This page 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.
Request for input
Hello Tariqabjotu, I've protected Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus some time ago to allow an undisturbed discussion at the case you mediate. The mediation and consensus building has made good progress but without a final conclusion. User:Screen stalker asked me to unprotect the page, but I don't want to do it prematurely what could worsen the situation. Do you think an unprotection should be tried now or is it better to wait some more days? --Oxymoron83 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the page can be unprotected now. -- tariqabjotu 19:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu, on January 10 you blocked the 91.108.192.0/18 range for 2 weeks, but if you look at the recent history of that page, the same vandalism is returning. When you applied the block, there wasn't any of the same vandalism for 2 weeks, which suggests the range block worked. Perhaps you can extend the block? If not, I can file a report at WP:RFCU/IP. Spellcast (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.
Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the dispute at New antisemitism may be what you're thinking of. I haven't been following this dispute much, but the issues centers around what should be the lead image to the article -- one of the two images currently at the top of the (protected) article, or both. Part of the issue with the Zombietime image appears to be whether it actually illustrates that article (see the top comment in Talk:New antisemitism#Comment/Reiteration by CJCurrie, for example). Again, I haven't been following this issue that much, so maybe this (a) is no longer an issue or (b) was never an issue and I'm misinterpreting it, but this seems to fit the bill. -- tariqabjotu 08:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Heath Ledger
FYI, there was a "serious issue". There was so much traffic that vandalism was going un-fixed due to edit conflicts. As the protecting admin I sure would have appreciated you consulting me before changing it back to semi-protection or at LEAST giving me a heads-up about it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's unfortunate you feel that way. I didn't see any need to consult you on the matter, and I assumed you were following the article anyway (at least to see responses to your talk pages comments). I don't doubt that there may indeed have been instances where vandalism slipped through, but as you can see (a) there are a lot of changes that needed to be made (or at least editors wanted to be made) and (b) the article is doing just fine. Placing the burden on admins to take care of every change (which I'm sure each of these editors would have been requesting on the talk page) seems to me to be a bad idea, and one that I have never seen put into practice. -- tariqabjotu 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What a marvelous non-apology. The "need" to consult me was simple courtesy. It's unfortunate that you don't see that. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it wasn't an apology; it wasn't intended to be one. You found out about the protection, at the latest, two to three minutes after I downgraded to semi-protection, and while I was re-adding move protection. So... I don't see the problem here. -- tariqabjotu 22:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't see the problem... precisely. I thought I made it clear, courtesy. Apparently that was lost on you. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Salam Tariq, I think this article deserves to be put in "in the news".--Seyyed(t-c) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Elonka - PHG
I have requested arbitration of this dispute. Your name was mentioned in passing, though you are not a named party. This notice is provided in case you would like to comment. JehochmanTalk 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the change. I don't think this is irreconcilable, but if for some reason it is seen that way, what is the next step in resolving an 'irreconcilable dispute'? Dreadstar† 05:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the reservations certain editors have with the issues being irreconcilable, not the issues themselves being irreconcilable. -- tariqabjotu 05:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Why was the message removed from my talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I un-rejected the case. -- tariqabjotu 05:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
How would one deal with that situation? An editor believing the issues are irreconcilable? I'm not exactly sure which comments you're referring to, ones in the issues to be mediated section or in the parties agreement to mediate or both? Dreadstar† 05:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to clarify what I meant. -- tariqabjotu 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks! Dreadstar† 05:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Lucyintheskywithdada
Thanks for the notice Tariq. I didn't exactly suspect Lucy of being a sock--she openly admits [1] that she is the same person as User:Lwachowski. She admits it elsewhere, too, and she won't deny it if you ask her. User:Lwachowski was "indefinitely blocked", not "banned", as Neal thought.
Things have become extremely confrontational. This is an unusual situation, which I have tried to describe at User_talk:Dreadstar#Spiritualism. In my opinion, Neal was absolutely right to remove the template from unrelated articles, and I'm sorry that he was blocked.
