Greetings,
Yesterday, I reported Itaqallah for blatantly falsifying his edit summaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
Summary was "rv unsourced OR" despite the fact that I included the source very directly: See Also: [[Conquest of Mecca]] Source: Prophet's biography by Ibn Hisham, p 802ff; Al-Waqidi, p319ff; Ibn Sa'ad, p96ff
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93... Edit summary claims it has been "extensively discussed" on the talk page, no such discussion existed.
Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his lying friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and they've jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
Runedchozo
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
Yesterday, I reported Itaqallah for blatantly falsifying his edit summaries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
Summary was "rv unsourced OR" despite the fact that I included the source very directly: See Also: [[Conquest of Mecca]] Source: Prophet's biography by Ibn Hisham, p 802ff; Al-Waqidi, p319ff; Ibn Sa'ad, p96ff
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93... Edit summary claims it has been "extensively discussed" on the talk page, no such discussion existed.
Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his lying friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and they've jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
Runedchozo _
Actually, your edit summaries amount to violation of NPA, which is blockable.
Ha ha, very funny.
Care to elaborate, or are you just blowing smoke?
I know you're blowing smoke. He was caught red-handed lying, but you're probably one of his friends helping him POV push.
On 12/12/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
Yesterday, I reported Itaqallah for blatantly falsifying his edit summaries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
Summary was "rv unsourced OR" despite the fact that I included the
source
very directly: See Also: [[Conquest of Mecca]] Source: Prophet's
biography
by Ibn Hisham, p 802ff; Al-Waqidi, p319ff; Ibn Sa'ad, p96ff
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
Edit summary claims it has been "extensively discussed" on the talk
page,
no such discussion existed.
Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got
an
admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his lying friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and they've jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
Runedchozo _
Actually, your edit summaries amount to violation of NPA, which is blockable. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Mr. Smith: Well you just cost yourself any interest I had in possibly following up on this. Accusing Guettarda, of all people, of being a POV pusher and allowing personal attachments to influence his judgment is nonsense. Your argumentative, accusatory approach speaks volumes.
Michael Smith wrote:
Ha ha, very funny.
Care to elaborate, or are you just blowing smoke?
I know you're blowing smoke. He was caught red-handed lying, but you're probably one of his friends helping him POV push.
On 12/12/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
Yesterday, I reported Itaqallah for blatantly falsifying his edit summaries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
Summary was "rv unsourced OR" despite the fact that I included the
source
very directly: See Also: [[Conquest of Mecca]] Source: Prophet's
biography
by Ibn Hisham, p 802ff; Al-Waqidi, p319ff; Ibn Sa'ad, p96ff
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
Edit summary claims it has been "extensively discussed" on the talk
page,
no such discussion existed.
Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got
an
admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his lying friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and they've jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
Runedchozo _
Actually, your edit summaries amount to violation of NPA, which is blockable. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:35:06 -0600, "Michael Smith" runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his lying friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and they've jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
Ah, so they *have* dealt with this. Good.
Just for future reference, hysterical accusations of "rouge admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted. Next time try posting something much less strident.
Guy (JzG)
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming you can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the lying.
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:35:06 -0600, "Michael Smith" runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his
lying
friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and
they've
jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
Ah, so they *have* dealt with this. Good.
Just for future reference, hysterical accusations of "rouge admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted. Next time try posting something much less strident.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Seriously now, stop trolling and go back to your playroom.
On 13/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming you can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the lying.
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:35:06 -0600, "Michael Smith" runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got
an
admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his
lying
friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and
they've
jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
Ah, so they *have* dealt with this. Good.
Just for future reference, hysterical accusations of "rouge admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted. Next time try posting something much less strident.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ah, the famed "trolling" attack... stalwart of our unreasonably "admins are always right at all costs" NSLE.
Power-mad much?
Parker
On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously now, stop trolling and go back to your playroom.
On 13/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming
you
can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the lying.
Ok, perhaps that was a bit harsh.
Let me rephrase:
YOU, NSLE, have a bad habit of always assuming that admins are right, and a further bad habit of accusing anyone with whom you have the slightest disagreement of "trolling."
There.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, the famed "trolling" attack... stalwart of our unreasonably "admins are always right at all costs" NSLE.
Power-mad much?
Parker
On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously now, stop trolling and go back to your playroom.
On 13/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming
you
can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one
doing
the lying.
Oh please. If I "always [assumed] that admins are right" many things would be different. That argument really fails on someone who's gone through a desysopping.
On 13/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, perhaps that was a bit harsh.
Let me rephrase:
YOU, NSLE, have a bad habit of always assuming that admins are right, and a further bad habit of accusing anyone with whom you have the slightest disagreement of "trolling."
There.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, the famed "trolling" attack... stalwart of our unreasonably "admins are always right at all costs" NSLE.
Power-mad much?
Parker
On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously now, stop trolling and go back to your playroom.
On 13/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're
screaming
you
can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one
doing
the lying.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
Ah, the famed "trolling" attack... stalwart of our unreasonably "admins are always right at all costs" NSLE.
Power-mad much?
Parker
On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously now, stop trolling and go back to your playroom.
On 13/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming
you
can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the lying.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
And once again, the "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a troll" attitude rears its ugly head.
sigh.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tired retort. It has naught to do with agreeing or disagreeing, it has to do with what you post and how you post it. You aren't really here to discuss or remedy anything, are you?
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
And once again, the "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a troll" attitude rears its ugly head.
sigh.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am here PRECISELY to discuss and remedy problems with Wikipedia.
Please remember that.
Parker
On 12/13/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Tired retort. It has naught to do with agreeing or disagreeing, it has to do with what you post and how you post it. You aren't really here to discuss or remedy anything, are you?
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
And once again, the "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a troll"
attitude
rears its ugly head.
sigh.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/13/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
I am here PRECISELY to discuss and remedy problems with Wikipedia.
evidences?
On 12/14/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
I am here PRECISELY to discuss and remedy problems with Wikipedia.
evidences?
-- geni _____________
There's a funny thing about your statement: I've given evidence many times. I've given evidence privately to Jimbo, I've given public evidence on the list.
The response to my public evidence on the list has been to "moderate" me, probably because I came too close to exposing someone who those with the power to "moderate" didn't want exposed.
I have written a serious rebuttal to Itaqallah's newest false claim that he was somehow reverting an edit that was unsupported by the sources given, which has been sent to both Jimbo and Luna and is awaiting forwarding since my messages are taking WAY too long in the moderation queue.
Did you also miss my analysis of FayssalF/Svest's deliberate misreading of RunedChozo's block log, earlier in this thread? I can certainly cut/paste it to you privately if you wish.
Parker
geni wrote:
On 12/13/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
I am here PRECISELY to discuss and remedy problems with Wikipedia.
evidences?
He used to be a sysop. {{citation needed}}
On 15/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/13/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
I am here PRECISELY to discuss and remedy problems with Wikipedia.
evidences?
He used to be a sysop. {{citation needed}}
And is definitely not "Michael Smith" or the Artist Formerly Known As Many Things Including Enviroknot. {{citation needed}}
- d.
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to flame me.
Parker
On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/13/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
I am here PRECISELY to discuss and remedy problems with Wikipedia.
evidences?
He used to be a sysop. {{citation needed}}
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Parker Peters wrote:
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to flame me.
Well, now that that's sorted out, could we please get the same coherent evidence that you presented to Jimbo?
On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Parker Peters wrote:
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to flame me.
Well, now that that's sorted out, could we please get the same coherent evidence that you presented to Jimbo?
Given that it's in the form of a long IRC conversation, I'd have to ask Jimbo's permission to publish that here.
I can condense it, but give me a while to put the email together.
I'm also going to include response to Itaqallah's email that he passed through Luna earlier. It should be enlightening.
