elaborate why this account violates WP:SOCK or some other policy so as to merit an immediate indefinite block? Yes, he seems to be here only to edit Instant-runoff voting, but he does not appear to be particularly disruptive about it. Sandstein05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ask10questions was not involved with any abusive editing, but was one of those suffering from reverts by the sock puppets and anonymous IP editor, who does finally give his name below. The only suspicious thing about this user was that she did not post to other articles. She is, indeed, a political activist interested in voting security. She is, also, a strong opponent of IRV, and some of her edits may be inappropriate, but that's why we like to have multiple editors from various points of view. There is no reason for her to be blocked.
User:Tbouricius is, as Mr. Richie notes below, a real person, not a sock puppet, and, as far as we know, had no other account. However, the timing of his registration, immediately after I began working on Instant Runoff Voting, could indicate meat puppetry. Nevertheless, he is a published author in the field, an associate of Mr. Richie, and the only problem I had with his participation was that he (1) condoned the anonymous IP reverts and (2) refused to allow removal of allegedly controversial material pending negotiation of the language. He thus continued the policies of the edit cabal which included Richie and the sock puppets, and started an edit war over it. I see no reason to continue his general blocking, but he should not, at his point, be allowed to edit the article itself, due to his formal Conflict of Interest and the edit war; he has a supporter active, and I would assist as well. Abd04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not looking into this matter any further. If this an issue of semantics, let me clear this up: they're all either sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or single-purpose accounts. Nothing is stopping them (or him or her, depending on who we're dealing with) from creating new accounts (or a new single account, if we're dealing with one person) and contributing positively and effectively to Wikipedia as a whole, instead of just proliferating a petty edit war about voting systems. I appreciate your input, but, in short, no, I'm not unblocking any of them. If you're unsatisfied with my answer, take this to WP:ANI. -- tariqabjotu04:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting some kind of freeze on this article makes sense, but your selective banning of users does not. I cannot understand how you could let Abd Lomax keep posting messages when he is clearly trying to disrupt the article with negative information. He is an avid advocate of another voting system and his posts are all about trying to make instant runoff voting look worse. He also is transparently wrong about Robert's Rules of Order, but now can make his edit without challenge. This seems like a weird process!
Note thi discussion going on at the election methods listserv to which Abd is an eager contributor -- the subjetd is "peer-reviewed work that is critical of IRV" that they want to find for the wikiepedia article.
Note also all of Abd's posts at the range voting listserv about how much he wants to hurt the IRV movement (see link below) and his many blog entries criticizing instant runoff voting. That's fine -- that's free speech. But when he has essentially unchecked power to edit the Wikipedia article, that seems ridiculous.
This is a guy who has been banned from the approval voting listserv for his actions there and now you've given him free rein at Wikipedia.
And yes, I'm with FairVote, an advocacy group that likes instant runoff voting. But this article for years was developed entirely without FairVote. We only have gotten involved in the past year or two to keep opponents from changing an article from what I think has been very fair and basically ready for something like "Encyclopedia Brittanica" to something different and slanted. For instance, Abd is trying to change the basic description of IRV from what has been in statutory laws and traditional descriptions to something he thinks is good for the spin he wants to make. A Joyce McCloy (the person behind "Ask 10 Questions") can hate IRV and post lots of highly misleading and/or inaccurate information about it on blogs and on her website, but if she goes through and lists 8 links in "opposition" that she has collected in her shabby report, let's link to her shabby report, as has been done -- but not to each of the links unless you ant IRV advocates to go through and post 20 separate links about groups and places that like IRV
They're engaged in a Wikipedia war, and as of now, you've taken sides.
- Rob Richie, FairVote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.37.54 (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posctript from Rob Richie. I should add that Terry Bouricius is NOT a sock puppet. He's a former state legislator and fair-minded. Yes, he's an advocate of instant runoff voting, but on the other hand, check out his edits on the article and find one example that is in error or opinion. Meanwhile, Lomax is given free rein.
