:Sorry about this Tariq, but I have a question. I dont think CEM is the right place. What do you think about a Request for Comment? However, it says that atleast two people need to have talked to this user prior to the RFC in an attempt to solve the situation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users]), do you and I count? I think an RFC is the best way to go about solving this.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry about this Tariq, but I have a question. I dont think CEM is the right place. What do you think about a Request for Comment? However, it says that atleast two people need to have talked to this user prior to the RFC in an attempt to solve the situation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users]), do you and I count? I think an RFC is the best way to go about solving this.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you think a CEM wouldn't work. A RfC would also work, but I would not be surprised if Atabek decides to open an RfC against you, thereby dividing the discussion. You and I probably would count as the two requisite users, but the RfArb should suffice as well. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you think a CEM wouldn't work. A RfC would also work, but I would not be surprised if Atabek decides to open an RfC against you, thereby dividing the discussion. You and I probably would count as the two requisite users, but the RfArb should suffice as well. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is why CEM wont work: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASafavid_dynasty&diff=136537662&oldid=136509560] In CEM, we're supposed to make our own punishments and come to a conclusion...How can we do that when one user simply makes accusations (wihtout posting the evidence to prove them) and personal attacks? I have asked Thatcher131 if we could possibly re-open the arbcom, if he says no, then I will do a RFC (but which diff's should I show proving that you and I have commented, should I just post the link to this section?).[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 14:49, 7 June 2007 (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. Ralbot06:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see [1]) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards, Majorly(hot!)17:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For no reason...
For absolutely no reason other than trying to cheer you up a little :) Have a beautiful day, dear Tariq! Love, Phaedriel - 07:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't dear Tariq, but hey, that's no reason not to try and make your day a little happier, is it? :) I've just sent you an email. Have a beautiful weekend! Cheers, Phaedriel - 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, we misunderstood each other. I posted in AN, as I've come to expect Admins to have picked up a bit more in the way of a neutral mindset and some skill at diplomacy, and I kinda feel betrayed when one of them comes up short in either category. It was lacking today with FutPerf. Realizing that even you guys have on days and off days is part of the education. I need to learn how to express myself clearly, so that I am not misinterpreted. Pax nobiscum. Arcayne(cast a spell)03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If we must resort to compromises when no compromise is needed, the terrorists have won"[3] is an attack on editors with whom you do not agree, essentially calling them terrorists. Admins are not exempt from the rules, please be mindful of WP:Civility. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is a guideline (more like a sloppy essay) written almost entirely by User:Pmanderson who is a party to this dispute, the guideline fails to address that there are 3 categories of geographical names, names of international geographical places like Oceans and Seas, names of geographical places which are under national authorities like cities, and names of geographical places which are shared by two or more national authorities such as rivers and islands - so the issue is not as clear-cut as it may seem, it ultimately comes down to consensus. I will elaborate on this issue on the articles' talk page later on. Meanwhile, keep in mind that we're discussing guidelines that can be changed and interpreted at will by anyone, however there is a serious binding policy that admins should not use their power in disputes to which they are a party. --Mardavich04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If we must resort to compromises when no compromise is needed, the terrorists have won"[4] is an attack on editors with whom you do not agree, essentially calling them terrorists.
The fact that Pmanderson has edited that guideline often is largely irrelevant since (a) it still has the {{guideline}} stamp of approval, (b) the foundation of the current form existed prior to Pmanderson's changes, and (c) the template is based off other basic guidelines and policies (such as WP:NC(CN)). I hadn't even heard of the page you mentioned until just now.
there is a serious binding policy that admins should not use their power in disputes to which they are a party.
If there isn't already, there should be a policy saying editors shouldn't throw this mantra around when it's not necessary. I have not suggested any such action, even though Alex Bakharev (talk·contribs) (the closing admin) basically invited me to do so. Additionally, it's a question whether I'm truly "involved" here; I'm not saying I prefer one version over another as I don't. I am simply asking the Arvand camp to provide some sort of policy or guideline that backs up their side. You and they have still not done that. I'm waiting. -- tariqabjotu04:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Tariqa, that line was seen as an attack on the character of several editors. Your denial won't change anything, you could at least admit that it was a bad analogy. And there is no question that you are involved here, you have taken sides in a dispute, regardless of your interpretation of guidelines (which are not official policies, and hence not arbitrary). WP:NAME, an official policy with stamp of approval the foundation, had foreseen complicated situations like this, and prescribes that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed.". --Mardavich05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not going to admit it was a bad analogy. Because it wasn't a bad analogy. Heck, it wasn't even an analogy. By terrorists, I actually meant terrorists. Your extrapolation is your fault alone. This isn't a matter of how I interpret guidelines; it's what the guidelines say. The Shatt al-Arab side has WP:NC(CN), WP:NCGN, and WP:NCON all as support. The piece you quote from WP:NAME is inadmissible in supporting a side in an argument. It's meant as a last resort, not as a license to ignore other policies and guidelines when one sees fit. By using it, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: you're saying no consensus could be created, so you're sticking by your position. However, the only reason no consensus could be created is that you are sticking by your position. But your position is only based on the idea that no consensus could be created... it's a big mess of circular logic. So, you have nothing so far. We'll talk about me being "involved" later, once we get at least two defensible positions. -- tariqabjotu05:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments have already been made, it's not up to you to decide what is a "defensible position" or "inadmissible" in