Parker
Parker, if you email me that log for review, I am happy that we publish it.
I just want to review it to make sure I didn't say anything in private that would be inappropriate to say in public.
Parker Peters wrote:
On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Parker Peters wrote:
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to flame me.
Well, now that that's sorted out, could we please get the same coherent evidence that you presented to Jimbo?
Given that it's in the form of a long IRC conversation, I'd have to ask Jimbo's permission to publish that here.
I can condense it, but give me a while to put the email together.
I'm also going to include response to Itaqallah's email that he passed through Luna earlier. It should be enlightening.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not to worry, Jimbo, I'm condensing it down now into a "salient points" summary version related to the edit only.
Parker
On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Parker, if you email me that log for review, I am happy that we publish it.
I just want to review it to make sure I didn't say anything in private that would be inappropriate to say in public.
Parker Peters wrote:
On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Parker Peters wrote:
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying
to
flame me.
Well, now that that's sorted out, could we please get the same coherent evidence that you presented to Jimbo?
Given that it's in the form of a long IRC conversation, I'd have to ask Jimbo's permission to publish that here.
I can condense it, but give me a while to put the email together.
I'm also going to include response to Itaqallah's email that he passed through Luna earlier. It should be enlightening.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Parker, if you email me that log for review, I am happy that we publish it.
I just want to review it to make sure I didn't say anything in private that would be inappropriate to say in public.
Possibly a point that should have been made privately.
Alphax/Geni/everyone else,
Here is the evidence, for you to peruse. The first part is a repost from earlier emails, second is my condensation of salient points that Jimbo and I went over on IRC, and the final will be an analysis of Itaqallah's claim (which I consider spurious and deceptive) that the sources in the item he reverted did not support the text given.
Phase 1: FayssalF/Svest's misconstruing of a block log.
FayssalF/Svest (I really don't like deceptive signatures, as an aside: your username should be in your signature!) made a comment on WP:ANI:"Ummmmmmm! Talking about an admin who got a clean block log? This is yourshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:RunedChozo(5 blocks w/in 1 month). Please behave. -- *Szvest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FayssalF * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg *Wiki me up (r)* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FayssalF 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)"
The block log in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
I went through the list, counting up until the time when Svest made his post. Here's what I discovered (you can follow them yourself, from bottom up): #1 - block by Aecis, related to a good-faith page move related to commentary left on WP:ANI about a page needing to be moved. Blocked for ignoring a warning posted to the page, but looks to me like a well-meaning mistake that resulted in a block. Aecis's comment on RunedChozo's page concurs with this. #2 - First 3RR, not uncommon for new users. Block by William for "infinite". #2.5 - William resets this to a proper 24 hours; Shouldn't really even count this as a "new" block since it's William fixing his own mistake. Svest counts this as "Three." #3 - Future Perfect at Sunrise - surprisingly friendly with Itaqallah - blocks RunedChozo for a massive 72 hours. 3RR not even violated. #4 - William blocks for 3RR: 72 hours yet again. RunedChozo contests, claiming he didn't actually break the line, and is yelled at for "gaming the system." If we have 3RR, fine, but now they're just hounding this user, not to mention slapping on out-of-process ridiculously long blocks compared to what policy states.
We have policy on 3RR, and it says 24 hours. I find it amazing how quickly two admins decided that a tripling of the normal time was appropriate.
Phase 2: Analysis of the edits reported by RunedChozo at WP:ANI. Jimbo and I went through this line by line on IRC, so I'll present it in the same fashion.
A bit of further analysis on the history on this page: it appears that RunedChozo isn't the only editor that edit wars on that page. Itaqallah and others have been continually reverting and edit warring with other editors on it, to the point where it's almost two articles side by side: each side seems to call up their preferred version from the history, then "tweak" it, before dropping it in as a "revert." Besides being a rather pale attempt at gaming the 3RR system (see also: Complex Reverts), it causes a bloody mess when trying to untangle the article later.
Thus the analysis is long, and many changes I will mention only to tag with "multiple version problem."
The edit in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
The edit summary was "rv unsourced OR".
Change one: major difference appears the "to which both parties had agreed" line. Other portions of this change appear semantic and a result of the multiple version problem. However, change has no relation to edit summary, and appears to be related to edits introduced by Arrow740 and not RunedChozo. Conclusion: Not related to case.
Change two: asked/requested. Semantics only, likely multiple version problem. Conclusion: not related to case.
Change three: Block of text removed. This is the same block of text introduced by RunedChozo, the same Itaqallah refers to in his email to us. Conclusion: This is the bone of contention, but we analyzed the whole thing just to be sure, so I'll continue.
Change four: One paragraph split into two due to image removal/reinsertion. Beyond image, no text difference. Likely multiple version problem again, Conclusion: not related to case.
Change five: preceding/succeeding: semantics only, multiple version problem. Conclusion: not related to case.
Change six: readdition of Al-Mubarakpuri quote. Not sure what relevance the quote has to article. Also not a "removal" by Itaqallah, so we deemed it of no relevance to the case.
Change seven: Merely referencing a Koranic quote, versus inserting the entire quote into the article. After a side discussion over whether having the whole quote did anything for the article, we deemed this not related to the case.
Change eight: "Quotefarm" template. We weren't sure what this is, but deemed it not related to the case.
Change nine: removal of first name of Irfah Shahid, change of "It" to "He": semantics, likely related to multiple version problem. Conclusion: not related to the case.
As you can see, the only edit Jimbo and I deemed relevant to the case was indeed Change Three. Because the text block includes a definite Source: statement, we deemed that the edit summary was indeed deceptive.
The second bone of contention was this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
with the edit summary of "try using the talk page: we have already discussed these changes".
However, Jimbo and I checked the talk page, and saw no discussion at all related to the only edit up above relevant to the case, which indicates that this edit summary is deceptive as well, though not quite as bad given that Itaqallah and others have been in ongoing edit wars on this article and we have the Multiple Version Problem going on.
Which leads us to the next, in which Itaqallah sent Luna an email and asked her to forward it, making the claim now that his edit summary is "valid" because the sources somehow do not support the edit.
Phase three: Rebuttal to Itaqallah's claim
Now, the first thing to consider is that despite Itaqallah's claim that the "source" (singular) does not support the edit in question, what is given there is actually three sources: biographies of Mohammed by the Muslim scholars Ibn Hisham, Al-Waqidi, and Ibn Sa'ad.
Regrettably, Itaqallah is correct in his assertion that the sources are only published in Arabic. Why this is is probably a question better left for another time.
Unfortunately for Itaqallah, plenty of scholarly study of the life of Mohammed has been done, by people who are versed in Arabic and competent to read and analyze those sources, so we have a good number of scholarly and Muslim leadership quotes which seem to concur with the edit in question.
*Bernard Lewis* (he seems to be a favorite source by many of our stridently anti-Israel editors, too): "the murder of a Muslim by a Meccan for what appears to have been a purely private difference of opinion served as *casus belli* for the final attack and the conquest of Mecca."
*John Glubb*: "It is possible that the Prophet himself was ill content at the prospect of having to wait ten years before he could march on Mecca, which now seemed as ready as a ripe plum to fall into his lap. He may consequently have welcomed the opportunity Beni Kinana had supplied, enabling him to break the truce."
*Carl Brockelmann*: Muhammad "was simply waiting for a pretext to settle accounts with [Quraysh] once and for all. A brawl between a Bedouin tribe converted to Islam and some partisans of Quraysh, in which some townsmen from Mecca itself are supposed to have taken part, presented a pretext for declaring the peace broken."
