User talk:Proabivouac/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Qur'anic quote

BrandonYusufToropov, Karl Meier has removed material from your user page which some editors will surely find offensive.[1] It is (at least) uncivil to threaten other editors with eternal torment in Hell. This is being discussed on WP:ANI if you are interested in chiming in.[2] Please do not restore this material; it violates WP:USER and leads to hard feelings without improving the encyclopedia.
More generally, refraining from partisan pronouncements will spare you pointless controversy, help ensure that your contributions are judged according to their merit, and help us all get along.Proabivouac 07:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked repeatedly whether it might not have been better simply to have left a civility-affirming request that I remove this quote, and I have gotten either silence or doubletalk in response. I would have been glad to do take it off if someone had taken the trouble to discuss the matter with me. Perhaps Karl Meier, or yourself, or whoever started this little P.C. undertaking could see fit to offer an apology for peremptorily messing with my userpage.

This was the first complaint I ever received about the passage. Is there any other text on my userpage I should expect the Powers That Be to edit for me? BYT 13:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved comments

I removed my comments because I noticed you had specifically posed an optional question. I removed my brief comment directly to you and instead posted a more detailed response to your optional question. I tried to keep my initial response to you brief, because it was in response to a !vote. For the record, nothing personal taken by your opposition. You must put what you feel are the concerns of the project first. That is more than understandable. Cheers! Vassyana 09:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on my talk page. While we probably do not see exactly eye-to-eye, if you review my further response to your optional question, you may find we're closer than initially apparent. Regardless, I appreciate your concern for the project. Vassyana 10:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] thank you

thank you for your intervention on Aisha's age at marriage. it appears that User:Tauphon is the author of this appeal. ITAQALLAH 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More bad erasure

I also wish you wouldn't randomly delete Merkey's own comments from his RfC, as you just did of a portion of them. As with the Petrofsky comments, it just ain't your job to selectively prune the discourse to fit what you think people ought to have written. Let people discuss as they see fit themselves, please.

However, that's enough of this for me. I went through the last round of foolishness around Merkey (and am hugely disappointed his ban was lifted for some inadequate reason). I'm just going to remove the RfC from my watchlist, and let whoever wants to fight it out... hoping, of course, the correct final result of restoration of the ban occurs. LotLE×talk 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears I got caught in the crossfire as well. Very disappointing. -Nyet 08:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad's first revelation

Would you be as kind as to MOVE this page to a title Islamic legend of Muhammad's first revelation, or Islamic story of Muhammad's first revelation. It's just that my account doesn't (yet) give me that option.Unauthored 04:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

see WP:RFCU#DavidYork71. ITAQALLAH 08:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Having perused contribs, there can be little question about it. Aside from a few characteristically unfortunate summaries ("turd-polishing"), many of these edits (I can't say "all" as I've not perused them all) seem quite justified, changing "Prophet Muhammad" to "Muhammad" and the like.

It's a pity DavidYork71 didn't pursue this avenue to begin with, rather than pushing his own POV. Removing POV violations of the style manual is welcome from any contributor regardless of motivation. What we really need is a bot to deal with this, but as we don't have one...I suggest that if DY71 wishes to create a sockpuppet to do only this, and refrain from givaway edits (e.g. to Gravel), incivility, swastika trolling, etc., it wouldn't be allowed, exactly, but no one is likely to stop him.Proabivouac 08:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

i think the "Islamic prophet Muhammad" is a suitable introduction to Muhammad, than simply "Muhammad". sure, it may be wikilinked, but the idea is to give a reader sufficient information such that the article can stand on its own, which as far as i know is a general stylistic recommendation. the archives of MOSISLAM seems to show that this was a generally accepted phrasing amongst editors. ITAQALLAH 08:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