a content dispute. By dismissing your opponent's arguments, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that you are somehow above consensus, and your position is the only logical approach available. --Mardavich06:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still responding only to your arguments, demonstrating that you have no policy or guideline to support your position. I'm not merely saying that sentence of WP:NAME is "inadmissible" or saying that you don't have a "defensible position"; I am saying why (the former due to the self-fulfilling prophecy and circular logic and the latter due to the fact that no policy or guideline supports your position). If you have a problem with my why, fire away. I know claiming that I think I'm "somehow above consensus" or that "[my] position is the only logical approach available" vilifies me, but it does not refute the facts (and it's not true). -- tariqabjotu06:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do a problem with your why, it's based on your opinion. I have a policy to support my position, that sentence of WP:NAMEis admissible, claiming otherwise is merely your opinion. Guidelines are not arbitrary and could not have foreseen every possible scenario, which is why WP:NAME has made that exception for cases like this. National sovereignty and authority is more important than some objective criterion to determine common usage in English. For example, the Indian government has decided to change the name of the city "Madras" to "Chennai", Wikipedia should and does respect this, even if Madras is much more common in English literature (See books.google.com), the same rational should apply to Islands and Rivers that are shared by two national authorities such as the Arvand River. --Mardavich08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. I feel your pain. I was involved in some nasty Polish-Lithuanian naming disputes (see archives of talk:Jogaila), so I can only express my sympathy. But the noticeboard is a bad idea: it is not used to ask for help on individual articles and even if it attracted some attention it would be from uninformed users who would not follow up on the discussion. What to do? Dunno. (My personal 2cent: name the river where it is the longest) Renata23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate
"Thus, those who have commented already about this matter on the talk page (outside of just a simple drive-by vote) and regular editors of the article are discouraged from posting statements of support."
And this is based on what policy? In what capacity, you're conducting a new poll with your own rules? --Mardavich23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of rhetoric is precisely why I did not respond to your latest request to assume good faith. You are completely unwilling to assume good faith on your own. First it was the terrorist thing and now you believe I have some ulterior motive to promote an Arab agenda. I'm not a nationalist. I don't care about Arabs. I don't care about Persians. I don't care about [insert preferred faction here]. All I care about is resolving the dispute over the name of the article in a manner supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That is why I favor the Shatt al-Arab position, which has presented guidelines to support its position. Your position has not. Hence, it is incredibly ironic for you to be asking me how the wording is based on policy.
Nevertheless, I will respond: it is not based on policy. The discussion / straw poll is intended to gauge what those outside the group of editors here believe. We already know what you and I and the other regular editors believe; that's all over the talk page. Much in the same way you think I have a pro-Arab agenda, I believe there are some involved with a pro-Persian agenda (which is why they have remained steadfast, dancing around the issue of policy and guideline). Getting an opinion representative of the general Wikipedia public rather than representative of Persians and Arabs would produce a clearer, less biased result. -- tariqabjotu23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to hear that you finally admit that you "favor the Shatt al-Arab position" and that you don't assume good faith. However, your straw poll is not a move request, and hence not biding. In move requests, you don't profile users based on their perceived nationalities. And if you "already know what you and I and the other regular editors believe", then why did you take part in the straw-poll yourself? Do as you preach.--Mardavich00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You only read what you wanted to read; your statement is a serious distortion of what I said even if it is interspersed with quotes. I did not say I don't assume good faith... favor was taken out of context... etc. etc. Perhaps you should read up on confirmation bias. -- tariqabjotu00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that you don't favor a position in this dispute? Do you intend to use your administrator powers in this dispute? By the way, for someone who "don't care about Arabs", you sure admire their way of life and seek to emulate it. [5]--Mardavich00:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wearing a thobe one day in one's entire life does not make one an Arab nationalist anymore than eating Chinese food weekly makes one a Chinese sympathizer. Regardless, this has no bearing on the naming of the article; now that this matter is out of the way, I hope you can get back to your search for the policy or guideline supporting your position. -- tariqabjotu03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tariqabjotu, please don’t dodge the question. Do you favor a position in this dispute? Do you intend to use your administrator powers in this dispute? --Mardavich03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to distract me from the real issue. I'm not falling for it. Go back to the talk page of the article and either present policy and guidelines that support your position or concede defeat. You are in no position to issue ultimatums when you have yet to fulfill this oft-made request. -- tariqabjotu04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to distract you from the issue, it's a simple question to clearify the situation, why wouldn't you answer? I'm not conceding defeat, this is a content dispute, and my arguments are as valid and strong as anybody's. If you think otherwise, then that's your opinion, and you're entitiled to it. But you can't force me and others to accept your position as the truth because you’ve declared it so. Anwyays, have a good night - I am off to sleep. --Mardavich04:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... ok? Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure where you get the impression move requests are "binding". You are mistaken; there's a reason they can be re-done or simply conducted on talk pages. WP:RM is just consensus-gathering tool, not a suicide pact. If you really want to be picky, this is an extended discussion over whether the move request was closed correct (see also: this statement). You have not presented any policy and guideline (still); if the RfC and current efforts to reflect the opinion of the general community don't align with the narrow move request, that's your loss. -- tariqabjotu04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ralbot06:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iran semiprotection