MA Khan (in an article analyzing the 2003 OIC speech by Dr. Mahathir Mohammed in which he called for a truce which would lead to the later destruction of Israel): "Although a 10-year truce was signed, Muhammad broke the agreement and attacked Mecca within two years as his force became strong enough to overrun the coveted city. From the treaty of Hudaibiyya and the subsequent capture of Mecca and Ka'ba two years later, the evident message of the master tactician Prophet of Islam is such: *'When you are weaker against your enemy, do not jump into a suicidal war. In stead, sign a truce of nonaggression for a while during which you could build up the force and ammunition and when you are strong enough to overrun the enemy, dump the truce and launch the attack'*."
Yassir Arafat, in a radio address on May 4, 1994: "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca." "Umar ibn al-Khattab, the prophet had been right to insist on the agreement, for it helped him defeat the Quraysh and take over their city of Mecca. In a similar spirit, we now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to Jerusalem."
Now, the Muslim writers have their own side, and claim it was the Meccans who broke the truce. Our article on Mohammed, however, mentions next to none of this, and certainly not the historical controversy involved in it. The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly indicates that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force.
Do I think the edit was one-sided? Absolutely. Did it deserve to be completely stripped out? Probably not. And on the whole, the article [[Mohammed the Diplomat]], after spending a good amount of time going through the references and page history, appears to be very biased in favor of making Mohammed look as good as possible, rather than an NPOV presentation of diplomatic episodes in Mohammed's life and noting fairly when there is a controversy over his actions.
And as for Itaqallah's claim that the source did not support the edit, well, I'm afraid that appears from my research so far to be not the case at all.
Parker
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Parker Peters wrote:
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to flame me.
Well, now that that's sorted out, could we please get the same coherent evidence that you presented to Jimbo?
It was a complex situation. Parker tends to present it with a lot of moral conclusions that I think overstep the evidence to a degree.
The point is, there was a bit of an edit war in which both sides were not behaving in a particularly shining Wikipedia way. There were misleading edit summaries. (Parker views this as deliberate lying, I see it as carelessness in the heat of a stupid fight.)
One person got indef banned. The other did not.
One is an admin, the other is not.
And, as is usual for this kind of situation, there are many many many complexities. The person who was banned, should have been banned long before, if you ask me.
Opinions may vary.
On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Parker Peters wrote:
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying
to
flame me.
Well, now that that's sorted out, could we please get the same coherent evidence that you presented to Jimbo?
It was a complex situation. Parker tends to present it with a lot of moral conclusions that I think overstep the evidence to a degree.
The point is, there was a bit of an edit war in which both sides were
not behaving in a particularly shining Wikipedia way. There were misleading edit summaries. (Parker views this as deliberate lying, I see it as carelessness in the heat of a stupid fight.)
One person got indef banned. The other did not.
Actually, one got blocked for five days, but piled on and run through the mud first, while the other edit warrior was being held blameless.
One is an admin, the other is not.
Actually, as far as I'm aware Itaqallah isn't an admin, but Tariqabjotu (the blocking admin) has strong ties to him, including being an "ex" member of the same Guild.
And, as is usual for this kind of situation, there are many many many
complexities.
Which makes the possible conflicts of interest going on even more unsettling.
The person who was banned, should have been banned long
before, if you ask me.
And I stated, for the record, that it's my view that the edit warring on that page merits some disciplinary action towards most of the other editors on it, and that the lack of this while RunedChozo is being attacked as if he were the Antichrist is a problem.
Opinions may vary.
And indeed they do.
Parker
On 12/15/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, as far as I'm aware Itaqallah isn't an admin, but Tariqabjotu (the
blocking admin) has strong ties to him, including being an "ex" member of the same Guild.
What? So, we were both Muslim at some point... big deal. We were both part of the same WikiProject four months ago... okay... I don't understand how that constitutes strong ties. Note how rarely I have posted to his talk page and how rarely he has posted to mine. Instead of condemning my actions on the basis that Itaqallah and I both share some views, please take a look at my actions themselves. Was RunedChozo being incivil? Yes. Was he evading a block? Most likely. Was a five-day block reasonable? Your opinion, but one admin suggested a week-long block even before the block evasion, and when I blocked RunedChozo for a mere sixteen hours, people said that was mild. These events have absolutely nothing to do with Itaqallah; RunedChozo was not blocked for edit-warring with Itaqallah (I didn't even take a look at that situation), but for the incivility and block evasion. Please assume some good faith and stop using my religious beliefs as a reason to discredit me.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
Hello Jimmy, Parker Peters.
I did state that what I had written previously was all I had to say on this matter, but Parker's apparent 'rebuttal' compels me to respond.
" but Tariqabjotu (the blocking admin) has strong ties to him, including being an "ex" member of the same Guild."
"Strong ties"? I have no ties with Tariqabjotu. I have messaged him in total twice (last I remember). One was a festive greeting several months ago (to which he did not respond), and the other was a request for an update on the status of a mediation case involving the article 'Indian caste system'. Which "guild" are you referring to, by the way? The short-lived "WikiProject Muslim Guild"? I was never a part of that WikiProject. I've never been a part of any WikiProject. Can you please be a bit more explicit in describing how exactly Tariqabjotu has "strong ties" with me?
"to the point where it's almost two articles side by side"
That is patently false, and a total exaggeration. You're treating the content dispute with a heavy dose of bad faith. An attempt by myself to merge the two versions together in compromise seems to you a disguised revert. I don't believe that merits a response.
Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate. Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have, they instead reverted one before him, removing the text he inserted (check the article history). In fact, the role played by RunedChozo here and elsewhere was as an abusive and disruptive editor, disinterested in discussion, unable to spare even his friendly advisors and uninvolved admins from paranoid accusations.
"Change three: Block of text removed. This is the same block of text introduced by RunedChozo, the same Itaqallah refers to in his email to us. Conclusion: This is the bone of contention, but we analyzed the whole thing just to be sure, so I'll continue."
Block of text? You mean two sentences? The first of which is original research? The second of which is the attribution to sources which do not verify the statement? Oh, right.
"Because the text block includes a definite Source: statement, we deemed that the edit summary was indeed deceptive."
Deceptive? Probably, but only because a source was slipped in of which I was not immediately aware. Intentionally? No.
As for the second summary you highlight. I think almost all of the changes in the revert had indeed been discussed, the most significant being the lead and whether the people of Medina "agreed" to the constitution. What had not been discussed was this OR insertion (and yes I will deal with these quotes you provide in a moment), perhaps I should have started a discussion on talk explaining why such an insertion was totally ridiculous, I regret not doing that now that I realise some did not see it with the clarity that myself and the people I was disputing with on the talk page did (Alecmconroy, Proabivouac; who did not endorse it and avoided reverting to RunedChozo).
"Unfortunately for Itaqallah, plenty of scholarly study of the life of Mohammed has been done, by people who are versed in Arabic and competent to read and analyze those sources, so we have a good number of scholarly and Muslim leadership quotes which seem to concur with the edit in question."
Fact is: the sources RunedChozo provided do not explicitly substantiate the claim he attributed them. At best, his insertion was an editorialised intepretation of events listed in those biographies (and thus still OR). At worst, it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources.
I don't know if it's an appropriate use of the mailing list to engage in content disputes, but I'll respond to the other stuff here too.
The sources you provide present an opinion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, I'm not convinced that this is a substantial scholarly opinion, for reasons I will outline. According to you Lewis describes the murder of a Muslim as the casus belli for attack. Well... uh.. yeah, I think that's what the article states. The murder *is* what some scholars consider as the reason for the attack, because it is the murder which nullified the treaty. Does it imply deliberate searching by Muhammad to look for a reason, or mere convenience? Not entirely apparent from that small quote you provide.
Who are these people you're quoting? Is Yasir Arafat a scholarly, reliable source? No. He does not have any qualifications in Islamic studies or Arab history, last I checked. He's not considered an authority. Why, then, does his opinion matter here? I'm not sure who "MA Khan" is. Enlighten me as to his educational history, his qualifications, the fields he has worked in. Who is "John Glubb" A British military officer? Exactly what is his scholarly pedigree in the field of Islamic studies?? The opinions of such people, it seems, are completely expendable considering that we write an encyclopaedia with reliable, relevant sources.