MOS recommend that we remove all honorifics, and change it to just Muhammad. That is the most neutral way for a number of reasons, one of them being that a number of religions other than Islam also believe that he was a prophet. -- Karl Meier 13:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

referring to Muhammad as the "Islamic prophet" is not an honorific. if you are worried about other POVs, then we can always use the phrase "prophet of Islam", which avoids that problem (but introduces potential wording difficulties) - what do you think? ITAQALLAH 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is neutral for the reasons that I have mentioned above, and I also believe that in any case the whole thing is superfluous. If some small minority of the readers should somehow have any doubts about which Muhammad we are referring to, then they can just click on the internal link that should of course be included. -- Karl Meier 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

could you please explain why "prophet of Islam" isn't neutral? i disagree that people will necessarily know who Muhammad is, and we don't need to direct our readers to have to read a paragraph when a few bytes of description in the relevant article is sufficient. applying a principle of no-context/disambig. connotes that a reader will have to open numerous windows and study other articles to reasonably understand the original. in any case, i think the issue can rest for now. ITAQALLAH 10:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing from WP:AN

The Merkey section has been archived before I had time to reply to you. It seems that you did not get my point. My account is a living example that coming here because of Merkey may lead to productive Wikipedia work. You sort of accused me to be a part of a WP:CABAL without surveying the whole of my contributions. I encourage you to do the survey. Since Merkey vanished I did 12 months of work of a kind that (I hope) does not spoil my chosen WP name. And my first two months were mostly tracking multiple sockpuppets of Merkey, who was at the time banned user. I would argue this was productive and accordant to WP rule, too. I am no one's sockpuppet (or the other way), I do not have any secret means of communication with the "ant-Merkey cabal" if it exists at all. For me suing hundreds of people is a reason explaining why one can have many enemies. One does not need a secret conspiracy. And seeing what Merkey does to any article he touches on WP, makes many people go into revert wars (which is not a good solutions but newbie users do not know any others) or reporting his behaviour where it should be reported (note that this is what I always did, after learning the hard way on my first days here). A user should not be penalized by doing the right thing. Even if the penalty is only a bad will accusation.

Generally, I believe that your comment on me was not deserved. I do not expect any apologies (I assume your good will) but you should in future "survey the whole of [a user's] contributions" before accusing him/her of belonging to any cabal. If you choose to reply, please do it here, as I prefer my conversations to be in one place. Thank you. -Friendly Neighbour 09:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy

I was somewhat taken aback by the second part of this diff, wherein the inference could be drawn that I am involved in some sort of conspiracy against Merkey. If this is your intimation, you are the first person ever to have suggested such a thing and I would welcome some indication from you of what prompts you to reach such a conclusion. I have no doubt that Merkey is being stalked and baited by a group of people. Whether or not they are behaving with premeditated planning in concert (sort of the definition of a conspiracy), I don't know. Nonetheless, I am not now nor have I ever been part of any conspiring group nor do I believe I have ever taken part in their troublesome behaviour. Do you see how, by striking out my name like that and then appending charges of conspiracy immediately thereafter, the implication is that I am involved in such alleged conspiracy? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 11:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all - I first said that I endorsed JzG's summary per your endorsement - alienated by Merkey's responses - then struck my name out because of a very real conspiracy against him, not including you, with which I wish not to be associated: if they !vote for, I don't !vote, or !vote against.

But, yes, I understand why you took it this way. Both of us were in the same place, I think, inclined to be sympathetic to Merkey but gobsmacked by his responses. I still am. It's just that I can't bring myself to join or satisfy people who revel in his every misfortune and gleefully hope for his death by cancer. Several of them appeared in that RfC, voting alongside me. I was and am appalled by this and felt morally oliged to change my !vote, having nothing to do with you at all.

Please join me, Fluri. Merkey's got his shortcomings, but they don't remotely approach the vile sadism and hatred on display at SCOX, and they are trivial compared to the general principle that Wikipedia editors are to be evaluated by other Wikipedia editors, not stalked and harassed by trolls.Proabivouac 11:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ATTN SCOX

