This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tariqabjotu. 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.
Joke
Stop kidding me, I didn't do anything do get a ban. Let me check if u warned the other guy for calling me "antisemitic" without any proofs. You can't ban me for my opinions about the Israel - we have the Freedom of Speech Act and Constitution what makes it and the thing in the topic of Israel was about the article not from nowhere so you can do nothing. By the way, I know many Admins so if you will ban me I will be unbanned very fast. I don't care, and I can report you to the main thing for being only "one side" Admin so don't be too fast coz u can get banned too. Read again Wikipedia's fair being policy and neutrality. And of the topic because I have to write some articles and i don't have more time. Take care.
Your threat means nothing to me. Your recent comments, especially your latest one, on Talk:Israel were clearly personal attacks on okedem, Jews, and Israelis. As I said, another highly offensive comment like that will lead to a block. I don't care if you contact another admin; your infraction is apparent. -- tariqabjotu23:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Give me the exact line where I attacked anyone (my comments were based on the movies from YouTube). Do you gave warning to the other guy for calling me all over "antisemitic" ? Be fair in your judging, do not take only one side of the conflict (as you do now).
"antisemitism" oh no I forgot thats the tactic what you use over there isn't it ? Yes, we can see how you and your brothers treat people in Israel (movies above) - "Go back to England !", "This is not your land Christian !", "We killed Jesus and we are proud of it" etc. From now on I will call you anti christian and polonophob to be equal.
And the remainder of that post was baiting – at best. You titled the section, "The Jewish world domination conspiracy theory". Again, further baiting. Yes, okedem referring to your remarks as anti-semitic. I'm not going to warn him or block him for those comments, because that's clearly what they were. Hatred of Jews or Israelis, or anyone for that matter, are unwelcome on Wikipedia. If you have something to say regarding what should be put in the article, you are welcome to comment on that. Your are not, however, welcome to post comments that simply attack other editors and promote hate. -- tariqabjotu23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If you call freedom of speech and rights to believs "hate" and "antisemitism" you have go to the doctor. I will not argue with you anymore because I will not waste anymore of my time.
Sorry to bother you. I'm not familiar with the administrative structure of wikipedia. However, it seems as though there is a concerted effort to have me stop editing pages that deal with abortion by at least two editors. Can you tell me how I should handle this? Would you mind taking a look? --IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note at my talkpage. The matter was discussed here. I will pop over to the assassination talkpage and see if there is consensus to lift the sprotect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Causes mediation
Dear TariqAbjotu, please check my edits here. I'd like to get the mediation back in public. First of all because many other editors are interested (i.e. DavidSher, Ceedjee and PR), but second, and more important, because acceptance by third parties of any compromise reached by GHcool and me is gravely enhanced by discussing it in public.
I think I can get PR to agree to the rules I propose. So, if I can, I hope GHcool will agree to put the mediation in public space again.
Given the at times erratic nature of IP addresses, I am unwilling to block one unless there is evidence of ongoing vandalism. I don't exactly see that with 63.167.255.202, so I'm not going to block that IP. -- tariqabjotu22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
1948 Exodus mediation
I am writing to you with regards to the 1948 Palestinian exodus mediation underway. I understand that nerves have been rubbed raw by outside attempts to "influence" the threeway mediation; in an effort to avoid exacerbating that I'm posting an identical message on the individual talk pages of Tariq, Ghcool, and JaapBoBo, and nothing at the mediation page itself. I am sorry if this is late in the game, but I've only now become aware that there was a dispute over Finkelstein's status as an RS. I'd like to clarify a few misstatements that have been made about his work and career, and – with your forebearance – make a few brief remarks about the policy issues at stake here. While I appreciate (and applaud) your goal of narrowly circumscribing the scope of this mediation, the fact is that any decision you come to will have broader implications. These should be weighed and understood.