As a matter of fact I was contacted by an Iranian user by E-mail. He was begging for semiprotection claiming that amount of vandalism is higher than they can handle. I have checked and there was a significant amount of vandalism, so I saw nothing wrong with the request. There were no content dispute over registered and unregistered users or something. Alex Bakharev06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just edited the Noah's ark article and then noticed you had locked it. Since I was able to edit it, I'm not sure if the lock was effective (or perhaps there's just a lag). If the former I just wanted to let you know about it. I also want to assure you that I have no opinion on whatever the edit dispute is, and I apologize if I unknowingly edited something controversial - I am simply trying to clean up bad spelling on wikipedia. --Bachrach4413:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When an administrator protects an article, there is option for him or her to set the expiration date. I set it to be seven days from the time of protection, which corresponds to 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (as noted in the history). The protection template does not show the exact time at which the protection expires. Thus, the best possible option is to put the date of expiry (which was May 10, 2007). The reason you could edit the article is that the protection had expired. The template does not disappear automatically; either another user will remove the template or DumbBOT will do it. Since you have alerted me that the protection has expired, I have removed the template myself. -- tariqabjotu16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weapons Section in Civilian Attack template
At the Template talk:Infobox civilian attack page, I asked if a Weapons section could be added to the template, and you said you added this section. However, it doesn't show up in Wikipedia articles. For example, see Virginia Tech massacre. There is a space for listing weapons in the template, but the weapons section doesn't show up. Can you fix this? Thanks in advance, and thanks for adding the section. Griot16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, IAR's had much heavier edit warring before, and it's cooled off without protection. I guess it's no big deal either way, but why bother protecting it? The primary dissenter seemed to leave off edit warring yesterday. --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we can wait this out. Alternatively, if things come to a (calm) standstill on the talk page, unprotection can be requested at WP:RPP. -- tariqabjotu15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An edit war is an edit war, regardless of whether is it occurring over the span of three days or three minutes. No, I do not have "something against undoing [my] own actions" and the allegation that such is the case is unfounded. I was aware of the situation when I made the protection and I am aware of it now; you have provided me with no new information regarding the page. If you want to request unprotection at WP:RPP, no one is stopping you. -- tariqabjotu19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. He has only be told about removing speedy deletion templates. I think that if we explain why the inclusion of non-notable bands is not appropriate he might get the message. I attempted to explain this part on his talk page. If he reacts negatively to this and proceeds to create the article after the protection expires, it might be safe to say "he's not getting the message". But until then, I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt and write this off as simple inexperience. -- tariqabjotu15:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up about the signaturem but there were no weird links? Today I clicked the "i" in my "Signpost" heading and it brought me to an image of a microphone. Thanks anways! Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...of the week
Hello,
I noticed that Jerusalem didn't make it. Could you point me to where that happened so that I can see what the problems were myself? Also, I just read through the Shatt al-Arab controversy, and I have to say I agree entirely with your position. Is it too late to sound off now that its gone mediation-ho? Cheers, TewfikTalk05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Article of Week was chosen because the idea was rejected. No, it's not too late to chime in on the issue regarding the Shatt al-Arab; we're still looking for outside opinions. -- tariqabjotu11:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, the article was protected on May 13 for the whole day as featured article, yet there is an abundance of IP edits. Isn't that supposed to be prevented by protection? —AldeBaer22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That prevents all editors, except administrators, from moving the article to another title. Yes, anon vandals can edit the article, but so can anon good-faith editors. See WP:NOPRO for more rationale behind keeping Today's Featured Article editable by all visitors. -- tariqabjotu00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Dreaded Walrus' interpretation of the matter on my talk page. I am British English myself, and I am almost certain what he is saying is correct. No one here would refer to Chelsea as 'Chelsea Football Club'- I would suspect the club is far more well known than the location. I am certain that, when phrased like that, it is singular. Again, see Dreaded Walrus' explanation on my talk page. J Milburn21:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism to Reggae has continued
After you took the semi-protection off of Reggae, the vandal who inspired the protection (user:212.9.28.125 and other IP addresses) started up his vandalism again. There is no evidence that he will change his destructive edits. Spylab16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was patently obviously that you were being disruptive. Would you like me to be more specific with your block reason? -- tariqabjotu21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive? Those were legitimate edits, deleted because they didn't fit in with the article's theme of "Islam is evil". The New York Times and other papers point to the use of 'criticism' as a pretext for denigrating and inciting Muslims. Why should that fact not be included in the article? What is disruptive in presenting another perspective in an article which had so far been use to make a single statement: that Islam is an evil religion and that Muslims are evil people? Since when is it policy for Wikipedia to have articles that serve the advocacy interests (hatred ridden ones at that) of a single view? Gridgess21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not planning to stay up all night to guard the page! I'll keep watch till 12:00 UTC, and others I'm sure are checking the page. The only thing I am concerned about is revert wars. What do I do about 3RR? nadav (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your May 20 standardization of BCE/CE faith-neutral dating has been undone in the last 24 hours. Due to heavy traffic it is nearly impossible to get in and make reversions. When the current attack on this article subsides (if it ever does), this task needs addressing. Do you know of any way to lock the changes in, once made? Hertz188813:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advice
More users are fighting over the comments at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story. Can you please just say whether the comments are valid or not. If they are valid please revert and make some sort of "decision"; if not then just leave them.