Seeing as though you merely copy/pasted from a biased, unreliable article (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/316 , from a journal which seemingly has little connection with studies of early Islamic history) without doing your own research, why did you fail to present the other extracts also? Were they not as explicit in detailing Muhammad's apparently malicious intentions? So much for your "research". No wonder it's quoting Yasir Arafat, it's a political current affairs journal. The author himself is not known for his neutrality nor the quality of his work.
Beit Or on the talk page pointed out in his GA review that the Encyclopaedia of Islam (perhaps the best source for Islam-related wiki articles) describes the events leading up to the Conquest of Medina, stating that it mentions that tribal proxy warring contributed to the breaking of the treaty. This was a notable opinion I had overlooked, and I immediately inserted it into the article. Nowhere does it mention that the treaty was a guise under which an army could be amassed. In fact, the majority of academic scholarship does not endorse this view from what I know. To then defend an extremely subjective edit through equally subjective research doesn't say many positive things about how you are approaching this whole dispute in general.
"The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly indicates that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force."
It doesn't seem you're acquainted with Muslim scholarship then.
"And on the whole, the article [[Mohammed the Diplomat]], after spending a good amount of time going through the references and page history, appears to be very biased in favor of making Mohammed look as good as possible, rather than an NPOV presentation of diplomatic episodes in Mohammed's life and noting fairly when there is a controversy over his actions"
That's not the case, but I'm sorry you feel that way.
"And as for Itaqallah's claim that the source did not support the edit, well, I'm afraid that appears from my research so far to be not the case at all."
It doesn't, and I've discussed this above. Your 'research' is less than convincing, I'm afraid. If you would like to discuss this further, I invite you to come to my talk page or the talk page of [[Muhammad as a diplomat]]: I don't want to engage in verbose content disputes on the mailing list. I hope the issue regarding the edit warring earlier has been clarified, a little good faith would be nice. -- Itaqallah
Beit Or on the talk page pointed out in his GA review that the Encyclopaedia of Islam (perhaps the best source for Islam-related wiki articles) describes the events leading up to the Conquest of Medina, stating that it mentions that tribal proxy warring contributed to the breaking of the treaty. This was a notable opinion I had overlooked, and I immediately inserted it into the article. Nowhere does it mention that the treaty was a guise under which an army could be amassed. In fact, the majority of academic scholarship does not endorse this view from what I know. To then defend an extremely subjective edit through equally subjective research doesn't say many positive things about how you are approaching this whole dispute in general.
Conquest of Mecca*, sorry.
I'm going to snip all over the place, because half of this isn't even relevant.
On 12/15/06, IAJ zzvash@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jimmy, Parker Peters.
<snip>
"to the point where it's almost two articles side by side"
That is patently false, and a total exaggeration. You're treating the content dispute with a heavy dose of bad faith. An attempt by myself to merge the two versions together in compromise seems to you a disguised revert. I don't believe that merits a response.
After looking back, you and a group were reverting to "your" version, and others were reverting to another, constantly, on that page. Small "changes" happened here and there, but the fact remains there were two very divergent versions going on.
Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate.
Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have,
Arrow740 did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
So did Proabivouac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
You're out of line, mister.
<snip>
"Unfortunately for Itaqallah, plenty of scholarly study of the life of Mohammed has been done, by people who are versed in Arabic and competent to read and analyze those sources, so we have a good number of scholarly and Muslim leadership quotes which seem to concur with the edit in question."
Fact is: the sources RunedChozo provided do not explicitly substantiate the claim he attributed them.
At least some scholars and researchers, not to mention prominent Muslim politicians, seem to disagree with your assessment.
At best, his insertion was an editorialised
intepretation of events listed in those biographies (and thus still OR). At worst, it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources.
I don't know if it's an appropriate use of the mailing list to engage in content disputes, but I'll respond to the other stuff here too.
The sources you provide present an opinion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, I'm not convinced that this is a substantial scholarly opinion, for reasons I will outline. According to you Lewis describes the murder of a Muslim as the casus belli for attack. Well... uh.. yeah, I think that's what the article states. The murder *is* what some scholars consider as the reason for the attack, because it is the murder which nullified the treaty. Does it imply deliberate searching by Muhammad to look for a reason, or mere convenience? Not entirely apparent from that small quote you provide.
Who are these people you're quoting? Is Yasir Arafat a scholarly, reliable source? No. He does not have any qualifications in Islamic studies or Arab history, last I checked. He's not considered an authority.
Those who voted for him would seem to disagree. And he wouldn't just come up with statements like that in a vacuum, either: they come from somewhere in his Muslim upbringing.
Why, then, does
his opinion matter here?
For the same reason Dr. Mahathir Mohammed's opinion would matter here, or the opinion of a Saudi Prince, or the President of Iran, or the Ayatollah...
I'm not sure who "MA Khan" is. Enlighten me as to
his educational history, his qualifications, the fields he has worked in.
We have this nice encyclopedia. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's an excellent place to start.
Who is "John Glubb" A British military officer? Exactly what is his
scholarly pedigree in the field of Islamic studies?? The opinions of such people, it seems, are completely expendable considering that we write an encyclopaedia with reliable, relevant sources.
See above.
<snip>
"The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly indicates that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force."
It doesn't seem you're acquainted with Muslim scholarship then.
I am, but you seem insistent that the scholarship of any non-Muslims be discounted, and that anything that contradicts you also be discounted out of hand, so I really can't say anything more to you.
"And on the whole, the article [[Mohammed the Diplomat]], after spending a
good amount of time going through the references and page history, appears to be very biased in favor of making Mohammed look as good as possible, rather than an NPOV presentation of diplomatic episodes in Mohammed's life and noting fairly when there is a controversy over his actions"
That's not the case, but I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'm sorry the article is that way, and that you feel the need to edit war over it.
"And as for Itaqallah's claim that the source did not support the edit,
well, I'm afraid that appears from my research so far to be not the case at all."
It doesn't, and I've discussed this above.
And now that I've caught you not bothering to check, and claiming two people didn't revert to RunedChozo who clearly did... Have a Nice Day.
Your 'research' is less than
convincing, I'm afraid.
Your handwaving arguments aren't holding up, see above.
Parker
I'm going to snip all over the place, because half of this isn't even relevant.
You alleged that I had 'strong ties' with Tariqabjotu, yet my response to this myth becomes irrelevant?
On 12/15/06, IAJ < zzvash@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Jimmy, Parker Peters.
<snip>
"to the point where it's almost two articles side by side"
That is patently false, and a total exaggeration. You're treating the content dispute with a heavy dose of bad faith. An attempt by myself to merge the two versions together in compromise seems to you a disguised revert. I don't believe that merits a response.
After looking back, you and a group were reverting to "your" version, and others were reverting to another, constantly, on that page. Small "changes" happened here and there, but the fact remains there were two very divergent versions going on.
Not at all.
Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate.
Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have,
Arrow740 did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
So did Proabivouac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92... - or how about this:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92... - Proabivouac reverts to Alecmconroy instead of one forward to RunedChozo, where the only diff between the two was the insertion of that OR. or; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92... where Proabivouac again reverts to three versions back to Arrow instead of two versions back to RunedChozo, where the diff between the two is that same OR (minus a lead tag).
You're out of line, mister.
Spare me the rhetoric, please.
At least some scholars and researchers, not to mention prominent Muslim
politicians, seem to disagree with your assessment.
You're missing the point: the sources he points to, which are over half a dozen centuries old (and to some, arguably primary sources), do not substantiate the preceding sentence. You're also overstating a rather irrelevant selection of quotes from individuals, most of whom either don't support what you're postulating, or should probably stick to their field of specialisation.