Rob Richie is not merely "with" FairVote, he is its Executive Director. It is shameful that he was involved in massive violations of 3RR though anonymous IP edits. I rarely use the word "liar," but he has earned it. His comments above are dense with spin, but I see no need to involve you in all this controversy. You acted well; I think you cut a little deeply, but nothing was done that cannot be fixed. I have asked User:Scott Ritchie, who has had two featured articles on voting systems, to help with cleaning up the article, and he has agreed. As you know, I was also blocked, but it was easy to get it lifted. Thanks again. Abd04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, how am I a liar? You indeed should be careful using that word. I didn't contribute anonymously to be sneaky, but just because I'm not a Wikipedia hound and hadn't taken the time to try to figure out the "right" way to do it. But I sure think your interpretation of things like Robert's Rules is intellectually indefensible and there doesn't seem to be a transparent process at Wikipedia to stop such changes to the article from people we know are outright opponents like yourself. I indeed do have much to do, but I care about truth, and NOTHING I have done in relation to this article has been a lie. Meanwhile, I see some of your changes as clearly "spin" (explaining the count in a way that fits your purposes, but has never been the way the count has been objectively defined in law and objective descriptions)or simply wrong (like trying to say Robert's Rules doesn't recommend IRV for vote-by-mail elections, which it CLEARLY does. We know you're out to bug me and FairVote. You'vev said so yourself. So I shouldn't waste my time on you, but your mastery of the internal processes of Wikipedia has given you this power that just seems weird to a Wikipedia neophyte like me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.52.30 (talk • contribs)
Above you wrote, "Perhaps a checkuser can be done to confirm or de-confirm the blocks." Are you going to do that? Rdp4513:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have carefully reviewed your comments above and am concerned about the necessity and certainly the duration of this block. Per your request above, I am taking the matter to WP:ANI. Newyorkbrad14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the consensus on ANI, including but not limited to the observations by Jpgordon who is a checkuser, I have unblocked both users. Based on something I noticed while doing the unblocks, I would also respectfully urge that the "block this user from sending e-mail feature" should not be activated while blocking as a matter of routine, but only when there is reason to anticipate abuse of the e-mail capability. Newyorkbrad20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really expecting a reply (although you can reply if you want). It was more of a statement, and more of a statement for others (because I have a feeling that you have a bit of a better understanding of the circumstances regarding the IRV article than some of the other editors that commented). -- tariqabjotu12:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs)
I was not aware of that ArbCom ruling. Swatjester and I didn't discuss the block duration at all. I only discussed the actual block with him. I have now changed the duration to 5 days (he's already been blocked for 2 days) as per the ruling. Thanks for informing me. Nishkid64 (talk)06:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original block of Hajji Piruz was logged here: [2]. I might be wrong, but I think the revised block needs to be logged at the same page. Grandmaster15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled by your comment on the 3RR noticeboard. There were 5 other editors reverting him and one editor trying repeatedly to add the same material back in. That doesn't generally make the other editors "just as bad" that means the one editor has engaged in 4RR 3 times over. JoshuaZ18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snalwibma reverted Rucashost seven times in just over half an hour (and twice in one minute!). There may have been a couple others who were part of the fray several hours or days ago, but the point still remains that Snalwibma's rapid-fire reverting did nothing to help the situation. There is no reason for revert-warring to get this bad on an article. None. -- tariqabjotu20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. I didn't realize that. Thanks for the clarification (in which case I think it would have made more sense to block both of them than protect but that seems like a valid judgement call). JoshuaZ22:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I probably would have done the same thing myself had I gotten to the article before it was protected. Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh in my response on AN3; I was a bit frustrated and surprised three people had extrapolated what I said about Snalwibma to apply to everyone who was reverting Rucashost (and that there was a request for an apology and retraction based on that extrapolation). -- tariqabjotu01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shamir1
Any suggestion on what dispute resolution path to take? I don't think it's fair that he gets to monopolize —and reduce the quality of— articles just because he reverts endlessly. El_C07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think his talk page comments are the real issue. If Shamir edit wars enough, he can get blocked. But discussing this issue with him on the talk page is just an exercise in futility. If Shamir has been problematic on other articles as well, perhaps an RfC is in order (but I can't speak to that). -- tariqabjotu07:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My experience on the Winograd Commission was the same. I simply did not have the energy to keep going through such an elliptical exercize with him, so I simply withdrew — that withdrawal probably hurt Wikipedia, since it all happened when the entry was featured on the main page, and as the editor who has written 95 percent of the article (almost all of it remains unchanged), it could have really used me for active updates. It could still use me, right now. El_C07:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was an attempt to reflect a mid-point position between the different views as expressed on the talk page. My own personal view is that I don't think we should be using the term "liberal democracy" at all, since it is a loose definition that is contested in its application to Israel, as I pointed out using reliable sources on the talk page. In my opinion, we should use the term "parliamentary democracy" in place of "liberal democracy" within the context of the text of the version I reverted to. Discussion of the controversy over the applicability of the term "liberal democracy" or the degree of Israel's "democraticness" can take place int he body of the article using some of the sources I provided. The view that Israel is an ethnocracy or "ethnic democracy" is, contrary to Okedem's adamant refusals quite widespread when discussing Israel's "democratic" system. Tiamut12:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation
Tariq, with respect, if anything "sounds condescending, inaccurate, and, ultimately, unproductive," it is your response to me. I have indeed been following this discussion, and did not step in to "mediate." I stepped in because you and Shamir have been going in circles with your arguments. I agree consensus has been reached, I am the one who pointed it out. I felt the need to step in because clearly you two are not going to convince one another, and because all I have seen from either of you, at this point, are personal attacks.