It all boils down to whether the comments are acceptable or not under wikipedia guidelines - we won't work it out between ourselves. John Smith's17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At times you are a delightful and helpful chap, so it sometimes drives me crazy how you sometimes take a very short view of edit histories. The edits Viriditas was incrementally reverting were edits of someone else, not his own. The young man has some rather significant OWN issues, and I think it is in everyone's best interest to take a closer look at the violations. Arcayne(cast a spell)22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Please reprotect the templage on the PG article since currently there is discussion going on the talkpage.. I believe it will go somewhere. --alidoostzadeh01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ongoing discussion is free to continue. There's no reason to protect the article and prevent editors from making unrelated changes when there is no edit warring occurring. -- tariqabjotu01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take a look at the talk page of this article and User:Pejman.azadi's comments. While he is polite and acting in good faith, he does not appear to understand how talk pages work and is filling the talk page with his opinions which is becoming disruptive. I've tried to point this out to him but he doesn't seem to have understood. Could you have a word with him?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz11:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thank you for taking care of my first parole violation block. I had not issued a block before for a prole vio and tried to figure the block length from statements in the AC case-thanks for correcting my mistake. Regards, Signaturebrendel04:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... I didn't realize you were still online. I saw the break in your contribution history and thought you were off to do something else. -- tariqabjotu04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your right (My mistake, I got confused), but he still made a partial revert by removing information added by another user.Azerbaijani16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that was a partial revert was it not? I got blocked for something even less than that. The first edit this user made after being unblocked was to remove sourced information (from Encyclopaedia Britannica), he then tried to justify his revert by making a POV and OR comment. How is my reporting him a stretch?Azerbaijani16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He removes one word from an article and you want him blocked. Seriously; that's grasping at straws. You two have been far from friendly with each other and now you're looking for an excuse to get him blocked. -- tariqabjotu16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet once reverted that article, even though I also dispute things in there, so why is it that I can be patient and talk things out while he couldnt? It was a revert plane and simple, he could have waited to remove that piece of sourced information, but chose not to. As you know, we have all been in an Arbcom. User Dacey has also reported people for violation of their paroles and etc... I just reported a violation. Even one word can be described as a revert. Many articles have disputed based on a simple word or two. Is there a policy tha ta revert must be lengthy? If I were to make reverts but they were just one word reverts, would I not be blocked as well? This is not about Dacey and I or about how we feel for each other (I have never personally attacked anyone on Wiki, I've always been about the edits, never about the user him or herself, so I dont see why you think that I may be reporting him out of dislike, when clearly he violated his parole). I got blocked once simply for changing two words. This is why I think based on equality, he should have the same punishment as I did.Azerbaijani16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a revert plane and simple [sic]; he removed one word, with explanation on the talk page. There does not seem to be any evidence that he intended to revert someone's edit; he just made (what he thought was) a correction. I'm not changing my mind on this; I have looked at the article history again and I don't see any way this could be considered a revert. -- tariqabjotu16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, here are the edits for which I got blocked: [8] and [9]
As you can see, I didnt even break 1rr, but I still got blocked for 31 hours. So I dont understand why Dacy69 gets away with this. At the least could you talk to the admins about having me removed from this list: [10]
Because you were edit warring over those 2 words, while Dacy was not. You edit war over the words "Azerbaijan" and "Arran" on many articles, and admins noticed it. Grandmaster16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia clearly states: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.Azerbaijani16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying that if I reinsert the term Iranian, then I will not have reverted the article, and thus will still have a revert if I need to make one? I'm just trying to understand the rules because now you've got me all confused about what I can and cannot do when it comes to reverting.Azerbaijani16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well now I'm really confused. So if I make an edit, and someone removes it, thats not considered a revert, but if I undo their removal, than thats a revert?Azerbaijani16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning on changing your mind. I'm just really confused here, because you just contradicted Wikipedia's rules and non of you comments are making any sense to me. From what you've told me, I dont know what can and cannot be considered a revert. Is there anywhere I can clear this up?Azerbaijani16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, I understand what your saying now. You could have just been more clear about it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks.Azerbaijani
user:Azerbaijani continue haunting me on many pages and making false acccusation. This is almost close to Wiki harassment. I am thinking to file report on him. he himself was involved in edit warring, POV pushing and on revert parole upon Arbcom desicion. he is attacking people and country based on ethnic ground. It is enough to look at some of his comments on talkpages.--Dacy6918:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are literally repeating exactly what I have been saying with regards to Atabek, AdilBaguirov, and yourself. Its as if you are copying my comments and posting them as your own...Azerbaijani21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A small problem