Re [3], I granted that AP had a point about being attacked and not being able to attack back, and I blanked JM's attack on this living person for this reason,[4], only to receive the same grief that I did for blanking Al's attack. I don't think Wikipedia should be a forum from which to attack anybody, Al, Jeff or anyone else, period. Does that work for you? Lord knows the very last thing I need is to be in your bad graces, so I really hope so.Proabivouac 11:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not one of those recently posting over at SCOX, but as I've been involved in the recent Merkey issue I'm here to share my perspective. First and foremost, I think Merkey has demonstrated convincingly that he cannot (or will not) contribute to Wikipedia constructively. Second, I think there are a few (two to five) voices over at SCOX that beyond reason and common decency have decided their purpose in life is to verbally abuse Merkey. These people have no place at Wikipedia. Third, I think there are some posters at SCOX who are more reasoned, who mistrust Merkey and have legitimate concerns about letting history repeat itself here at WP, given his prior history here and in other forums. If these editors can contribute constructively to WP, I think they should be allowed, just as we'd have allowed Merkey to edit here if he could have done so constructively, despite his past ban. But their edits should be watched closely for a while just as Merkey's edits would be, to make sure they're not here to disrupt. Fourth, we can't let ourselves worry about which people are cheering or protesting our actions on other forums. We might post something that makes the SCOX mob cheer one day, and then post something else that brings a smile to Merkey's face the next. As odious as one party or the other's approval might be to us, we can't let it become a factor in our own actions here; that simply encourages a competition between the parties over who can attract the most attention to their cause and who they can sway. So, for my part, I do what I do whether Merkey or anyone at the SCOX board approves, disapproves, or even notices at all. Maybe it's the wrong approach, but that's just my two cents. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User boxes

Always a fun subject. What's your take on this one? User:Louis88/Mormonism Tarc 14:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be deleted. I shall propose it for deletion in a bit. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.Proabivouac 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why all the attacks?

For some reason, you've apparently got it into your mind to defend Jeff Merkey to a rather extraordinary extent. I reckon that having come into his editing history late in the game, it's easy to assume a greater degree of good faith than do those of us who have seen his behavior over a couple years.

But quite apart from any different judgment you might have about Merkey from that I do, I find it extremely unseemly the way you have taken up attacking several users who made comments on the same issue that go against your own apparent sentiment (on RfC, on ANI, maybe elsewhere). Accusing a bunch of editors of sock-puppetry, trolling, and the like, simply on the basis that Merkey himself also made the same (baseless) claims. Please pay some attention to WP:AGF. All the best, LotLE×talk 15:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lulu, I did not mean to defend Merkey's edits, which while sometimes helpful and reasonable can be quarrelsome or even absurd, but to defend him against an organized harassment campaign against his person. Contra "simply on the basis that Merkey himself also made the same (baseless) claims," I have not repeated Merkey's claims verbatim, but report based entirely upon my own investigation. Merkey's allegations are carelessly overbroad, attacking innocent bystanders along with his harassers, and earning him enemies in the process. I will, however, say that our community has failed him, and failed its own principles, in not putting a stop to this earlier. Assuming the good faith of attack-only accounts, in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, comes at the expense of the harassed.Proabivouac 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The clear effect, in any case, is that you have accused at least a half-dozen useful and good-faith editors of trolling and sock-puppetry; in most cases, you have repeated these untrue claims numerous times of the same editors. I have no personal connection to any of them (largely because I've been mostly inactive for a number of months), but a quick glance at the user contributions of any one of them shows that you're barking up the wrong tree. Please let it go. LotLE×talk 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever

If you feel the need to accuse me of possibly being in some conspiracy again, please at least be upfront about it. The weasel worded language "I am not convinced," regarding me contrasted with "nor can one believe that editors such as MONGO, Gwen Gale or Tom harrison," is disgraceful. I suggest you look to the two of the three editors who you "cannot believe" who are not sockpuppets created to dodge ArbCom sanctions, and ask them if I'm on the level. Then you can apologize. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, no offense whatsoever was intended. I am furious at what I've learned about the anti-Merkey trolling, at how long it's been allowed to continue, and didn't word things as thoughtfully as I could have. I understand why my wording upset you, and I will alter it accordingly. Thanks for your message.Proabivouac 19:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agree with your evaluation of DavidYork