As for why I reverted the sentence, it is the same reason Okedem reverted your attempt at a new citation: I do not feel one person's actions should be responsible for changing the article. If that is not clear to you I suggest you re-read what I wrote. Whatever your attachment to this article, and whatever your frustration with other users, please refrain from insulting the intelligence of those who are trying to wind down the situation.
Here: "I've restored the sentence back to its original form. By "original," I mean the form it was in when this article received featured status. Let's not compromise this any further -- and by that, I mean let's not compromise the integrity of this article, and the stability of its featured status." SpiderMMB17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this matter is going to end, there's a good chance the current sentence will not remain. Just telling Shamir to drop this has proven ineffective and, as you said, he is unlikely to change his opinion on this piece. I read the above statement you issued earlier, but your reversion didn't seem to make sense because the new sentence offered a resolution which Shamir's "policy" arguments could not refute. -- tariqabjotu18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to convince you that I'm not mediating, suffice it to say that inserting an opinion which is neither yours nor Shamir's, and asking that the both of you "cool off," is not mediation. I'm entitled to voice my opinion on the discussion page, regardless of how that sits with either you or Shamir. That aside, think what you will, I don't intend to waste time on this.
Now, as to the issue at hand, I'll explain. The current truncated version does nothing to refute Shamir's policy arguments. If you shorten it to "Israel is a liberal democracy" and cite to Freedom House, he can still make all the same arguments about how Freedom House is improperly cited. Why not just be done with it, and cite to something else? Then no argument can be made that we aren't "citing Freedom House properly." SpiderMMB20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be participating in that discussion. I agree his actions have been disruptive, but I have not been involved enough to take it any further. Had I been involved more, I'm not sure this is the route I would have taken anyway. Regardless, good luck with your future editing. My appreciation of your insight was not supposed to be an "empty compliment," it was supposed to be genuine. I think you are a great editor, but I also think you shouldn't let things get to you so much. Hopefully, this current dispute and others like it come to a quick end. SpiderMMB19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually love to get another voice in there, as I'm finding it very difficult to maintain patience with PHG's tactics. Tariq, could you please pop in again? For example, this edit by PHG, where he removed every single entry under the "Attempts" category and moved it to Disputed,[3] and is asking for citations even though I've spent hours detailing cites at User:Elonka/Mongol historians. It is my opinion that PHG is just not arguing in good faith -- he's either extraordinarily befuddled, or he's being deliberately obtuse and/or argumentative, but I'm feeling more and more like the mediation is just a waste of my time. I haven't given up total hope yet, but I think we're going to need some guidance to get things back on track. --Elonka03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my thoughts on Talk:Israel and endorsed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shamir1. Sorry for not being around to contribute to the discussion, as I've been pretty busy lately and have not been on. I honestly thought I was helping out, but apparently I naively stoked the flames. I guess I could just say, "lesson learned." Hopefully, my endorsement can help settle this in a way that my attempt at mediation could not. --Jdcaust02:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I really want to apologize. I don't think I realized Shamir's history. After posting a comment on his talk page about this, I looked back at his archives and saw that Israel is not the first controversy that has followed him. On the one hand, I think he honestly does want to improve wikipedia. On the other, he is way too stubborn about his views and edits and doesn't respect consensus. Its ridiculous that a discussion on one sentence has filled up half of the Talk:Israel page. Regardless, I never meant to stir something up that you guys had nearly already resolved. Hopefully, it will soon be settleed with the RFC. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. --Jdcaust03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I find despicable was your answer, particularly towards VartanM, on the incident board. VartanM edited an article by adding this [4], Parishan retaliated within a wide range of articles. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. He then finishes it by ironically reverting VartanM. [24]
All these can be considered reverts given that Parishan has attempted the same in the past as documented during the last arbitration. [25]
This was obviously and CLEARLY against proposed remedy 2, as it isn’t only breaking WP:POINT but it is also a massive collection of reverts to his previous attempts, which he did very aggressively on multiple articles. But instead of listening to VartanM’s complaint, you preferred to accuse him instead and called him a nationalist. Very nice of an admin, but after all the stuff I have witnessed… I am everything but surprised. - Fedayee01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El Al