Briefly, regarding Finkelstein:
Ghcool is correct that his research consists primarily of secondary sources. Tariq's clarification about the distinctions between primary and secondary sources is well-taken, but it is true that most of Finkelstein's scholarship consists of what he calls "forensic scholarship" – that is, critical evaluation of the sources, methodologies, and conclusions of other works of scholarship. He doesn't, that is, do much in the way of original archival research (the Holocaust Industry being a notable exception, with its investigation into reparations lawsuits and so on). It is not clear to me why Ghcool finds this a disqualifying factor in his status as a reliable source; generally speaking, "secondary scholarship" of this sort is regarded as a very worthy enterprise in academia. At any rate, it would certainly seem to have no bearing on the present dispute, which is about whether Finkelstein's claims about the centrality of "transfer" to "Zionist thinking" can be included in this article. The relevant criterion here is Finkelstein's interpretive competence, not his background as an archival or documentary scholar in the Benny Morris mold.
The mediation discussion thus far has tended, unfortunately, to conflate Finkelstein's employment status (in the wake of his highly politicized tenure battle at DePaul) with his status as a scholar. These are entirely separate issues, and only the latter properly has any bearing on his status as an RS in Wikipedia. His status as a scholar is established by his track record of high-profile peer-review publications (his most recent book was published by one of the most prestigious university presses in the world, the University of California at Berkeley's), and the high regard for his work among eminent scholars in his own field, such as political scientists Ian Lustick and John Mearsheimer; and in related historical fields, such as Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg (author of the three-volume Destruction of the European Jews and the so-called "Dean of Holocaust studies"), the historian of nations and nationalism Eric Hobsbawm, Middle East historian Avi Shlaim, and the Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin.
These endorsements should be contrasted with the criticisms Ghcool cites, which come from a popular (i.e. non-peer-review) book by celebrity defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, an internal memorandum from a once-urban-planning professor and now-faculty-dean at DePaul University (Chuck Suchar), and a phone interview with Benny Morris posted on CAMERA's website.
With this distinction between Finkelstein's employment status and his scholarly status in mind, a few remarks need to be made about the former. Ghcool describes Finkelstein "quitting in a huff because DePaul denied him a tenure position." This is false. In fact, DePaul cancelled Finkelstein's classes days before the fall semester began, reneging on the customary and contractually stipulated obligation to grant a final year of teaching to a professor denied tenure. Facing mounting disgust among DePaul faculty over the administration's breach of good faith in the Finkelstein matter, growing student protests, a vowed hunger strike by Finkelstein himself, and formal action from the American Association of University Professors for the breach of contract, DePaul negotiated a private settlement with Finkelstein.
Ghcool writes that he "agrees with most of the academics" in Middle East studies in finding Finkelstein "an unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst." It's hard to know what he's referring to. The Middle East Studies Association of America in fact publicly expressed dismay at the denial of tenure to Finkelstein, and made clear they believed the decision was the result of undue outside political pressure from non-specialists like Dershowitz. It's also worth noting that Finkelstein's tenure bid was endorsed by a strong majority of the scholars in DePaul's political science department, who considered Dershowitz's 50-page submission at length and rejected it. A good portion of his submission consisted of "Top Ten" lists of things said about Finkelstein, compiled by Dershowitz's students, including – I'm not kidding here – “he's poison, he's a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find under a rock” (Leon Wieseltier) and "Mr. Finkelstein is full of shit" (Elan Steinberg). The committee didn't know what to do with Dershowitz's compilation of obscenities ("it must be noted that the materials presented as evidence vary wildly in terms of quality, tone and subject matter," their report drolly remarks), but they methodically rejected every piece of the "evidence of academic misconduct" written up by Dershowitz himself (including what Ghcool calls the "whole chapter [of The Case for Peace] that criticizes Finkelstein and 2 of his buddies," which Dershowitz included in his dossier). They noted that none of it addressed Finkelstein's scholarship at all, and instead drew on oral statements (a Q & A session, a C-SPAN interview) which involved material "apparently rendered from memory in an imperfect or summative fashion" – and even so, the committee found that "Dershowitz's charges were almost entirely of a hair-splitting sort, where differences of interpretation and reading seem endemic." With a strong endorsement from the political science department, and glowing support from both solicited external reviewers (senior political scientists from Harvard and the University of Chicago) Finkelstein's tenure bid then received unanimous support from the College Personnel Committee – only then to get a thumbs-down from Chuck Suchar, the aforementioned urban planner, and eventually a rejection from the president of DePaul. The important thing to realize is that at no point in the tenure process was Finkelstein's excellence as a scholar and a teacher challenged by scholars in his or related fields. Hence the consternation of the Middle East Studies Association of America and the American Association of University Professors regarding the political sabotage of the tenure process.