And by the way, I'm astounded that you could be enduring a freshman year at MIT and still have time to be an admin on WP! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Spiritualism
Hi,
I'd like to edit the Spiritualism and related articles like Spiritualism (beliefs) that you recently protected. Since any disruption has been blocked, could you unprotect at least till Nealparr and the other are able to edit, so I can do my thing? Thanks. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair call, I was tweaking it as you were typing, but let's leave it at one bold for now, as it is just a sentence. --Stephen 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Nealparr and Lucyinthesky
Hi Tariq - I left a comment on WP:AN/I re: blocks of User:Nealparr and User:Lucyintheskywithdada. I certainly think Neal was participating in an edit war and the block was reasonable, but my 2 cents would be to unblock him and commute the block to time served - based on his otherwise very solid history of constructive editing, and possibly considering the checkered history of his "opponent", who has since been indef-blocked by JzG. I think Neal has hopefully learned something from this, which appears to be an isolated incident in an otherwise laudable Wikipedia career, and I'd lean toward clemency. Just my 2 cents - while I'd probably have handled it differently, I think your block was certainly reasonable and within policy, so I'll leave it up to you what to do. MastCellTalk 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Judging by your comments at ANI, I have the feeling that you were unaware that I found out about the connection between Lucy and the other account after I had blocked Neal and Lucy. Neal did mention allegations of sockpuppetry on the AN3 report, but you can see that he was also requesting a checkuser. He made no note of the fact that Lucy admitted they were the same user, and perhaps was not even aware that such an admission had occurred.
Additionally, I'm not sure why, alternate account/sockpuppetry aside, you believe I should have given Neal the benefit of the doubt for anything. He apparently has been editing Wikipedia since 2005... yes, and for that reason he should have been aware of the rules. When disruption is as apparent as it was in this case (and even in many less severe cases), I do not look at the tenure or the (for lack of a better term here) status of the editor in question. I don't care much for people who believe the rules are different for them because they have a couple years on their adversary. For this reason, he should not have complained that his block was invalid because he didn't receive a warning; that's to ensure editors they know about the three-revert rule (and I'm sure Neal already knew about it). The appropriate action to resolve this issue would have been to file a checkuser, go to WP:ANI, or use WP:SSP (did you see how quickly Lucy was indefinitely blocked after my ANI report?). Instead, though, Neal continued to revert across multiple articles.
As for the block, I would think it would be better for more people to respond to the ANI report. However, I'm afraid that's not going to happen. So, at this time, I'm just going to have to stick with no further comment. -- tariqabjotu 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I hope I didn't offend you; that certainly wasn't my intention and like I said, I think the block and your rationale were completely reasonable, though my perspective on them differs a bit from yours I suppose. I responded in more detail on my talk page where I first saw your comment, but hopefully no hard feelings and I'll step back. MastCellTalk 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to apologize for any inconvenience from my end and express my hope that everyone will soon forget my brief episode of wiki-bipolar : ) --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Out of the hothouse ...
Tariq
I have a problem I want to ask your advice on. Obviously having just come out of the hothouse, I have to be cautious. However, even your self picked up on it and commented in public.
As yet I have not yet clarified exactly what Athon.Eff's real issue is but I am attempting to build bridges.
Anthon nominated for deletion a template I made [2]. The nomination failed. He has since gone about deleting from every page I placed it on without any proper dicussion of policy of placement or suggestions of refinement, see; [3]. I even made refinements myself to avoid conflict.
If you study the reversions on the pages, you will see firstly the template was mass deleted by Anthon.Eff (who I think edits from the point of view of an orthodox Modern American Spiritualist), then Nealparr (who I understand to come from a Materialist/paranormalist point of view), and then again Athon.Eff with repeated pointed criticisms.
I and others have found his attitude condescending [4] and it is hard not to take offence at others who go about making entirely false criticism about one to advantage their position, even after they have had situations explained to them with diffs.