I have no problem with you moving it back although it was moved to what is the full name of airline. Im not really sure what to do in this instance?-Flymeoutofhere —Preceding comment was added at 13:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tariqabjotu, hi, I don't mean to be a pest, and I do understand that off-wiki activities can take priority. But I did want to point out that you haven't been in the mediation at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance since October 25. PHG and I are no closer to finding common ground than we were before mediation started, a month ago. We really need a mediator who's going to be in there at least a few times a week, otherwise I'm afraid that this is just going to be a fruitless endeavor. Do you think that you'll be able to mediate on a more frequent basis? Or if not, could you please suggest another mediator who might have more time? I'd really rather find a way through this dispute via mediation, rather than having to escalate through some other part of the DR process, but without a mediator to do the mediation, it is really limiting my options. :/ --Elonka16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize that I haven't contributed to the mediation in a week. That's a longer gap than I would like, but far from alarming. Part of my absence was due to me being out of town this weekend. I suppose I could have told you all about that in advance, but I didn't think those days would be a problem. However, I understand you want the mediation to be more fast-paced. So, I'll devote more time to it; contributing to it a few times a week, or more often than that, should not detract from my (cumbersome) real-life endeavors too much. You are still free to change mediators at any time though. -- tariqabjotu02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) I've actually heard great things about you, and was very pleased when I saw that you'd taken the mediation. I was also glad to see that you'd worked on other Middle East topics in the past, since it meant you might have more familiarity with the area, its history, and the related reference works (as opposed to having a mediator whose main area of expertise was, say, Brazilian sports figures or botany or something). I'm glad to hear that you're back and will be able to continue as mediator, and hope that we may be able to make some progess towards a mutually-agreeable compromise. :) --Elonka02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tariqabjoyu. Could you please explain for me what the sticking point in our mediation was? You stated that it was a minor dispute at the most and you didn't appear to see what the hubbub was all about, leading us to believe that your decision would be quick and forthcoming. Yet this dragged on for weeks until finally one of the participants left in frustration, afterwhich you speedily closed the dispute (so it didn't appear as if you had simply forgotten us altogether, but simply were reluctant to act upon the dispute). Everyone had put forth their arguments and responses in a timely manner, so I doubt you were simply waiting for us instead. I see that you were out of town for a couple of days, but that should not have hindered a dispute that had been open for over a month. I admit that I'm extremely disappointed by this after the rest of us had been willing to put our time and research into this in order to see a viable outcome only to be put on the backburner, which is slightly insulting. Surely there was justification for this? What was it about our dispute that precluded a decision on your part, and a decision within a reasonable amount of time at that? --ScreaminEagle00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that it was a minor dispute at the most and you didn't appear to see what the hubbub was all about, leading us to believe that your decision would be quick and forthcoming.
That appears to be the source of the confusion: you have been misled about the concept of mediation if you believe there was going to be a "decision" by me. Mediators are not judges; they will help people solve their disputes, but they don't make binding rulings like ArbCom. I am permitted to make recommendations that seem to point toward a resolution, but there was no reason for me to do that here as the mediation had ground to a halt (since, apparently, there was no major dispute). I don't need to (or even should) decide anything; the lack of participation from the disputants is a tacit agreement that either the issue isn't a big deal to the participants anymore and/or that the issue is resolved. So, in a way, I was waiting for you all. I was waiting for you all to proceed with something other than statements that corroborated the idea that there was no major dispute. That never happened. Had not Hotfeba (or anyone else) withdrew and the discussion proceeded to be dormant, I would have closed the case due to disinterest. I'm not going to goad you all to argue over something where no argument exists. -- tariqabjotu03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. You are correct in what I expected being not the case in reality. The whole issue was that every one of us agreed on the issue but for one editor, the one who took this issue to mediation in the first place. We called our agreement a consensus; however, he was unwilling to accept that decision and brought it to mediation expecting to "win." What we were hoping would come from this process is some rational outside party agreeing that we indeed had a concensus on the issue, with one dissenting opinion (which is, what I understand from WP guidelines, can still constitute a consensus). Or, that same source would tell us we didn't have a consensus at all and we were expecting too much here.