I ran into an issue, detailed here here. I am thinking that the entire article was a template, infobox included, and that is preventing any other infobox from being added. Your thoughts? Arcayne(cast a spell)17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I fully understand what's going on. You all are trying to make a template specifically for First Ladies? Where was this attempt made and what seems to be this issue with it? If whatever you're doing doesn't work out, there's always Template:Infobox Officeholder which should have enough fields to suit your needs. -- tariqabjotu01:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Were you talking about the infobox issue here? If that is the case, the problem may be clearer looking at the difference between that and the following version; you put the closing brackets in the wrong place. -- tariqabjotu01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the initial problem was placing a signature field in the infobox so that NR's sig could be added at the end fo the infobox. We tried it a number of different ways, but without success. One of the other users suggested creating another template.Arcayne(cast a spell)01:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They tried to place it in the "Infobox Person" template, but a signature field didn't exist for the template. I discovered that the "President" infobox did have a signature field. So, I asked Arcayne if he wanted me to create a new template for the "First Lady". Then it became clear that most of the stuff that would go there was stuff already in the "Person" template, with the only things missing being "Signature". When I tried to just create the sig field in the "Person" template, it wouldn't take. It was exactly from the other templates, but for some reason nothing would register in the field. BIGNOLE (Contact me)01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically that is the "President" template, they've combined all political position templates into the one. They could use the generic "Officeholder", but that's a lot of blank spaces the general template holds. It isn't like they have a "First Lady" section, like their "Ambassador" or "Senator" sections. BIGNOLE (Contact me)01:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None, as far as I can tell, but I thought there was some unwritten (or possibly written) rule that you shouldn't remove blank spots from an infobox. BIGNOLE (Contact me)02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was just something that I remember seeing in some edit summaries when people removed bits that had no info. Oh well, the "Officeholder" will work just fine. BIGNOLE (Contact me)02:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might not be a bad idea. Perhaps something along the lines of the wording in the rally template for those who actually attempt to post there. -- tariqabjotu04:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Now that I have Firefox, I see why you said the Hebrew and Arabic on your user page have the correct alignment. IE ruins everything. nadav (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking personal page,.. insulting!!
Could u plz take a look how the user Gerash77 is doing noxious edits in my personal page, like here [11], that has been a second unjustified attack that folowed this one [12]
Would u plz notice that he is using uncivil language: "why are you trying to bring your "mummy" into discussion". Why should I assume good faith with such uncivil user insisting to destroy (and insult) rather than build up? I'm waiting for a legal action against him due to his intentional and repeated vandalising in my personal Talk Page, and his impolite insults. Ralhazzaa15:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... It seems as if every dispute related to something Persian or something Arab eventually gets reduced to an us Persians vs. us Arabs thing. There are many decent Arab and Persian editors who do their best to keep discussions on point, but there's always someone (or some-two or some-three) out there who has to take the low road paved with petty ethnic jabs. Is the nationalism due to something in thewater? Honestly, I'd expect more Arab and Persian editors to be embarrassed that they're being portrayed on Wikipedia as a bunch of toddlers who resort to silly attacks and then cry to their mommies when they get their feelings hurt. I'm neither Arab nor Persian, but I'm embarrassed for you all. -- tariqabjotu16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the appropriate order of events was to do a "suspected sock.." first, and the checkuser as a last resort after the "suspected sock" only if appropriate. Thanks for the reply, I'll request a checkuser.-Andrew c14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The checkuser case was verified. Not sure if any more action is needed on my part, but it was confirmed that Stevewk was using IP editing to avoid a block. Thanks for you time.-Andrew c14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing this to complain about User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani), who has recently vandalized my user page: [13]. This user follows all my edits and engages in edit wars on practically every page related to Azerbaijan which I edit. My attempt [14] to invite him to follow WP:AGF didn't bear any fruit, in fact, my recent request to do so resulted in clear response from User:Hajji Piruz that he is going to continue the same way and that he does not "need to AGF" [15] in my case. At Safavid dynasty, User:Azerbaijani also supported anon IP sockpuppets of the banned User:Tajik, who were vandalizing the consensus page, and accused me of racism [16] instead. I am not sure how I should go about explaining this user that he needs to stop harassing me, vandalizing my user page, and AGF. Thanks. Atabek20:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not vandalism. Atabek has had a sock in the past, its been confirmed: User:Tengri.
He took himself out of the category which clearly says its for Wikipedia users who have or are suspected of using sock puppets. I'm not even sure if Atabek is allowed to remove himself from the list.
On the Safavids article I was trying to help Grandmaster, Dacy69, and Atabek out by telling User Ariana not to make any edits without discussing them first. Regarding WP:AGF, Atabek didnt even read it, because if he did, he would know that it wouldnt apply to him or me (both have been in an Arbcom and he has had a confirmed sock, WP:AGF clearly states that good faith should not be assumed when it comes to every user). I never even supported any anon anywhere, where is this person even getting the idea (hes just making it up to get me in trouble...same old same old, hes dont this kind of stuff in the past).
Atabek comes around only once in awhile, he doesnt know whats going on in several articles, but only joins in to make personal attacks. If he even knew what I was doing in the Safavids article for him and Grandmaster he would feel really ashamed to jumping to conclusions.
