||This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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 .
Intothefire 05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach with this. I would not be surprised if the article needs to be protected again. -- tariqabjotu 03:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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. Raul654 20:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- How far have you gotten with my advice? Raul654 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so far so good. Concentrate on Tony's objections. Raul654 01:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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). -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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. " Errant space and vague statement: pressure on whom? For what? And more. Tony (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Raul654 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
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. Telaviv1 08:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Mongoose 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
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." 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. --Shamir1 04:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't bother me on my talk page; I can read Talk:Israel just fine. -- tariqabjotu 04:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Tireless Contributor - Featured Artcile
||The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
|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!--Jdcaust 16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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". -- tariqabjotu 17:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations for Israel becoming a featured article. I know it is already long, but you removed one of the sources I provided, 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 Racket 05:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I believe a respected encyclopedia would make a better source than a flash movie (although the flash movies are quite interesting). -- tariqabjotu 17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
Automatically delivered by COBot 03:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
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. Sandstein 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- When you consider the actions of him in addition to the actions of P-j-t-a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Acct4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and Tbouricius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (all of whom I indefinitely blocked), and in light of the recent indefinite block of BenB4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who Moreschi believed was a sockpuppet of now-banned Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the disruption becomes a bit more obvious. Perhaps a checkuser can be done to confirm or de-confirm the blocks, but I'm willing to block first and then check; the occurrence of so many SPAs and socks on one (rather unusual) article can't be a coincidence. -- tariqabjotu 07:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense. Thanks. Sandstein 07:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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. Abd 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
<< http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-September/020885.html [Election-Methods] peer-reviewed work that is critical of IRV Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr Fri Sep 28 07:23:13 PDT 2007 >>
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.
<< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/ >>
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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. Abd 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
- I have serious concerns about this series of blocks and will post to the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:ANI) for discussion. Newyorkbrad 14:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Unblock request on one of your blocks
Please provide input on the unblock request on one of your blocks, pending at User talk:Tbouricius. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- See User_talk:Tariqabjotu#Ask10questions.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. -- tariqabjotu 04:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Above you wrote, "Perhaps a checkuser can be done to confirm or de-confirm the blocks." Are you going to do that? Rdp45 13:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone can file a checkuser request. -- tariqabjotu 14:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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. Newyorkbrad 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
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. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I know what the e-mail blocking feature is for. See also my latest comment on the ANI section. -- tariqabjotu 04:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Will respond on ANI in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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). -- tariqabjotu 12:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
- The original block of Hajji Piruz was logged here: . I might be wrong, but I think the revised block needs to be logged at the same page. Grandmaster 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filled out. If you would like to participate, please take the opportunity to agree. --Shamir1 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I noted my position on the mediation page. -- tariqabjotu 00:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
- For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
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. JoshuaZ 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- tariqabjotu 20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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). JoshuaZ 22:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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). -- tariqabjotu 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
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_C 07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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). -- tariqabjotu 07:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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_C 07:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The way I understood it is the "previous version reverted to" was the edit before all the reverting, which would have been this bot edit. From there, User:Derek.cashman made the four reverts, which would be a violation of WP:3RR. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
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. Tiamut 12:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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." SpiderMMB 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- tariqabjotu 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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." SpiderMMB 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I responded on Talk:Israel, which I notice contains a slightly different comment from the one above. -- tariqabjotu 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
RFC discussion of User:Shamir1
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. SpiderMMB 19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Elonka wrote me about this mediation. I would be willing to take part in this as a third party, or to check assertions about source material as needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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, 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. --Elonka 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have commented on the RfM. And, no, I don't believe Pm/Sept should get involved. -- tariqabjotu 03:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: RFC discussion of User:Shamir1
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. --Jdcaust 02:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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. --Jdcaust 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Certified. El_C 06:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Your wording is better. Thanks. --Stephen 1-800-STEVE 01:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. -- tariqabjotu 01:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your answer...
What I find despicable was your answer, particularly towards VartanM, on the incident board. VartanM edited an article by adding this , Parishan retaliated within a wide range of articles. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . He then finishes it by ironically reverting VartanM. 
All these can be considered reverts given that Parishan has attempted the same in the past as documented during the last arbitration. 
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. - Fedayee 01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
DC meetup #3
Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
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. :/ --Elonka 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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. :) --Elonka 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see this comment left on an article that is currently being mediated: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3rd_US_Infantry&action=edit&undoafter=167284772&undo=169297419 -TabooTikiGod 03:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- That was left over a year ago, Taboo. As in, the first time we went through this debate and reached a reasonable consensus.--ScreaminEagle 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
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? --ScreaminEagle 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
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. -- tariqabjotu 03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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. --ScreaminEagle 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- tariqabjotu 20:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
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. PHG 11:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- tariqabjotu 16:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)