I believe that there is a strong personal or emotional motivation as another use moved the topic just after anthon nominated it for GA. I am presume, again, that there is some influence of adherence to the faith as per the BKWSU page I edits. But, equally, it is impossible not to stand by the citations I have provided.
I flag up an equally bad faith total reversion of all the references I contributed to the page. I am returing to edit. I am coming back to you first with all this for advice. I can be no more humble.
I have never been indefinitely banned as he states to others. I have no outstanding blocks. I do not operate sockpuppets. If you want a specific explanation with diffs I can offer one and have posted summaries elsewhere recently. The duress on the BKWSU page happened under the influence of a then indefinitely banned user IPSOS and his socks, e.g. GlassFET etc ... and the active single topic account of the organizations own internet pr guy. Since they have left, the page haas returned to a normal level of stability.
If you have any direct comments to make, I am entirely open to hear them but, please give me the benefit of being able to reason not be talked down to like "a 13 year old child with a computer" (to quote the link above). Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Lucy, please don't assume what my point of view is. One can't be both a paranormalist and a materialist as the two views are incompatible, and I'm certainly not either so it really doesn't matter. I'm just an editor who would like to improve Wikipedia articles without grief. Regarding the info box templates, I have added usage guidelines that are based on the Template:Buddhism since that is also a philosophy/religion. These usage guidelines may help explain why I removed them from inappropriate articles. If you feel the removal was wrong, per standard info box usage, please mention it on the corresponding article's talk page and get some feedback from other editors. I also cleaned up the info box to be more visually appealing, and fixed it technically so that it doesn't screw up the page layout, as it was before. You can also collapse it now, so it doesn't dominate pages, which may help to make it more acceptible to other editors. It still doesn't belong on many of the pages you added it to, for example spirit, but I'd be happy to discuss it as needed on individual talk pages where there can be input from other editors. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to get going on Bleep mediation? The user who didn't want to mediate seems to have abandoned the issue -judging by his lack of edits there recently-, and recently put this header on his userpage. Anyway, I'm tired of waiting. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There's not point in blocking new accounts or IPs that'll just leave of their own accord anyways. All we can do here is let this blow over on its own. In addition, the Times story is somewhat favourable to us, but if we act harshly, we're likely to generate a lot of negative press. Meatpuppets isn't the right word - we're just dealing with clueless newbies - educating them on our practices is frustrating, but there's no reason to be dickish. WilyD 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The debate has long preceded The New York Times article, and this seems to have been a major issue since at least the beginning of January. I believe your fears about how the media would react are unfounded or at least unimportant. I say they're unfounded because I am finding it hard to believe the media would complain about us blocking the disruption that's clearly coming from these accounts and I say unfounded because it shouldn't make a difference how some media outlets (and not just the NYT) will react. The inclusion of the Muhammad images are heavily supported, by editors and by Wikipedia. Any further qualms about the images are being ironed out -- as they should be -- on the talk page, with a variety of appeasing proposals popping up here and there. I have no problem with people, even those vehemently against the images, commenting about the matter on the talk page. I do have a problem with those who simply show up and remove the image ad nauseum, with little to no interest of actually talking about their points. That's not being dickish, that's defending some of our most basic policies against people who couldn't care less about what they are.
Also, you don't need to tell me to use the {{editprotected}} template; I can just edit the article myself. -- tariqabjotu 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
People who've been removing the image and not engaging in any discussion are actively being blocked, but we're trying to be tolerant as we cannot realistically expect newbies to know rules & protocal.