We didn't say anymore in the mediation because there was nothing left to be said on our end--we'd made our case, the same case we've made to him repeatedly, and he was unwilling to bend. What else could we have said? Ryecatcher even proposed a title that could possibly have made him slightly happier, but nothing. After that, with no outside party like yourself commenting on which solution made more sense, what is the point? If we couldn't reach a decision before mediation, what hope is there afterwards when one party can't accept the consensus of every other party involved and the outside party isn't able to lead the discussion towards a resolution; no resolution was ever even suggested from what I could see. This is my point: if you never planned to give your own opinion on the matter and only ask the questions that have been asked several times before, there was no way this issue was ever going to move past the deadlock that it ended in. --ScreaminEagle19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the reason for the closure of the case to include the fact that there wasn't much to discuss, but that's the most I will do at this moment. -- tariqabjotu20:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Franco-Mongol alliance
Hi Tariqabjotu. What I actually had in mind was your following statement: "Well, what do you think of beginning the article with something to the effect of "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance#References), as PHG suggested in the comment just prior to yours here?", which I did understand as an appareciation of the fact that my proposal is actually a compromise proposal which incorporates both points of view. Best regards. PHG11:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. It was not an appreciation for your proposal. I was just asking for Elonka's opinion on the sentence in the same manner I asked for your opinion on Elonka's suggestions here. Also, this page is not conducive to friendly mediation and suggests to me you are preparing some sort of action against Elonka instead of serious working with her. -- tariqabjotu16:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking and Reviewing Request
alSala';amu alaykum wa rahamtu alLahi wa baraka'atuh. I wish to request that this page should be locked from editing for now. Someone, within the past 48 hours, labelled Serj Tankian as "Borat".
That's not a good enough reason to protect an article. As for bringing Beirut up to featured status... I think it's got a long way to go. Take a look at other city articles – Jerusalem, New York City, Mumbai, and others found under Wikipedia:Featured articles#Geography and places. The lists under the "Districts & Neighborhoods", "Colleges and universities", "Public Spaces", and "Famous Births" need to be replaced with prose or removed altogether. You should have an well-sourced article made up almost entirely of prose. -- tariqabjotu17:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Mediation
Hi Tariq
I'm a bit confused about this... Isn't this section for other parties to add issues? It is a related dispute in which both editors have been involved since a while and it would be helpful if it got cleared-up too.
I'm kind of new at WP:RFMs, so I'm probably doing something the wrong way... Do I have to get both parties to agree to add the Schechtman dispute to the mediation?
The problem as that you're not one of the parties. That section is really for GHcool (talk·contribs), the signatory under "Parties' agreement to mediate" who wasn't the one who filed the mediation, to add other issues. -- tariqabjotu14:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, "other parties" as in "involved parties not having initiated the mediation"... All clear, thanks! pedro gonnet - talk - 12.11.2007 14:38
At the same mediation, I'm alarmed to see one of the parties immediately quote a source that apparently specialises in hatred, both at the individual and ethnic level. We should use sources that speak of "Palestinian duplicity" only when we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity". PRtalk12:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different understanding
Salam Tariq,
I understand GHCool main argument is not the lack of use of primary sources by Finkelstein (that is in fact the critics made by other scholars concerning Finkelstein work and what he will find doens't concern the topic which is the palestinian exodus) BUT that GHCool evaluates the reliability of Finkelstein by pointing out that no scholar who does not share his mind recognize his scholarship.
So I think it would be better to ask JaapBoBo to find scholars from the "other side" who recognised the quality of his work even if they don't share his analysis and to ask GHCool to find what wikipedia policy recommands not to use people who are not recognised by their pairs. Alithien16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is his scholarship very widely recognised (check Google Scholar, Norman Finkelstein is streets better than many others who have been used even in this very same article) but the validity of his most ground-breaking thesis has now been recognised in an Israeli court - attorney convicted of stealing millions from Holocaust survivors. PRtalk13:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've unprotected GW, so I'd better explain why. The main reason is that we (errrm, as in the people that edit there regularly) are doing our best to avoid having it protected, and would like to try the 1RR option for that particular sentence.