As regards to "following his edits", in the past month I've only been involved in three of the articles that he edited, and not because he edited them, infact, I contributed first in some cases. Tariq, you should know that Atabek has gone to several admins over the past couple months lying in an attempt to get me in trouble. So far, no admin has even considered anything he has said to them as far as I know. He goes from admin to admin, this time I assume he chose you because of the Dacy69 misunderstanding you and I had.Hajji Piruz21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tariq, check this out: [17] He removed "garbage" from his talk page, he called by comments garbage. I dont know why he is out to get me so bad. I have asked him to bring evidence supporting his claims and here is his reply: [18]. I'm 100% sure this user doesnt even know what constitutes vandalism. He has called 3rr warnings in the past "vandalism".Hajji Piruz21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user is only involved in pages related to Azerbaijan, and on all of them POV pushing and wasting contributor's time with unscholarly edits. And I am entitled to consider such edits as garbage on my own user or talk page, it's my right to do so. I have presented all the evidence, requesting for User:Hajji Piruz, aka User:Azerbaijani to stop harassing me. The copy of the same notice will be posted to WP:ANI upon persistence to vandalize my page. If he is unable to deal with content issues on various pages, he should request assistance of arbitration or dispute resolution, instead of attacking users. Atabek21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You dont own Wikipedia, I can edit any single article I like. Again, you dont own Wikipedia. I can edit Chinese related articles, I can edit Native American related articles, I can even edit Martian related articles. Who do you think you are that you can dictate to me what I can and cannot edit? I have never POV pushed. As I told you in your talk page, unless you bring up the evidence, do not make the accusations.
What evidence have you posted? Read the Wikipedia Vandalism page and understand what constitutes vandalism. Post the evidence or dont make the accusations.Hajji Piruz22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apologize to Tariq for overwhelming his talk page with this discussion. But this thread just gives a flavor what many editors have to deal with, where this User:Hajji Piruz, aka User:Azerbaijani is involved. If he needs evidence, here are few excerpts from Wikipedia:User page, which he chose to ignore, while vandalizing my user page:
"by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others"
"in general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission"
"users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests"
Thats not evidence. But I'll address each point individually:
"by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others"this doesnt include minor things like adding categories. Interestingly, you conveniently left out the first part of this quote, which states: Other users may edit pages in your user space,
""in general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission"I never substantially edited your user page, I merely added a category, simple as that.
"users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests"I added a sockpuppeteer's category, you were a sock puppeteer, thats what the category is for.
We're still waiting for the evidence of vandalism Atabek. Until you show evidence that I vandalized your User page or your talk page, this is all a waste of our time. I know you cant prove anything, because there is nothing to prove, as I have never vandalized your user page or your talk page, so as of now I'm simply waiting for an apology.
Tariq, also check this out: [19] Remember when I told you that Atabek gets himself involved in articles before he even knows whats going on? He reverted my edits claiming I had no consensus when, if only he had read the sections above him, he would have noticed that there was a consensus. This is what I'm talking about Tariq. This user only gets himself involved in articles to either attack users or make non-helpful edits.Hajji Piruz22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hajji Piruz, you have been clearly explained to stop editing my user and talk pages, per Wiki policy page, and who is "we"? :) I do have a full authority to not allow you to edit my userspace without my permission, period! So you're the one to apologize here for vandalizing my page and actually attacking me personally. Read the rules extensively, so as not to misinterpret them in future. As for History of Azerbaijan page, yes, I followed your edits now, and noticed few content changes where I put my two cents. Nothing personal here, again, don't perceive your right to edit Wikipedia as being the exclusive one. You should concentrate on content rather than on users. Atabek23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence yet Atabek on how I vandalized your page. Still waiting. Also, you fail to realize you have to tell people not to edit your user page before they do for those rules to even apply. In this case, I was never told I wasnt allowed to add a category on your user page. Again, you fail to read and understand Wikipedias rules and policies completely.
Now your accusing of making personal attacks? It never ends does it? Where is the evidence for that, show diff's.
Your telling me not to read Wikipedia's rules? Your one of the only people I know who consistently gets Wikipedia's rules wrong and has to be reminded by me on what the rules actually state (like Wikipedia AGF, Wikipedia NOR, Wikipedia NPOV, etc...).
So now your admitting to following my edits when just previously you were accusing me of following your edits? Interesting. And no, if you had read the talk page, you would have known that a consensus was achieved. You didnt put yoru two cents in, you reverted consensus edits.
Even more hilarious is that you are telling me not to "perceive your right to edit Wikipedia as being the exclusive one" when you are the only person who has ever dictated to me what I can and cannot edit or what I should and should not edit. You think you own Wikipedia articles.
Atabek, its as though you are reading what I'm saying and trying to copy me so that you dont have to face the fact that you were wrong. Your using exactly the same argument as me all of a sudden, didnt you think people would notice? LOL.