Now, regarding the implications of this mediation for Wikipedia. Two things seem very clear to me. First of all, it strikes me as wholly inappropriate to be invoking tenure as an editorial criteria here. To repeat, Finkelstein's status as a reliable source is a function of his scholarly status, not his employment status. Ironically, his scholarly status was bolstered by the tenure debacle, due to the stark contrast, in the din of controversy, between the support for his work among experts and the denigration of his work among demagogues: while people like Sean Hannity and Alan Dershowitz and Steve Emerson were calling him a "neo-Nazi," the foremost historian of the Holocaust and one of the most eminent historians ever (who holds, it should be noted, political views of Israel very different from Finkelstein's) was praising Finkelstein's “acuity of vision and analytical power,” and going on the air to say that “his place in the whole history of writing history is assured."
Finally, I think the players in this mediation effort – all three of whom I enormously respect – need to strike a more delicate balance between making editorial judgments about how much weight to accord different scholars (and different kinds of scholarship) in a given article, which is good and necessary, and forming a sort of ad hoc academic peer review committee to evaluate Finkelstein's scholarship, which would be presumptious and indefensible. It is not for Wikipedians to say that peer-reviewed scholarship published by eminent academic presses is "unreliable." It is for Wikipedians to say that this or that view of Finkelstein's (about, say, "transferist thinking") is relevant/not-relevant here and why; or that it's been contradicted elsewhere by scholar X, or that as a political scientist Finkelstein's claims should be accorded less weight than those of an archival historian like Morris; and so on.
Thanks to all three of you for your time and attention. I wish you the best of luck in your continued mediation, and await the results in a spirit of eager and optimistic expectation.--G-Dett (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tariqabjotu, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! And well done on the Israel FA. ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Muhammad larson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Muhammad larson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
I'm not "confusing 'articles' with 'categories'"; I meant what my edit summary said and I don't even believe my edit was incorrect. Take a look at Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ, and specifically the question "How do I categorize categories which have a main article?". The answer to that question is "The article should be left in those categories it would belong to if it had no category of its own". Well, that would include Category:Capitals in Asia, Category:Cities in Israel, Category:Cities in the West Bank, and (not sure on this one) Category:Titular Sees of the Coptic Orthodox Church – and those are the categories I re-added. The first three categories most certainly would belong in Jerusalem because, as I noted in my edit summary, there is no daughter article (sub-article) that could conceivably accommodate those categories better. That's as opposed to, say, Category:History of Jerusalem, which would be better suited in History of Jerusalem. I'm not entirely sure about the Titular Sees category because I honestly don't know much about the subject, but from what I could ascertain, the same was the case for that category. I didn't re-add any of the other categories you removed because I either didn't know enough (or could find enough) to make a judgment call or because, like with Category:History of Jerusalem, it truly doesn't belong on the Jerusalem article.
Hello Tariqabjotu - you seem to be under the impression that there are a mass of really problematical editors contributing to the ANI, and that I must be one of them. I can assure you I'm not. I've been targetted for silencing because my information is (generally) good and well sourced. All my edits, from very shortly after my arrival, have been examined very, very closely and, apart from some possible conduct issues (incivility? soap-boxing?) have a nearly clean bill of health. Edits for which I was indef-blocked (took 6 weeks to properly lift) are now in the articles where they belong. Serious, diff-laden accusations of edit or revert-warring have turned out to be totally unfounded, since other editors, once they're aware of what I've found, have insisted the information be included. Allegations of original research or poor sourcing have proved completely unfounded - the three examples last bandied around were from my first arrival (Sept 06), and still look like excellent material that should be in the articles (though they're not, they're eminently credible and non-surprising, but from non-RS sources).