The edit warring is not too severe, if you mentally remove the last rv-pair, since DH broke 1RR over that. I've blocked him for that, which will lead to howls of anguish.
Raul's rv's: I haven't read through the 3RR page stuff or the RFC yet, but just looking at the edit, I'm inclinded to say that O has a history of trouble making and the edit, within the context of the GW article, could well be considered vandalism. It certainly was not a credible effort to improve the article
Oh, sorry, I should add: it will not take you long to discover that I have an interest in this article. I believe that I'm acting fairly, but others may well not. If you wish to re-protect it and/or remove my last revert, then of course you must do so William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your revert and re-protected Global warming. Considering you are part of the dispute, I don't believe it was a good idea for you to unprotect the article yourself and then block on the basis of a 1RR instituted by someone other than ArbCom. I have, however, shortened the protection to five days. The 1RR rule is clearly not working out well, though. -- tariqabjotu23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the recent discussion, I think it is possible to form an interim consensus for that dispute now. Is it possible the article could be unlocked sooner than the 22nd?Zebulin (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is not vandalism and it was just coincidence that the semi-protection came after your edit. I semi-protected the article due to the large amount of vandalism that has been occurring on the article recently, even though not all recent edits have been vandalism. Since I only implemented semi-protection, you are still able to edit the article. -- tariqabjotu18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had, and was just checking to see what I could find. As a newbie with the mop, I'll leave it entirely up to you to decide whether to unprotect and block, leave protected and block anyway, or leave it as it is. There's clearly a history to this situation that I hadn't appreciated, so take whatever action you think best. Regards, BencherliteTalk16:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lock of List of Canadian monarchs
Tariqabjotu- I noted your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I understand what you must see, but please understand that it's the tip of a very deep iceberg. I'm trying to deal with User:TharkunColl's overall disruptive and incivil demeanour, and, in the process, have filed a Wikiquette alert accordingly. It gives much background into this issue. Attention from outside parties would be greatly valuable, so please, if you feel it necessary, weigh in. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a "warning" it was a caution (good faith at that, I hoped it was a mistake), as he blatantly refactored the talk page and deleted quite a few comments. I don't see how a friendly reminder that, that is not kosher, was unnecessary. On what grounds did you revert my note? Newtman (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that that template said closest to what you wanted to say, but it's rather condescending to use a template for an experienced editor, particularly in a situation where the error was not intentionally out the error, so you used a standard template that gives extraneous information: I'm sure Victor knows what the sandbox is and he does not need to be reminded about it. Also, you acknowledge that you hope the major issues with the refactoring were a mistake, but used a template that says "Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism." -- tariqabjotu07:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I even used the template was because you didn't leave a message when you reverted his refactor, and I wanted to make sure he was aware of why that occurred. In my late at night haze, a template seemed a valid of way of doing that. I'm glad to see that you later added a comment to the talk page apropos to his mistake. Newtman (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You hardly gave me a chance to comment. There were four minutes between the revert and my comment on Victor's talk page, and there would have been even less time in between if not for the fact that I encountered the edit conflict with your comment. -- tariqabjotu07:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a comment in your revert edit summary. Generally reverts of other's work seem to have a word or two on the reason. Anyway, no hard feelings I hope. Newtman (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Tariqabjotu, hope you're well. I've just been taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under supervision and see you placed Aynabend under supervised editing. I've added a few users recently for edit warring on pages related to the page, but Kirill clarified that for an editor to be placed under supervision, there must be incivility with the edit warring, but I can't see any incivility coming from Anyabend. Could you look at removing him please? I've just removed quite a few of the users I placed under supervision for the same reason. Cheers and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does being a party to one of the Armenia-Azerbaijan cases have any bearing on whether a user can have supervised editing applied to him/her? I notice being a party to the first case was given as a reason for some of the editors to be put on supervision. -- tariqabjotu22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ryan and Tariqabjotu, I have indeed never been involved in any discussion that had incivility in it. My role was to find a common ground by bringing third party sources, develop and edit small articles, and sometimes being against the edit warring that had no scholastic backing. I also think parole discussed here [[26]] was unfair and would be better if it was removed. Thank you for any help in this regard. --Aynabend (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: BLock on Elhector for Talk: An Incovenient Truth
Tariqabjotu,
I'm asking for clarification on the blocking of Elhector.