You think too much, as I said, calm down and AGF. You're the one who needs to apologize and ask permission before editing my userspace. Did I ever edit yours without asking permission or ever at all? No. So indeed you were the one to vandalize my page, because your harassing behaviour in deliberate editing of my page without my permission falls into several of Wikipedia's own categories of vandalism [20]: userspace vandalism, spam, excessive lengthening, silly vandalism, and sneaky vandalism. Anyways, it's obvious that certain things you just can't comprehend on, so I would rather leave the judgment to other people. Not interested in any further verbal exchange. If you have problems with my edits, address them on appropriate talk pages and get the appropriate response. Atabek00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either bring the evidence or dont make the accusations. Are you going to bring evidence? If not, then you should apologize for your accusations. If you persist without bringing up the evidence to support your claims, then what your doing could be considered a personal attack. You still have failed to bring one shred of evidence that I have done any of the things you accuse me of doing. Where are the diff's if I have done all of these things?Hajji Piruz00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tariq, that's the problem. I wrote to this page only with the intention of reporting the fact of Azerbaijani, a.k.a. Hajji Piruz, editing my user page without my permission. It's part of his larger scale attack upon myself and several other users on practically all talk pages. In return, to cover up his misdeeds, Hajji Piruz opens a new thread of annoying and useless exchange trying to demand for some kind of apology from me, for the fact that he edited my user page. This is sort of sad and comic at the same time. My request was this, since the user is unable to AGF, how should I go about responding to his attacks. Atabek01:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop using my argument and trying to pass if off as your own. Also, if you cant back up your accusations with evidence, then what do you think you can achieve here Atabek? Your just wasting everyones time, including your own.
Tariq, its funny actually, Atabek removes my posts on his talk page and calls it garbage, so I dont see how we can discuss this on our own talk pages. Sorry for these long posts on your page though.Hajji Piruz01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just like I told you, he has gone to yet another admin in the very same day: [22]. Tariq, the reason I tell you this is because you are now familiar with this user, is there any suggestion you can give me on how to handle this situation or can you discuss this issue with the other admins? If you need more information, just ask.Hajji Piruz22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. His allegations are unfounded, as I have asked him several times to bring the evidence, yet he has never done so. I will listen to your suggestion and try enforceable mediation. Also, cant his attacks be considered personal attacks, as he is making all of these accusations against me without bringing any evidence to support his claims?Hajji Piruz23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tariq, thank you for your note. But if you just scroll above, my concern addressed to you prior to Hajji Piruz's ad hominem, was simply due to the fact that he editted my user page without my permission. That's not quite polite and he should have been cited for that. I didn't make accusations against Hajji Piruz, I only cited the fact that he also verbally supports IP socks of user Tajik, which were already identified. Seeing lack of your interest in this issue, and obviously with continuous abuse of Safavid dynasty page today by IP socks, I did report to other admins, User:Dmcdevit in particular. The issue seems to be resolved for now.
Also, I didn't claim that he is a sock, I only showed in my posting here [23], that Hajji Piruz posted a "warning" on my talk page about History of Azerbaijan page, and immediately after some User:Houshyar, who practically never appeared on that page, suddenly came and reverted it. Perhaps, it's a coincidence, but considering lack of any form of AGF on behalf of Hajji Piruz and his long history of revert warring on Azerbaijan-related pages, I very much doubt it. I think he should follow your suggestion and pursue dispute resolution. Perhaps, someone there can explain him that he needs to discuss and agree on his edits, before actually making them (or having them made). Thanks, meanwhile, I will work discuss further edits with IP socks of Tajik on the talk page. Atabek23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I dont think Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation will work unless there is a third party being directly involved to review whats being said and make a final decision on what remedy should be put in place. Atabek doesnt even have enough respect for me to keep my comments on his talk page, he deletes them and calls them "garbage", so I dont see how he and I could solve anything by ourselves. He is also not completely knowledgeable on all of Wikipedia's policies and rules (as evident by him continuously misunderstanding or misusing these policies and rules). He also contradicts himself, accusing me, then saying he didnt accuse me, then telling me what to edit and what not to edit, and then saying that I dont own anything on Wikipedia, etc... Where can I find someone who can participate directly or is there something else you can suggest?Hajji Piruz23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, here is his statement taken from his last post just above mine: I didn't make accusations against Hajji Piruz, I only cited the fact that he also verbally supports IP socks of user Tajik
I dont even know if this is the same Atabek, he changes stories so many times. Now he says he didnt make any accusations against me. I can bring dozens of diff's showing every accusation he made against me, right here on this very page alone. He also says that he cited the "fact" that I support IP socks of Tajik, yet we havent seen any diff's yet, and I certainly have not supported Tajik in anyway other than saying that his grammer, spelling, and wikilinking fixes were improving the article.
Obviously, we need a mediator to monitor things, review each of our statements, and make a final decision on this issue.Hajji Piruz23:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need a mediator to explain you finally, that you CANNOT EDIT MY USER PAGE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION! I don't know how many times to explain you that before you stop annoying ad hominem. I didn't touch your page, you did. If you need a diffs for that, here they are: [24], [25],[26]. You're the one attacking, blackmailing, and harassing me, I have no interest in communicating with you outside content discussions. Atabek00:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did revert this [27], which was obviously done for blackmailing me, when we already went through the ArbCom and this was discussed at length and clarified. Doing this on my page, in the middle of content disputes in which he is involved, especially without permission, is nothing more than intimidation and harassment of personality. Also the rules for user page editing are laid out here [28], where it clearly states: "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission....The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so.". So why don't you, please, ask Hajji Piruz to first read these before he tries to intimidate me on my user page, and before him further accusing me of attacking him. I didn't see any note from him on my talk page PRIOR to editing my user space, only a note afterward that hopefully I don't mind him inserting sockpuppeteer category in my user page. Isn't this intimidation? Atabek01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tariq, I see that you have read Atabeks latest comment, and its a very absurd comment as he is accusing me of "attacking, blackmailing, and harassing me, I have no interest in communicating with you outside content discussions" when I have done no such thing and he has no proof! How am I blackmailing you Atabek, how am I harassing you Atabek, how am I attacking you Atabek? Show us the proof, the evidence, the diff's, something...what you are doing now is personally attacking me, because these false accusations are personal attacks if you cant back them up with evidence.Its you that is doing this to me. You have even tried canvassing to get me in trouble.