Whether I'm actually a very productive editor is hard to say - I'm quite slow. But that's because I check everything very, very carefully (I have to). I promise you, the articles I've edited are (overwhelmingly) better for my attention. PRtalk16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The ends don't justify the means. If the means are seriously problematic, the last sentence in your comment above is not correct. -- tariqabjotu20:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't wish to turn this into an argument, but I'm sure I've seen somewhere (Jimbo?) that "Product is more important than Process", and I'd suppose we all heartily agree with that statement.
Naturally, a similar argument can be used for kicking editors off the project without "due process of law". However, I trust it will not be used to rail-road editors who are genuinely productive. PRtalk12:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Vote for a post-meetup restaurant
I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Protection of Minor Harry Potter characters
Re: this edit. I know people complain about protecting the wrong version all the time. I am only asking that you revert the page back to a version with the images because they are all being tagged as orphaned, thus ensuring their probable deletion at about the same time the page protection is expected to expire. This advances one side in the dispute unfairly. I have tried to remove the tags per template instructions, "Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or . . ." but my edits are reverted by BJBot. The bot operator suggests that the page be restored to prevent this (inquiry here and reply here). Thank you for your attention to this matter, R. Baley (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!!!! Longest half an hour on Wikipedia ever stuck reverting all that vandalism! Much appreciated. :) Somno (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You've presented valued evidence at the ArbCom. Are you aware of the statements that have been made that I've linked to here which appear to suggest that nothing will happen anyway? If my understanding is wrong, please contact me quickly and I'll remove my material. Best Regards, PRtalk22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have some minor comments to make on the exact details of your proposals at the ArbCom, but I'll keep them to myself.
However, the big problem in this I-P case is the number of seriously tendentious editors left out of the case completely. Apart from he of whom we dare not breathe a word, you might be in a position to verify that User:GHcool is ferociously obstinate against consensus. User:Kyaa the Catlord arrives at "disciplinaries", such as the ANI that triggered the ArbCom, apparently solely for the purpose of partisan muddying the water - read this carefully to see how the conclusion of a validly completed RfC (possibly two) will be trampled. Other examples available from (I think) every single time I've seen that name in the I-P conflict.
When the case leaves out editors this bad, along with several common or garden variety edit-warriors who belong on the list, then any action taken against the editors listed, even if justified, is effectively partisan. PRtalk14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! You are admin that protected the Minor HP characters from editing until January the 14th. It is already 14th. Could you please remove the protection? Thank you :) --Lord Opeth (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The protection is removed automatically at the time shown in the article's edit history. That time was 17:01, January 14, about twelve hours ago. You or I or anyone else can remove the protection template still at the top of the article. Otherwise, a bot should be removing the template momentarily. -- tariqabjotu04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This user is requesting unblocking. I looked through the dispute and I find this very hard to follow. I don't know how Seicer came to make a report on the 3RR board, because he does not appear to be involved in editing the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome article, and although there is a lot of editing going on, the discussion lines seem to be open and it just doesn't feel like an edit war. Technically, Guido has made more than 3 reverts of some type, but as he pointed out, at most 2 on any specific point, all points are up for discussion, and many of those separate edits were actually consecutive. And 3RR is meant to prevent edit wars, not to prevent rapid productive editing during a dispute. Is there something I missed, or should I go ahead and unblock? Mangojuicetalk18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I came about after Orangemarlin (talk·contribs) made a report at WP:WQA where I volunteer my time, and after the article Chronic fatigue syndrome was referenced extensively. Guido's incivility was what caught my attention originally, and the 3RR vios were noted earlier by another admin. The user also filed a rather frivolous request for action at ANI (I watch ANI closely at any rate), and has filed this WQA req. He has also been the subject of dispute at his talk page. I made a note of that at AN3. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Normally AN3 reports come from a user involved in editing the article, so there's an automatic presumption that the reverts have caused a problem to those editing the article. My only real point was that this wasn't the case in your report. Mangojuicetalk18:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