I agree that he was trolling. The way he reverted bringing back the picture of a Swastika on his user page while he's already on an indef block, is no different from any other trolling. Yep, David cannot come back, thats probably for sure. I wont reappeal his case again. Its up to him whatever he wants to do, he's on his own. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm still shocked by the title he gave one of his sock accounts: User:What Holocaust2. Borders on Holocaust Denial--Sefringle 05:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems one of the few things on which pretty much everyone can agree. He's been trolling on this Nazi/Hitler/Holocaust stuff for some time now, since before Sarah's weeklong block of 5 April which led to where we are now. His username to sock Jimbo's page was User:WannseeInitiative; see Wannsee Conference. Like so many deniers, we're not really sure if he denies the Holocaust or supports it.Proabivouac 08:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of hiding

The reason I'm positng here is because you seem to be resonable in your arguments. Jayjg has made numerous accusations that I'm trying to "hide" content by moving it down.

Do you not find that accusation contradictory? For in order for me (or anyone else) to move any thing up, we must move something down. Similarly, when Jayjg "restores" a sentence by moving it up, in actuality he has moved (an)other sentence(s) down.

Secondly, moving something to his rightful place can't be considered hiding. For example, if something happened in the 20th century, there is no way you can put it above something that happened in the 9th century. It doesn't mean we are trying to "hide" that content, just putting in its rightful place.Bless sins 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bless sins, I'll take a look in a bit. As you see from the posts above, I've waded into some, erm, controversy over the past few days...hopefully it's all settling down.Proabivouac 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship nomination

Sefringle

Thank you for your kind words, Sefringle. I'm afraid I can't accept at this time. Perhaps sometime in the not-so-distant future I shall reconsider. Thanks again.Proabivouac 01:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cla68, briefly skimmed this - I'll keep an eye out for what happens here. Being proactive on this was a good idea.Proabivouac 20:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on User:Mike18xx

Hi Pro. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Furry-centric articles

You make a good point. Sometimes we get so involved with working on our separate wiki projects that we forget the importance of ensuring that Wikipedia benefits from our work as well. I'll try to get a posse together over at WikiFur and see if we can't import some of our better articles. Thanks for the encouragement! GreenReaper 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Khaybar

In your last edit you removed Watt adn Stillman from ther article (among other sources), and justifed the removal as "partisan religious sources". Care to explain how Watt and Stillman are considered "partisan religious sources"?

If you agree that Watt and Stillman are not "partisan religious sources", then I suggest you (partial) self-revert, and restore them back.Bless sins 04:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from re-adding Watt and Stillman yourself.Proabivouac 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing stops you from re-adding Watt and Stillman yourself." With all due respect, you do.[5]

Proabivoauc, I would like to engage with you in discussion. Is it that you view Stillman and Watt as "partisan religious sources"? If you do, then we have big issues to resolve. Also, is it that you view Nomani as a "partisan religious sources", after I explained to you how he is not? Bless sins 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, if we're going to discuss things amicably, please do not play games such as pretending that I am claiming that Watt and Stillman are partisan religious sources: you are well aware that it is the "(among other sources)" that are at issue, and have been for many months now.Proabivouac 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I'm not playing any games with you. The fact is that you deleted Watt and Stillman, and provided no justification except "partisan religious sources". What am I supposed to think?

If truly you don't have an issue with those two men, I suggest you restore them, so that's one less issue to discuss.Bless sins 04:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You are again well aware of which sources are the problem, because we've discussed it before in places such as...well, such as the talk page of that very article (among others.) And again, nothing stops you from re-adding Watt and Stillman yourself, and leaving the religious partisan sources out of it until if and when you gain consensus to include them.Proabivouac 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I'm going to revert back, since noone (including you) is giving me adequate explantion of why my edits are unacceptable. If you do revert me back, make sure you only revert back parts that you think are unacceptable, irrelevent, unreliable etc. Please don't remove parts that you have no objections against.Bless sins 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't re-add section against which it seems almost everyone besides you has taken exception, see WP:CONSENSUS. The explanation is more than adequate: partisan religious sources are not reliable academic scholars of history. It is not others' burden to convince you of that.Proabivouac 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Proabivouac, again you removed Stillman and Watt.[6] Do you consider them to be "partisan religious sources"? If not, why do you repeatedly remove them? If Watt and Stillman are "religious sources", may I know which religion you accuse them of being affiliated with?Bless sins 12:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)