Tariq, I'd also appreciate it if you would also make some comments on the mediation page when it comes to that so that the mediator knows other users have seen how Atabek makes false accusations and personal attacks. User:Bushytails has also commented on Atabek's disruptive editing here: [29]
Tariq, his false accusations are personal attacks right? Cant you do anything based on what you've seen here? I will definetly go to mediation though. Tariq, you should also know that Atabek was initially supposed to be blocked for a period of 1 year according to the arbcom, but for some reason the administrators changed their mind at the last minute (I think because of lobbying by another user involved in the Arbcom on Atabek's side).Hajji Piruz01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're not really personal attacks. I might comment on the CEM, but I wish you'd all continue this discussion on your own user talk pages (or wherever else appropriate) instead of cluttering up mine. -- tariqabjotu01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tariq. Sorry for cluttering your page, I won't write here any more. I only intended to post the first message and ask for advice. Today I responded only to what you posted on my talk page. No other concerns, I just don't like when someone tries to intimidate me in bad faith on my user page, and then claims I am attacking or even demanding an apology :). This is simply ridiculous. Atabek01:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this Tariq, but I have a question. I dont think CEM is the right place. What do you think about a Request for Comment? However, it says that atleast two people need to have talked to this user prior to the RFC in an attempt to solve the situation ([31]), do you and I count? I think an RFC is the best way to go about solving this.Hajji Piruz14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think a CEM wouldn't work. A RfC would also work, but I would not be surprised if Atabek decides to open an RfC against you, thereby dividing the discussion. You and I probably would count as the two requisite users, but the RfArb should suffice as well. -- tariqabjotu14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is why CEM wont work: [32] In CEM, we're supposed to make our own punishments and come to a conclusion...How can we do that when one user simply makes accusations (wihtout posting the evidence to prove them) and personal attacks? I have asked Thatcher131 if we could possibly re-open the arbcom, if he says no, then I will do a RFC (but which diff's should I show proving that you and I have commented, should I just post the link to this section?).Hajji Piruz14:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this unacceptable that such POV-based users can fill an article with blatant spam and then be protected by moderators/admins
I provided a source and they wont except it but only accept their lies and vandalism, this is very disappointing that this site protects these kinds of users and denies lovers of honesty and TRUTH. Critikal110:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty and truth? Do you call the site you provided truthful? That is one of the most biases sites that I have seen in my life. Have you ever been to montenegro critikal? Many in "your" country are proud of their serb legacy and you can´t deny them that based on your own opinions. If you want the article to be changed please discuss it first instead of just removing everyting that has to do with serbs out of montenegro articles. Paulcicero10:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
William Gaillard
Accepted 3RR. Was looking at that page myself to report the fella for vandalism. He is a MANU fan. He was removing cited sources. I'll steer clear of the article. Alexsanderson8317:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vandal seems to have issues with the page again, refusing to accept that Michael Howard is a British Official for example. EdCoomber seems to want to make the article extremely sanitised, removing statements that are sourced and cited, quotes that support and go against Gaillard. To me he is vandalising the page. Alexsanderson8313:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at these articles, but take note that your continuous reverting on all of these articles has been nothing short of disruptive. Please stop. I'm not going to protect multiple articles because certain editors (including you) feel the only way to work on an article is by persistently reverting. -- tariqabjotu01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tariq, well we did have a discussion at ANI and, with the "neutral observers" that Taprobanus was looking for (ie, people not from the two ethnic groups involved in the fighting), six people think that these sites are not reliable, and only one does not, as I noted at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message in my talk page, you are correct but can you also warn the other editors including an admin concerned that reverting and getting friends to revert so as not to violate 3RR is also disruptive as I am more than willing to follow the wiki proces such as ANI, discussion at WP:RS page then on to rfc, rfm and rfa to resolve this matter. Infact what precitated all this is a message on User:Blnguyen's talk page requesting him and me to resolve this difference of opinion via the wiki process instead of reverting. I think in fairness all involved parties including the admin needs to reminded to refrain from reverting these articles till we resolve the reliability issue via the wiki process. Thanks for your consideration. Taprobanus12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3RR again by TingMing
Hi, I added to a previous report for this user on the 3RR noticeboard. I added a note to the report here, as TingMing has started edit warring right after the block you imposed ended. Is that ok, or do I need to file a whole new report? Maybe if the latter you could "deal" with it, as I'm going offline now. Thanks, John Smith's23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