At best, his insertion was an editorialised
intepretation of events listed in those biographies (and thus still OR).
At worst, it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources.
I don't know if it's an appropriate use of the mailing list to engage in content disputes, but I'll respond to the other stuff here too.
The sources you provide present an opinion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, I'm not convinced that this is a substantial scholarly opinion, for reasons
I
will outline. According to you Lewis describes the murder of a Muslim as
the casus belli for attack. Well... uh.. yeah, I think that's what the
article
states. The murder *is* what some scholars consider as the reason for
the
attack, because it is the murder which nullified the treaty. Does it
imply
deliberate searching by Muhammad to look for a reason, or mere convenience? Not entirely apparent from that small quote you provide.
Who are these people you're quoting? Is Yasir Arafat a scholarly,
reliable
source? No. He does not have any qualifications in Islamic studies or
Arab
history, last I checked. He's not considered an authority.
Those who voted for him would seem to disagree. And he wouldn't just come up with statements like that in a vacuum, either: they come from somewhere in his Muslim upbringing.
That's non-sequitur. His political career has nothing to with whether he is a scholar in Islamic studies. That he's a Muslim and a politician doesn't automatically make him an authority in any academic field. The concept is pretty simple: for articles related to a particular topic, you consult qualified experts in that field. That is, amazingly, how an encyclopaedia works. Please do try to understand that.
Why, then, does
his opinion matter here?
For the same reason Dr. Mahathir Mohammed's opinion would matter here, or the opinion of a Saudi Prince, or the President of Iran, or the Ayatollah...
In wiki articles related to classical Arab history or even Islam in general, no they don't matter. We don't base historical narratives on the assertions of non-historians.
I'm not sure who "MA Khan" is. Enlighten me as to
his educational history, his qualifications, the fields he has worked
in.
We have this nice encyclopedia. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's an excellent place to start.
'MA Khan' isn't much to go by, link me to the relevant article please so we can see how qualified he is to write on Arab/Islamic history.
Who is "John Glubb" A British military officer? Exactly what is his
scholarly pedigree in the field of Islamic studies?? The opinions of
such
people, it seems, are completely expendable considering that we write an encyclopaedia with reliable, relevant sources.
See above.
Sorry, but nothing about a military officer educated in not a single discipline of academia (let alone Islamic studies) suggests that he becomes a reliable source for anything concerning history or Islam at all, much less classic Arab/Islamic history.
"The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly indicates that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force."
It doesn't seem you're acquainted with Muslim scholarship then.
I am, but you seem insistent that the scholarship of any non-Muslims be discounted, and that anything that contradicts you also be discounted out of hand, so I really can't say anything more to you.
That's not even a proper response to my comment. Since when were politicians representative of academic scholarship of any field?
As for this red herring, what has someone's being a non-Muslim got to do with their academic education and reputation in Islamic studies (and thus usability on Wikipedia)? This, as well as that "strong ties" farce, are vivid examples of how you have been ready to assume bad faith whenever and wherever you can.
And now that I've caught you not bothering to check, and claiming two people
didn't revert to RunedChozo who clearly did... Have a Nice Day.
Get it right: Alecmconroy didn't revert to RunedChozo. Proabivouac reverted to Arrow (who reverted to RunedChozo), yet he also twice avoided reverting to RunedChozo, opting to revert back one version more.
Your 'research' is less than
convincing, I'm afraid.
Your handwaving arguments aren't holding up, see above.
Unfortunately, your empty rhetoric plus rather poor understanding of what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia forces me to announce that I will not respond to you any further, though I doubt not for a moment that you will desire the last say. Good bye.
Unfortunately, your empty rhetoric plus rather poor understanding of what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia forces me to announce that I will not respond to you any further, though I doubt not for a moment that you will desire the last say. Good bye.
In other words, you're "taking your ball and going home."
And will no doubt continue to edit war on Wikipedia, which is sad, since you're doing nothing to help the project on those articles then.
Parker
Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate.
Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have,
Arrow740 did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
So did Proabivouac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92...
- or how about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92...
- Proabivouac reverts to Alecmconroy instead of one forward to RunedChozo,
where the only diff between the two was the insertion of that OR. or;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92... where Proabivouac again reverts to three versions back to Arrow instead of two versions back to RunedChozo, where the diff between the two is that same OR (minus a lead tag).
You're out of line, mister.
Spare me the rhetoric, please.
No, you're out of line. Every edit YOU point to predates the introduction of source, after which they started reverting to RunedChozo's version with source. And you've yet to satisfactorily provide any evidence for your assertion that the source doesn't support it, beyond your say-so.
I don't think you are being honest here.
Parker
On 12/16/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the
debate.
Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have,
Arrow740 did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
So did Proabivouac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92...
or how about this:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92...
Proabivouac reverts to Alecmconroy instead of one forward to
RunedChozo, where the only diff between the two was the insertion of that OR. or;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92... where Proabivouac again reverts to three versions back to Arrow instead of two versions back to RunedChozo, where the diff between the two is that same OR (minus a lead tag).
You're out of line, mister.
Spare me the rhetoric, please.
No, you're out of line. Every edit YOU point to predates the introduction of source, after which they started reverting to RunedChozo's version with source. And you've yet to satisfactorily provide any evidence for your assertion that the source doesn't support it, beyond your say-so.
I don't think you are being honest here.
Parker
Well, I'm off for the holidays, you all have fun, enjoy the season, Merry Christmas to those who'll take it, and all that.
I'll revisit this once I return.
Parker
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It was a complex situation. [He] tends to present it with a lot of
moral conclusions that I think overstep the evidence to a degree.
While I can't quite grasp the arguments about the numberof dervishes Muhammed can spin on the head of a pin, I can still appreciate a well turned euphemism.
Ec
On 12/15/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to flame me.
Parker
Name dropping is so tacky.
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/15/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to flame me.
Parker
Name dropping is so tacky.
No, he really did ask Jimbo, and Jimbo really did intervene.
On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/15/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying
to
flame me.
Parker
Name dropping is so tacky.
No, he really did ask Jimbo, and Jimbo really did intervene.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Yes, I saw that after I posted.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
You should try to avoid labelling people.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
You should try to avoid labelling people.
Sorry. I'll rephrase that:
It's much more credible when arguments from throwaway email accounts are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
You should try to avoid labelling people.
Sorry. I'll rephrase that:
It's much more credible when arguments from throwaway email accounts are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
I'm actually of the opinion that Parker Peters, whoever they *were* on WP, has established an identified pseudonym here and should not be treated now as a throwaway or anon user.
I still don't much agree with him, but he's not a random throwaway troll here...
For those keeping up on this, the checkuser results have come in (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...). I will also copy the comment I made to [[WP:ANI]]:
The results of the checkuser have come in with the conclusion being /possible/. Nevertheless, let me make a case for why the IP address in question that led to the extended block is most likely RunedChozo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo • contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo). First, note the previous request for checkuser that came back confirmed. The IP address from that confirmed checkuser request comes from Houston, Texas (see WHOIS lookup http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=129.7.35.126). Both IP addresses part of the more recent checkuser (the one the ended as only /possible/) come from Houston as well (see WHOIS lookup one http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=70.114.237.14 and two http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=70.114.236.109). As stated already, the rhetoric from RunedChozo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo • contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo) and 70.114.237.14 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14 • contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14) are quite similar (note the reference to the talk page being protected, as well as the /tool/ accusations). One editor on the English Wikipedia mailing list noted that 70.114.237.14 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14 • contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14)'s edit times don't match up with those of RunedChozo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo • contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo). Perhaps that is correct, but it does not seem unreasonable, in my opinion, for someone to be editing around 11:30pm and 12:30am, especially if a user is angry and passionately wants to say something.