And yes, the media'd eat us alive if we were overly Draconian, their definition is unlikely to mesh with ours. WilyD 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm pretty sure you forgot about that one, but I was bored and looking at some old RFCU cases and I saw that that one was never listed. I don't really know what to do with it to be honest (archive it, yes, but where ^^). Do you have any strong feelings about me simply deleting it? -- lucasbfrtalk 17:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit uneasy about you just deleting it... can't you just leave it floating in the aether? -- tariqabjotu 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll just stamp an archival template and not list it in the archives since it was not looked at by a CU, then. -- lucasbfrtalk 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Mediation and ArbCom
Tariq, I see that PHG wants to list certain of our conversations from mediation, in the ArbCom evidence. I know that this is generally considered bad form, but I wanted to suggest a solution. Even though all communications in mediation are supposed to be privileged, I would be willing to waive this right and allow the mediation discussion to be public, if both you and PHG agree. However, this would mean not only that PHG could diff things, but that I would be able to do so as well. My first reaction is to not do this, and to continue avoiding any mention of what happened in mediation. But, if everyone is okay on opening things up, I would be willing to lay it out on the table for all to see. Let me know what you think, --Elonka 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, this isn't just about the parties involved, it has wider consequences. Future mediations may be prejudiced by this as people decline or fail to open up in RfM's simply because they will feel that if most people want mediation to be used in and arbitration request then it will be used, regardless if one person declines it being used. The mediation committee will not let the request for mediation pages to be used in dispute resolution processes and that's not really negotiable. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Then someone needs to clean up the evidence page to remove any references to the mediation. --Elonka 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Tariq, I notice that you re-added PHG's statement about mediation to the ArbCom evidence page, per some sort of off-wiki discussion.[7] Could you please fill me in on the exact details here, so that I know what I can and can't refer to from the mediation, myself? Thanks, Elonka 20:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion seemed to have died down a couple days ago, but for some reason the re-addition has just about immediately resurrected the discussion (sigh). In any event, the heart of what was said so far is that PHG's evidence -- the "breach" -- occurred after the mediation, on the talk page of the article. There was, however, some dissenting opinion. -- tariqabjotu 20:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, I'm not sure I see the distinction here. If I'm understanding right, then all I would have to do, to bring up something from the mediation, would be to talk about it at the article talkpage, and then cite the talkpage? For example, I would like to bring up that PHG was citing Latin as a source, but the Latin didn't actually say what he was saying it did. So now, that I've posted that here on your talkpage, I should just diff your talkpage as my "evidence" since I am talking about it post-mediation? That seems bizarre. A cleaner solution would just be to remove any mention of mediation from any talkpages, be it from the Arb evidence page, or the Franco-Mongol alliance archives. Or, as I mentioned above, let's just open up the entire thing. --Elonka 20:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I won't say much about the idea of opening up the entire mediation, but, as for the rest, I'll say that you're not understanding correctly. Something was agreed during the mediation. At some point after the mediation, you (as noted on the article talk page) changed your mind regarding the agreement, and so agreed to something else. That clearly did not occur during the mediation, unlike (I presume) the content of your example. I have to leave, by the way. -- tariqabjotu 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I am still in disagreement with your interpretation. I could point out plenty of things where PHG said one thing in mediation, and then a different thing outside of mediation. I don't feel that that makes just his "changed" in-mediation statements fair game. We should either open the entire thing up, or keep the entire thing private, but it is inappropriate (and unfair) to allow this kind of "some things are allowed, other things aren't" kind of attitude. In mediation, to find a compromise, there is often a "give and take", some back and forth. But if we have a situation where one party "gives" on one point to try and find a compromise elsewhere, the other doesn't, and then the mediation closes, it's pretty damn infuriating to then try and blame the compromising party as "breaking an agreement" when the other party never compromised on a damn thing, and further, has been shown through dozens of examples that they are editing tendentiously and refusing to work with other editors. I would also point out that mediation is always indicated as voluntary, so this "breaking an agreement" is just wikilawyering, and ultimately, it's drawing more attention to the mediation, when it would be better if we just avoided it entirely. We tried mediation, it didn't work, end of story. If we want to open it up, then open it up, or leave it closed, but let's not go weaseling through for bits and pieces. --Elonka 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
POVFORK
Hi Tariq. I discovered Israeli Occupation Forces earlier today, and redirected it to Israel Defense Forces#Criticism (and merged some of the text to this article) as I see it as a WP:POVFORK. However, I have no doubt that this will be undone and conflict would escalate. As one of the few neutral admins working on the project, I thought I'd seek your views on protecting the redirect before it's too late. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ57 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't protect it unless an edit war actually occurs. -- tariqabjotu 02:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you of the opinion that it is a POV fork? The article has just been restored (and I have reverted back to a redirect). пﮟოьεԻ57 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Working Group login
Hi Tariqabjotu, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Looking forward to working with you as a fellow group member! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I noticed, and everything worked out just fine. "Tariqabjotu" on the WG wiki is me. -- tariqabjotu 07:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Here are some interesting comments made by Bakasuprman in his previous edit summaries:
[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18].