First, let me let you know, I'm not him, I'm not related,
I don't even know him. I'm asking for clarification as I'm
still learning the rules here.
(That's why I read 3rr and the rest of the admin boards!)
Anyrate - he posted a long comment on the talk page of
"An Inconvenient Truth". OrangeMarlin removed his comment.
Yes, he re-inserted his comments back in 5 times and yes
3rr means you revert 3 times you can get blocked or banned.
However, I thought removing someone else's comments
(especially on a talk page) was considered vandalism and
therefore exempt from 3RR. Woulnd't this be the case here ?
Thanks !
KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused on this one myself. I've asked a some of the admins involved a few questions on this and haven't heard anything. Just to give you a little more info though, the comments that kept getting reverted weren't even mine. They were another editors comments. That's why I'm still kind of confused. It's not like I was trying to defend my own comments or anything. I was simpley reverting the inappropriate removal of another editor's comments from the talk page as I felt the manner in which they were being removed was censorship and vandalism. What made it worse was that it was an admin doing the removing. Elhector (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From where I stand, it's a grey area. If it's looks diruptive, I'll take it as such. The fact that you were reverted by multiple editors gives me the impression that there was a valid reason for the removal of the comment in question. Additionally, you were warned about the 3RR rule. As noted by Allison on your talk page, instead of taking the issue up the appropriate admin noticeboard (or simply asking about the removal on the talk page) after that warning, you proceeded to revert again. And I'm not sure why. -- tariqabjotu08:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is one of the fundamental problems with Wikipedia. Most of the time admins such as yourself are so overworked and flooded with things that you don't have enough time to fully investigate the situation. I did in fact place a notice on an admin notice board. It was ignored. I also went more than out of my way to warn the other users involved before reverting each time. Lastly, there was originally only 1 editor reverting. The other editor Orangemarlin has never been invloved with that article and only stepped in to be uncivil and "back up" the incorrect behavior after he saw that I had warned the original editor. There was absolutely no valid reason for the removal of that discussion other than censorship. So in conlcusion I was blocked for reverting vandalism and being more than civil about it might add. The other 2 users involved were uncivil, used threats, and were the ones breaking policy. If you get a chance you should go back and look at all the conversation between myself and other editors involved. If you don't have time and would like I can provide the diffs to back up what I'm talking about. Again, I don't really blame you, I blame what seems to be a broken system at this point that does not prevent admins from inappropriately running roughshod over regular editors and acting like they own articles. I know that it was only a very short block and there isn't anything that can be done at this point, it's just the principle of the matter, you know what I mean? Thanks! Elhector (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to ask if you could step into a little situation I have here. It's been some months since I was last on Wikipedia and some things have changed around, so I don't know where and how to report this. I have a problem with a disruptive and uncivil editor who is harassing me with links to defamatory sites. After I removed a partisan and original research external link from the links section of Sathya Sai Baba, Kkrystian promptly began a mini-edit war which continued even after I explained to him on his talk page why said link was inadmissible. He continued to re-add this link but has stopped now as another editor has stepped in to seek consensus. If you ask me, there is no consensus to be sought since this issue was discussed at ArbCom and all editors agreed to leave it out do to its violation of WP:OR, WP:EL, and possibly more.
However, on a related article (Sai Baba of Shirdi, Kkrystian has been removing reliably sourced information because he does not agree with it, stating that the words "violent" and "uncouth" is the author's POV and thus inadmissible. You can familiarise yourself with that discussion here and here. As Kkrystian has declared on his userpage that he is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba (and by extension, Shirdi Sai Baba) in his real life, there may be conflict-of-interest issues here. Either way, it seems that editors generally agree that reliably-sourced references should not be removed. Kkrystian had been engaging in an edit war over that issue and was blocked for 24-hours over 3RR by yourself here. He refused to discuss the issue on his talk-page or on the article talk-page until after his block, preferring to explain his actions in edit summaries. But it appears that he hasn't learnt much from his 3RR block because he has begun indulging in personal attacks on me over at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba by way of posting URLS that happen to be defamatory against me and which include my surname in the URL title, as well as insinuating that I have ulterior motives for removing a link that is violating WP:EL and contributes nothing to the article.