So, it is possible that 70.114.237.14 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14 • contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14) and RunedChozo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo • contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo) are just both especially anti-Muslim editors who happen to both live near Houston, edit similar articles, and use similar types of statements. However, I am convinced, without reservation, that the users are one and the same. -- *tariqabjotu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariqabjotu* 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
"Possible". What did the checkuser actually say, I wonder.
As far as I know Checkuser (and I've examined the code), it's a yes or no thing. Putting forth a claim of "possible" is just a hedge being used to continue to beat up on this user while they are blocked and their talk page locked.
I don't buy it. This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test, your conduct included.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
For those keeping up on this, the checkuser results have come in (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz... ). I will also copy the comment I made to [[WP:ANI]]:
The results of the checkuser have come in with the conclusion being /possible/. Nevertheless, let me make a case for why the IP address in question that led to the extended block is most likely RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>). First, note the previous request for checkuser that came back confirmed. The IP address from that confirmed checkuser request comes from Houston, Texas (see WHOIS lookup <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=129.7.35.126>). Both IP addresses part of the more recent checkuser (the one the ended as only /possible/) come from Houston as well (see WHOIS lookup one <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=70.114.237.14> and two <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=70.114.236.109>). As stated already, the rhetoric from RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>) and 70.114.237.14 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit... (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14 • contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14) are quite similar (note the reference to the talk page being protected, as well as the /tool/ accusations). One editor on the English Wikipedia mailing list noted that 70.114.237.14 < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit... (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14 • contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14)'s edit times don't match up with those of RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>). Perhaps that is correct, but it does not seem unreasonable, in my opinion, for someone to be editing around 11:30pm and 12:30am, especially if a user is angry and passionately wants to say something. So, it is possible that 70.114.237.14 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit... (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14 • contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14) and RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>) are just both especially anti-Muslim editors who happen to both live near Houston, edit similar articles, and use similar types of statements. However, I am convinced, without reservation, that the users are one and the same. -- *tariqabjotu <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariqabjotu>* 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
George Herbert wrote:
As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page, removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus arguing with people there.
As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on several levels. He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info claiming it's unsourced. There was a two-sided abusive edit war going on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been warned against that.
It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or appropriate. If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool down.
Bad day.
All in all, I like that post. I don't think we'll all completely agree on everything, but you're attempting to be fair and objective, and I like that.
Moving on to the checkuser results -- Essjay reports that it's "possible" RunedChozo and 70.114.237.14 are the same person.
"Possible" means just that. It's objectively possible that it's the same person, but also objectively possible that it's not -- meaning that there are other people active in this IP range, most likely. We're probably not going to get a solid result, through checkuser; that evidence seems circumstantial.
George Herbert brings up an interesting point -- RunedChozo has a strong tendency to edit at about 10:00-15:00 (my time), but 70.114.237.14 was editing only between 20:00-23:00 (my time). I can only find two exceptions to this, in RunedChozo's edit history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev...
Both were on 18 November, at about 22:40. This seems to hint away from RunedChozo being 70.114.237.14, but given such a brief sampling, it's difficult to be entirely certain. We know that he *can* stay up until whatever time that is, locally, but also that he does so rarely.
70.114.237.14 has two main "periods" -- once, at 20:16-20:34 on 10 December (about half a day before RunedChozo's block @ 11:45, 11 December), where the primary activity was apparently trolling at Striver. It's possible this was another user, or also possible it was a registered user logging out to attempt to avoid responsibility for attacks. The IP's second block of edits comes at 21:32-22:34, 11 December (about 10 hours after RunedChozo's block), and the first edit again attacks Striver. The IP then proceeds to the AN/I thread RunedChozo started, and makes some more attacks before being blocked, at which point it continues at its talk page.
Given the IP started its second block by attacking Striver, I think we can at least assume the 70.114.237.14 was the same user, both days.
So, I decided to check if RunedChozo has had any previous interaction with Striver. He has. On 14 November, he made two edits to Striver's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&am... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&am...
They appear to have been clashing over these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beit_Hanoun_Nov... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_shellin...
This evidence doesn't seem to clearly pin RunedChozo as 70.114.237.14, but it does establish that he had an antagonistic relationship with Striver, and we do know that 70.114.237.14 attacked Striver's userpage.
I can see a few other similarities between RunedChozo and 70.114.237.14. Both consider Striver to be an anti-Israeli POV-pusher and/or anti-semite. Both consider the Muslim Guild to be a group of meatpuppets or some other form of conspiracy.
They both refer to Future Perfect as a "tool" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&di... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunris... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Both call Tariqabjotu and Itaqallah "liars" frequently http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
And as is no doubt obvious to any interested party by this point, they both seem to have a high interest in the exact same AN/I thread and the same article (Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident).
So, what do we think?
-Luna
And they're both Houston, Texas IP addresses... (see WP:ANI post under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#RunedChozo_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29..., earlier e-mail). The coincidences seem just too many.
Luna wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page, removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus arguing with people there.
As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on several levels. He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info claiming it's unsourced. There was a two-sided abusive edit war going on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been warned against that.
It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or appropriate. If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool down.
Bad day.
All in all, I like that post. I don't think we'll all completely agree on everything, but you're attempting to be fair and objective, and I like that.
Moving on to the checkuser results -- Essjay reports that it's "possible" RunedChozo and 70.114.237.14 are the same person.
"Possible" means just that. It's objectively possible that it's the same person, but also objectively possible that it's not -- meaning that there are other people active in this IP range, most likely. We're probably not going to get a solid result, through checkuser; that evidence seems circumstantial.
George Herbert brings up an interesting point -- RunedChozo has a strong tendency to edit at about 10:00-15:00 (my time), but 70.114.237.14 was editing only between 20:00-23:00 (my time). I can only find two exceptions to this, in RunedChozo's edit history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev...
Both were on 18 November, at about 22:40. This seems to hint away from RunedChozo being 70.114.237.14, but given such a brief sampling, it's difficult to be entirely certain. We know that he *can* stay up until whatever time that is, locally, but also that he does so rarely.
70.114.237.14 has two main "periods" -- once, at 20:16-20:34 on 10 December (about half a day before RunedChozo's block @ 11:45, 11 December), where the primary activity was apparently trolling at Striver. It's possible this was another user, or also possible it was a registered user logging out to attempt to avoid responsibility for attacks. The IP's second block of edits comes at 21:32-22:34, 11 December (about 10 hours after RunedChozo's block), and the first edit again attacks Striver. The IP then proceeds to the AN/I thread RunedChozo started, and makes some more attacks before being blocked, at which point it continues at its talk page.
Given the IP started its second block by attacking Striver, I think we can at least assume the 70.114.237.14 was the same user, both days.
So, I decided to check if RunedChozo has had any previous interaction with Striver. He has. On 14 November, he made two edits to Striver's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&am... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&am...
They appear to have been clashing over these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beit_Hanoun_Nov... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_shellin...
This evidence doesn't seem to clearly pin RunedChozo as 70.114.237.14, but it does establish that he had an antagonistic relationship with Striver, and we do know that 70.114.237.14 attacked Striver's userpage.
I can see a few other similarities between RunedChozo and 70.114.237.14. Both consider Striver to be an anti-Israeli POV-pusher and/or anti-semite. Both consider the Muslim Guild to be a group of meatpuppets or some other form of conspiracy.
They both refer to Future Perfect as a "tool" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&di... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunris... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Both call Tariqabjotu and Itaqallah "liars" frequently http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
And as is no doubt obvious to any interested party by this point, they both seem to have a high interest in the exact same AN/I thread and the same article (Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident).
So, what do we think?
-Luna _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Houston, TX, eh? Wasn't Enviroknot from Houston?
On 13/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
And they're both Houston, Texas IP addresses... (see WP:ANI post under
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#RunedChozo_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29... , earlier e-mail). The coincidences seem just too many.