This individual has something against folks who do not belong to the same faith as this user which was also the case with the recent 3RR this person committed. Further, the admin who let him of the hook makes me feel that he also favors editors of the same interests. Wiki Raja (talk)
Oh yeah, BTW, the admin Nishkid64 who blocked me stated that I did not engage in dialog on the page I was reverting. However, I did here. But wait a minute, something odd has occurred. That edit does not show in the history section [here. Something fishy is going on. Wiki Raja (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing fishy is going on. I see the issues you see regarding Bakasuprman, but the edits you mentioned are old. The most recent comes from October 2007, and the least recent date back to July and August 2006. There's nothing I can, or should, do about that now. Your edits do show up in the history of Talk:Bharatanatyam; they are, in fact, among the top-most edits in the history. -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You are partially right that I have edits on that page. However, the following edits which show on the talk page do not show in the history. Please look at the dates in bold face below really close.
Um... they do appear in the history. The edit dated 03:10, January 24 (UTC) appears here and the edit dated 06:18, January 24 (UTC) appears here. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Er... Kindly explain the phenomena of having two different dates here. I'll be a little more descriptive. Look carefully above my edit and you will see Revision as of 20:11, 23 January 2008 (edit) (undo) in blue bold face. Next, look inside the green box below and you will see the date 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) right after my username. Please explain that to me since I am getting a headache trying to figure out the marvels of magic here. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that you live in the Mountain Time Zone. I see Revision as of 22:11, 23 January 2008 because I live in the Eastern Time Zone. The timestamp you see at the end of comments is in UTC (hence the (UTC)). When daylight-saving time is not in effect, the Mountain Time Zone is seven hours behind UTC (UTC-7) and, likewise, the Eastern Time Zone is five hours behind UTC (UTC-5). -- tariqabjotu 06:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I see now. Thanks for the explanation and sorry for the inconvenience. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tariqabjotu, I was just about to request protection of that article. Hopefully, Valentine's Day will have an effect on the warriors. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Working group
Hi Tariqabjotu, I haven't seen you yet over at the new working group ([19]). Would be great if we could get the whole team together soon so we can get seriously active. See you around, Fut.Perf.☼ 22:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thanks. I didn't realize we moved beyond the setting things up and ironing out the kinks phase. -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sourcing Issue on Israel
Hi,
I normally don't get into this stuff too much, but there are serious problems with the sourcing. First up, the source has changed. Note #17 used to point to the wiki article about the index, not the economist paper itself, and I made my edit based on the first source. Nevertheless, my point stands. The source makes it abundantly clear that any country in the top 3 categories is considered a democracy. Meanwhile, the wiki article states that Israel's status as a "liberal democracy has been contested". The article never questions or contests this, mentioning the phrase "liberal democracy" only twice and never in relation to any country or to a ranking in the list. In other words, the source never says that its "flawed democracies" cannot also be legitimate "liberal democracies". The source does nothing to support the statement in the article. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Mediation
Hi Tariq. I just notified Elonka that I gladly agree to her proposal to open up the content of the Mediation about the Franco-Mongol alliance. Best regards. PHG (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite ready to agree to that. -- tariqabjotu 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