After I informed Kkrystian on his talk page that he shouldn't be indulging in personal attacks here and that he shouldn't be revealing other people's personal information (even indirectly) here, he simply told me to "get lost". I even tried to refactor the discussion as per WP:RPA#External_links and WP:LINKLOVEhere, but I noticed just now that he has restored this link here that is defamatory against me and which includes my surname in the URL title. He is clearly uncivil, personally attacking me in a hostile way, revealing my personal information, and harassing me without any provocation. Do you think that this issue could be treated with a block that I think, by all accounts, is well-deserved?
I left Wikipedia for several months because of all these harassment issues and, after feeling ready to return in the last few days or so, did not think I would have to face these types of unprovoked attacks so soon. Please help out, thanks. - Ekantiktalk19:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just by way of giving an update, it appears that after another editor tried to refactor the discussion whis displayed that defamatory link, Kkrystian reverted it back. I have also discovered that at Talk:Sai Baba of Shirdi he displays the same pattern of disruptive editing and removing reliably-sourced information simply because he does not like it. This is a clear case of tendentious editing I believe. Thanks, Ekantiktalk03:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to block him now. He has not made too many edits since the first block and there's not; I'll make a note of this on Kkrystian's talk page and then see what happens next. -- tariqabjotu04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I notice that he continues to malign me on the talk-page here by continually displaying a shocking ignorance of WP policies with regards to acceptable source material, as well as making continual bad-faith assumptions on my part. That too, without any provocation and with every effort on my part to make him understand how to edit properly in accordance with WP policies. I'm about to put in a request for oversight regarding those URL-diffs but frankly speaking, his behaviour is becoming seriously unproductive and disrupting. Sorry to take up your time. Thanks, Ekantiktalk16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, sorry to bother you again. I'm afraid the guy just won't stop attacking. See here and here for some more examples. Apparently I am now getting accused (?) of stalking the guy when I am just editing related articles on the same subject (Sai Baba of Shirdi). And the second example is just an attack on constructive criticism regarding the availability of better sources. Is there anything you can do, he completely ignores all his warnings, please help, thanks, Ekantiktalk17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Atarot
Hello,
Regarding your phrasing, the reason I changed it back was that 'Atarot is home to Atarot Airport' isn't saying much. To be really consistent, you could also say it is 'home to Atarot industrial park' instead of 'Jerusalem's largest industrial park'. However, the airport, like the park, is significant because of the city that it served, and in whose municipal boundaries it is located. TewfikTalk10:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jesuislafete recently wrote this on Kuburas user talk, encouraging him to have an edit war with me regarding Široka Kula massacre. I have had an argument with Kubura wheter the massacre that happened there was a war crime. He has failed to show any source that states that what happened was a war crime. But now Jesuislafete has joined in and it seems as he want´s Kubura support in a revert-war. Paulcicero16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
NHRHS2010 (talk·contribs) 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.
Hi Tariqabjotu. I know that this mediation must be frustrating, but I guess it is the only way to move forward. Even if it's time-consuming, it is probably better than edit-warring and long talk-page arguments. I really appreciate many of your comments and wish you could agree to keep your role for the time being. Best regards. PHG (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not. The mediation is actually not very time-consuming for me, and it would become less so as my semester draws to a close in the coming weeks. As I noted in my closing rationale, I stated there was the participants' unwillingness to participate in good faith. For example, every week or two, someone has to begin finger-pointing that the reason the mediation isn't working is because of the other participant. I am not going to elaborate on my specific reasons any further unless another mediator asks me to, because such reasons are aimed more at one of you than the other. But, ultimately, no, I am not going to re-assume my role as mediator in this case. The case is closed. -- tariqabjotu15:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you added the weapons field[27]. If you agree that the weapon doesn't need to be in the infobox, would you agree to remove it? I really don't think this is the kind of very important first-glance info that needs to be emphasised like that. I dorftrottel I talk I 04:37, December 8, 2007
You linked to the wrong place. Regardless, I have a feeling you didn't read my addendum, which clarified that I don't believe that was what you were doing. I stand by my point, though, that it may have looked bad to some because you have been a strong supporter of Elonka for quite some time. If you're willing to put up with that opposition, and defend your actions (hopefully, beyond your curt statement in response to Johnbod), then fine; that's up to you. (Yes, I know this seems reminiscent of the discussion over whether I should have !voted on Elonka's RfA.) -- tariqabjotu00:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