Luna wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page, removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus arguing with people there.
As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on several levels. He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info claiming it's unsourced. There was a two-sided abusive edit war going on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been warned against that.
It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or appropriate. If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool down.
Bad day.
All in all, I like that post. I don't think we'll all completely agree
on
everything, but you're attempting to be fair and objective, and I like
that.
Moving on to the checkuser results -- Essjay reports that it's
"possible"
RunedChozo and 70.114.237.14 are the same person.
"Possible" means just that. It's objectively possible that it's the same person, but also objectively possible that it's not -- meaning that
there
are other people active in this IP range, most likely. We're probably
not
going to get a solid result, through checkuser; that evidence seems circumstantial.
George Herbert brings up an interesting point -- RunedChozo has a strong tendency to edit at about 10:00-15:00 (my time), but 70.114.237.14 was editing only between 20:00-23:00 (my time). I can only find two
exceptions
to this, in RunedChozo's edit history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev...
Both were on 18 November, at about 22:40. This seems to hint away from RunedChozo being 70.114.237.14, but given such a brief sampling, it's difficult to be entirely certain. We know that he *can* stay up until whatever time that is, locally, but also that he does so rarely.
70.114.237.14 has two main "periods" -- once, at 20:16-20:34 on 10
December
(about half a day before RunedChozo's block @ 11:45, 11 December), where
the
primary activity was apparently trolling at Striver. It's possible this
was
another user, or also possible it was a registered user logging out to attempt to avoid responsibility for attacks. The IP's second block of
edits
comes at 21:32-22:34, 11 December (about 10 hours after RunedChozo's
block),
and the first edit again attacks Striver. The IP then proceeds to the
AN/I
thread RunedChozo started, and makes some more attacks before being
blocked,
at which point it continues at its talk page.
Given the IP started its second block by attacking Striver, I think we
can
at least assume the 70.114.237.14 was the same user, both days.
So, I decided to check if RunedChozo has had any previous interaction
with
Striver. He has. On 14 November, he made two edits to Striver's talk
page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&am...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&am...
They appear to have been clashing over these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beit_Hanoun_Nov...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_shellin...
This evidence doesn't seem to clearly pin RunedChozo as 70.114.237.14,
but
it does establish that he had an antagonistic relationship with Striver,
and
we do know that 70.114.237.14 attacked Striver's userpage.
I can see a few other similarities between RunedChozo and 70.114.237.14. Both consider Striver to be an anti-Israeli POV-pusher and/or
anti-semite.
Both consider the Muslim Guild to be a group of meatpuppets or some
other
form of conspiracy.
They both refer to Future Perfect as a "tool"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&di...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunris...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Both call Tariqabjotu and Itaqallah "liars" frequently
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=prev...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
And as is no doubt obvious to any interested party by this point, they
both
seem to have a high interest in the exact same AN/I thread and the same article (Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident).
So, what do we think?
-Luna _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
Houston, TX, eh? Wasn't Enviroknot from Houston?
I'm make a joke about most of the GNAA being from Houston following Hurricane Katrina, but...
And Itaqallah has asked me to forward this to the list:
== hello Luna ==
i was reading the mailing list about the RunedChozo incident... i'm not sure how to reply to current discussions (i just signed up to it), so i was thinking i would request you to convey all i had to say on the matter (i had already explained this on AN/I).
if that edit summary is looked at by itself, then no it doesn't match up with my revert. if, however, you consider RunedChozo's behaviour on that page then you may understand the reasoning for that summary. every revert by RunedChozo had been a revert to this versionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92473890&oldid=92318517(bar an extra sentence which i will cover in a moment), which was the insertion of subjective (and yes, unsourced) OR. now, RunedChozo had been persisting in re-inserting this sentence: it was only five reverts after his original insertion that he added an additional sentence starting with "Source:..". this is rather inconsequental: the sources do not substantiate the claim, so it remains OR; and he would not be in a position to verify it unless he is fluent in Arabic, which i do not believe he is. i didn't see his insertion of these sources: someone else had reverted it before i'd had a chance to look at it. when RunedChozo had come back from his three day block and resumed reverting to self again (11 Dec), i merely assumed that he was reinserting the same OR again (which he was), not knowing that he had added a pseudo-'source' to it. had i known that he was also misrepresenting sources i would not have described his OR insertion as 'unsourced'. i may have been wrong, yes, but i certainly was not lying. i hope that clarifies the issue. by the way, i do not know future perfect (i have addressed him on two separate occasions only)- i contacted him when i had found RunedChozo puppeteering (User:Wheelygood), because he had been involved in the 3RR discussion herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%2527_noticeboard/3RRArchive32#User:RunedChozo_reported_by_User:mdf_.28Result:_3_days.29 .
if you could put that up on the list Luna, i would be very grateful.. thank you. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You've examined the code, eh? Probably not. As for the "possible", see [[WP:BEANS]].
On 12/13/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
"Possible". What did the checkuser actually say, I wonder.
As far as I know Checkuser (and I've examined the code), it's a yes or no thing. Putting forth a claim of "possible" is just a hedge being used to continue to beat up on this user while they are blocked and their talk page locked.
I don't buy it. This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test, your conduct included.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
For those keeping up on this, the checkuser results have come in (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
). I will also copy the comment I made to [[WP:ANI]]:
The results of the checkuser have come in with the conclusion being /possible/. Nevertheless, let me make a case for why the IP address in question that led to the extended block is most likely RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>). First, note the previous request for checkuser that came back confirmed. The IP address from that confirmed checkuser request comes from Houston, Texas (see WHOIS lookup <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=129.7.35.126>). Both IP addresses part of the more recent checkuser (the one the ended as only /possible/) come from Houston as well (see WHOIS lookup one <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=70.114.237.14> and two <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=70.114.236.109>). As stated already, the rhetoric from RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>) and 70.114.237.14 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14>) are quite similar (note the reference to the talk page being protected, as well as the /tool/ accusations). One editor on the English Wikipedia mailing list noted that 70.114.237.14 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14)'s edit times don't match up with those of RunedChozo <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>). Perhaps that is correct, but it does not seem unreasonable, in my opinion, for someone to be editing around 11:30pm and 12:30am, especially if a user is angry and passionately wants to saysomething.
So, it is possible that 70.114.237.14 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14>) and RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>) are just both especially anti-Muslim editors who happen to both live near Houston, edit similar articles, and use similar types of statements. However, I am convinced, without reservation, that the users are one and the same. -- *tariqabjotu <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariqabjotu>* 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I like to think that, since I've continued to use this and stood by my words in this email account, it'd be clear by now that this is not a "throwaway" account.
But if you insist on trying to put labels on me and [[Attack the messenger]], by all means, keep doing so. It only shows how weak your own argument is.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
You should try to avoid labelling people.
Sorry. I'll rephrase that:
It's much more credible when arguments from throwaway email accounts are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Parker Peters wrote:
I like to think that, since I've continued to use this and stood by my words in this email account, it'd be clear by now that this is not a "throwaway" account.
Maybe it's not, but without a username and contributions you will continue to be dismissed as an outsider.
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Depends on whether or not "reason" has any meaning to the troll.
Strongly second that. Grow up and learn to discuss things in a mature, civil fashion or go away.
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
Seriously now, stop trolling and go back to your playroom.
On 13/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming you can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the lying.
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:35:06 -0600, "Michael Smith" runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got
an
admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his
lying
friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and
they've
jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
Ah, so they *have* dealt with this. Good.
Just for future reference, hysterical accusations of "rouge admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted. Next time try posting something much less strident.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:37:38 -0600, "Michael Smith" runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming you can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the lying.
Redux: "it's all about *me*".