True, but as a result of the WQA discussions, I watchlisted the mentioned article and noted the various editing disputes. If it had been another editor that edit warred and violated 3RR, I would have reported that user just as well. I don't favorite one user over another. It's comments like this that make my curiosity rise. I've also reported 3RR based on events that I noted at Recent Changes as well, so this is not an isolated incident. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a note: Although I was also involved in the same WQA, I reviewed the block and declined the unblock request, on the grounds that it was a clear violation of WP:3RR. I have been keeping an eye on the content dispute since I added some input to the situation and had been attempting to help Guido understand why people were apparently mad at him. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Tariq - I've ended up unblocking. Sorry I didn't wait but your contribution history suggests that you are usually offline at this time and it's been almost 2 hours since your last edit. Mangojuicetalk19:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't either, given that it specifically fits the criteria for an edit war. Just because a user opens up two RfC's and makes some comments on the talk page, doesn't give a user a right to persist in pushing his POV despite apparent consensus against his edits; the user also specifically violated 3RR in all of its classic forms. But I'll respect the unblocking admin's decision. My question is, if the reverts start again, what would you do to alleviate the issue? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'd make sure that Guido has a very specific warning given that the next time he gets called out for WP:3RR, he'll be blocked for a significantly longer period of time (say, a week). Regardless of RFCs, edit wars are disruptive and cause problems for all users involved in editing the article, and we need to keep that in check. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it really so hard to understand what blocks are for? The purpose of a block is to serve Wikipedia, not to punish a user. If there is no editwar, Wikipedia is not in trouble, WP:3RR is not violated and a block is pointless. WP:3RR starts with: "If you find yourself in a revert war..." So, no war, then no violation. And uninvolved users have no business filing a report. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't tell admins how to do their jobs, Guido. We understand the policies, and we're here to enforce them for the good of the project. You were edit-warring - that was very clear in the edit summaries ("Undid revision", "reverted POV", etc.) Regardless of the reason for the revert, the 3RR policy is clear that you are not allowed to revert more than three times a day on the same article. People who repeatedly break this rule get blocked for increasing periods of time to reduce disruption to the project. That's all there is to it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I should add in that as an involved user (per reasons stated earlier) that there is no set rule or operational definition that I cannot file a 3RR report based on the assumption that I am uninvolved. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me quote again: "Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked". By the way, all users on Wikipedia have the same rights, including the right to discuss blocking policy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing your right to discuss blocking policy. But there is a difference between discussing blocking policy and telling admins how to behave. And the policy does allow for certain exceptions to be made, but at least in my opinion, your behavior in this instance was well outside of that area.
Let me put it very simply: Everyone is expected to abide by the same policies. The policies are not there just so we can spend our time making exceptions to them for specific users. If I were to get involved in the same kind of revert warring that you were, I would likely have been blocked for it too, even though I'm an admin. You are not special, and you do not get special treatment under the policies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, everyone is special, and every case should be judged on its merits instead of blindly following a perceived rule. Policies are there for our convenience, not the other way around. We can also change them if we so desire. Now, if you had edited similarly as I did, I would not file a 3RR report against you, just as I didn't file a 3RR report against my fellow editors on Chronic fatigue syndrome. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I'll let the original blocking admin discuss this matter with you. I'm tired of trying to explain our enforcement of policies to you - as long as you're convinced that you can do no wrong, nothing will come of my trying to reason with you. I'm done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing will come of it, because what you say is contradicted by the very policies you refer to. But I've said what needed to be said. I hope that sometime in the future you will understand. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