How am I supposed to know that Michael Smith is a Muslim? And why should I care? I am a Christian; both are Faiths of the Book. I didn't even notice that JoshuaZ was Jewish (how obtuse does that make me?).
Now try reading for comprehension: hysterical accusations of "rouge admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted. Next time try posting something much less strident.
Guy (JzG)
Whatever you say, dick.
I'm not Muslim. Point of fact is that I'm not anything. I don't think God exists, and even if he does, I don't think he gives a flying fuck about the world as it is now.
Itaqallah, on the other hand, is a member of the POV-pushing group called the Muslim Guild, and I caught him blatantly lying in his edit summaries while he was chain reverting people on that page. But you don't seem to care about that at all.
So I get it: Lying on wikipedia is A-OK as long as you're a muslim, but pointing out that a muslim is blatantly lying while also edit warring is "incivil." Your policies are so much bullshit.
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:37:38 -0600, "Michael Smith" runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming
you
can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing
the
lying.
Redux: "it's all about *me*".
How am I supposed to know that Michael Smith is a Muslim? And why should I care? I am a Christian; both are Faiths of the Book. I didn't even notice that JoshuaZ was Jewish (how obtuse does that make me?).
Now try reading for comprehension: hysterical accusations of "rouge admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted. Next time try posting something much less strident.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Whatever you say, dick.
I'm not Muslim. Point of fact is that I'm not anything. I don't think God exists, and even if he does, I don't think he gives a flying fuck about the world as it is now.
Itaqallah, on the other hand, is a member of the POV-pushing group called the Muslim Guild, and I caught him blatantly lying in his edit summaries while he was chain reverting people on that page. But you don't seem to care about that at all.
So I get it: Lying on wikipedia is A-OK as long as you're a muslim, but pointing out that a muslim is blatantly lying while also edit warring is "incivil." Your policies are so much bullshit.
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:37:38 -0600, "Michael Smith" runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming
you
can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing
the
lying.
Redux: "it's all about *me*".
How am I supposed to know that Michael Smith is a Muslim? And why should I care? I am a Christian; both are Faiths of the Book. I didn't even notice that JoshuaZ was Jewish (how obtuse does that make me?).
Now try reading for comprehension: hysterical accusations of "rouge admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted. Next time try posting something much less strident.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Without saying anything in regards to the content, characterizing every action against oneself as a conspiracy by Muslim editors is not likely to help one's position, but instead further divide the community. I'm sure you must realize that the [x is an element of {Right-wing, Left-wing, Fascist, Communist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish} in "The $x conspiracy is out to get me"] claim has been attempted countless times and has not once garnered anybody favour.
If you really want it proven that Muslim editors are not out to get you, I can personally block you myself -- I am not a Muslim.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:58:29 -0600, "Michael Smith" runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Whatever you say, dick.
Oh, I get it - you *can't* can't post less stridently. No wonder you have a problem. Still, it's your problem not mine, since in the end it's admins (like me) you'll need to convince if you want anything done about this, and admins are sufficiently accustomed to hysterical accusations of abuse that we tend to dismiss them, I'm afraid.
So maybe something a little less strident would be worth a shot, in the end?
Guy (JzG)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Smith stated for the record:
Whatever you say, dick. ... Your policies are so much bullshit.
Moderators, please put Michael Smith on moderation.
- -- Sean Barrett | Is smoke supposed to come out of it like that? sean@epoptic.com |
Dear everybody, Michael Smith has already been placed on moderation by David Gerard shortly after this post. Thanks Michael (Bimmler, not Smith...)
On 12/12/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Smith stated for the record:
Whatever you say, dick. ... Your policies are so much bullshit.
Moderators, please put Michael Smith on moderation.
Sean Barrett | Is smoke supposed to come out of it like that? sean@epoptic.com | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFfyK0/SVOiq2uhHMRAmR7AJ9Qz9JbQVSX7K1pPlCGahzrlyOFcACePZ1q +Pz3bFLET+MaYlq1WFMCHn0= =YU0h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You do realize that that's not going to help the situation at all...
sigh.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
Dear everybody, Michael Smith has already been placed on moderation by David Gerard shortly after this post. Thanks Michael (Bimmler, not Smith...)
On 12/12/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Smith stated for the record:
Whatever you say, dick. ... Your policies are so much bullshit.
Moderators, please put Michael Smith on moderation.
Sean Barrett | Is smoke supposed to come out of it like that? sean@epoptic.com | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFfyK0/SVOiq2uhHMRAmR7AJ9Qz9JbQVSX7K1pPlCGahzrlyOFcACePZ1q +Pz3bFLET+MaYlq1WFMCHn0= =YU0h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Whatever you say, dick.
I'm not Muslim. Point of fact is that I'm not anything. I don't think God exists, and even if he does, I don't think he gives a flying fuck about the world as it is now.
Itaqallah, on the other hand, is a member of the POV-pushing group called the Muslim Guild, and I caught him blatantly lying in his edit summaries while he was chain reverting people on that page. But you don't seem to care about that at all.
So I get it: Lying on wikipedia is A-OK as long as you're a muslim, but pointing out that a muslim is blatantly lying while also edit warring is "incivil." Your policies are so much bullshit.
<snip>
Well, that little outburst will most certainly help make your case and get the help you need (on Wikipedia, anyway).
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming you can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the lying.
And that's where you lost my attention, I'm afraid. Please try to calm down, or you very probably will lose any chance of getting a fair hearing. If you have a legitimate complaint, I'd love to try and investigate it -- as is, however, you look too much like a troll for me to eagerly invest the time to find out.
By looking anything like a troll, you only play into the hands of those who want you blocked. Stay calm, keep collected, and you stand a chance. Everything here is about discussion to reach consensus.
Just my thoughts, -Luna
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming
you
can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the lying.
And that's where you lost my attention, I'm afraid. Please try to calm down, or you very probably will lose any chance of getting a fair hearing. If you have a legitimate complaint, I'd love to try and investigate it -- as is, however, you look too much like a troll for me to eagerly invest the time to find out.
Luna,
I've taken a look at this complaint. Suffice it to say, there's more than enough for me to be "very uneasy" about what went on.
The diffs given from Itaqallah do have what appear to be falsified edit summaries, especially the first - calling something "OR" when the text includes a section saying "SOURCE:" is about as blatant as you get short of claiming 2+2=5.
As for the rest, the discussion is a pile-on, and Runedchozo definitely reacted badly. I would probably have supported a 24-hour block as a cooling down period, if it had been explained as such and applied to all involved parties.
The accusation of "block evasion" from Inshaneee appears to be wholly without merit, not to mention that Inshaneee actually removed the comment that I'm assuming he is referring to from the page anyways.
Looks clearly to be bad-faith persecution to me.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:35:06 -0600, "Michael Smith" runedchozo@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his
lying
friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and
they've
jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
Ah, so they *have* dealt with this. Good.
Just for future reference, hysterical accusations of "rouge admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted. Next time try posting something much less strident.
Guy (JzG)
Guy,
I think you are out of line with this. I've reviewed the complaint, and the edit summaries this complainant refers to are indeed both completely false.
As for "dealing with" a situation where someone complains about behavior that is so blatant it is well beyond the bounds of AGF, by banning the complainant for five days? Especially when the one who's doing the banning just "happens" to be a member of the same "Muslim Guild" as the one being complained about? I see not only a conflict of interest, but some serious problems with all those who've piled on attacking this editor.
Your attitude is the same dismissive bullshit that caused me to leave Wikipedia, and had me pretty much ignoring even this mailing list for a couple months until I've come back just to check in with Jimbo, who has steadfastly been Not Bothering to investigate the specific instances he previously promised to investigate. :(
Parker
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:42:00 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Your attitude is the same dismissive bullshit that caused me to leave Wikipedia
Fantastic! Hopefully it has had other, similarly positive results.
Guy (JzG)