User talk:Observation Post/Archive the first

The Quran and science

I nominated The Quran and science for deletion again. Ibrahimfaisal removed all my additions after the article was saved. Will you weigh in? Also if you could include that same link to Zakir Naik's talk that would be great. Arrow740 21:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comments

You posted the following comments to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR [1]:

Adding the same image? Now, that takes nerve, for this image was already present: it is User:BostonMA who has been blanking it. User:BostonMA is the latest wave of a rising tide of fundamentalist editors who blank images of Muhammad on various articles, in his case without bothering to make an argument on talk - and even so, what can the argument be, other than that the image must be censored to make Wikipedia Halal? And the diffs show that the image is not the only thing that User:BostonMA saw fit to arbitrarily censor which HungryHun valiantly restored, knowing he was taking he risk of being reported here and possibly sanctioned by an admin less reasonable than Jaranda. If anything, this report only underscores the need to take action against users who adopt User:BostonMA's approach to editting Wikipedia: for every blip on the noticeboards there are two users who give up editting - really defending - these articles because there is no established mechanism for dealing with this madness, other than to stay glued to Wikipedia and revert them all day or the even more laborious path of arbitration. User:BostonMA should be blocked for his ceaseless and unashamed disruption.Observation Post 08:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Observation Post, there are a number of points that I would like to respond to regarding your comments.

You characterize with "User:BostonMA is the latest wave of a rising tide of fundamentalist editors". I have views regarding the content of Wikipedia, and I have views regarding many other topics. The latter views I consider my private business, and I do not share them on Wikipedia, no more than I would present my views on religion in a lecture that I might give in school. So, you should realize that you know nothing of my views on religion. You, as everyone, is entitled to form your own opinion of me, based upon whatever comments or edits I may make at Wikipedia. However, I think it is inappropriate to attach labels to editors, such as "fundamentalist". I think it is inappropriate in general, but it is especially inappropriate when the labels that are attached have the capacity to Poison the well, and to shift attention from the issues before us, to political controversies that exist outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to fight out such controversies.

"Without bothering to make an argument on talk." I made arguments in my edit summaries. I have also made arguments on the talk page of the user with whom I have had this edit conflict. There are also some good arguments on the talk page of the article in question that I did not make. I don't see the need to repeat every argument every time I make an edit.

"and even so, what can the argument be, other than that the image must be censored to make Wikipedia Halal?" Again, your reference to Halal is inappropriate. That aside, I have raised arguments in my edit summaries, but I shall expand on them here. From my perspective, I am following this guideline which says in part:

"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

In my opinion, the image is a) considered offensive by some Wikipedia readers, and b) is not informative. It doesn't illustrate what Mohammed looks like, and we really have no idea what the image is supposed to be illustrating at all.

"And the diffs show that the image is not the only thing that User:BostonMA saw fit to arbitrarily censor which HungryHun valiantly restored" could you give an example? If I removed something else, it was by accident. You mention censorship. I do not favor censorship. The image belongs on Wikipedia, just as the image of Piss Christ belongs on Wikipedia. However the image of Piss Christ does not belong the Jesus page. There is a difference between appropriate placement of information, and censorship.

"If anything, this report only underscores the need to take action against users who adopt User:BostonMA's approach to editting Wikipedia:" Please note, that some of the editors who have been removing the image have been with Wikipedia for years. You may wish to re-evaluate your opinion, that this is a "rising tide of fundamentalist editors".

"there is no established mechanism for dealing with this madness" please read Dispute resolution

I would very much like to hear from you again. --BostonMA ^talk 14:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no personal attacks, please

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your help combating itaqallah's vandalism on the Quran and science. Arrow740 22:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comments

Hi. Let's leave the removal of comments to the discretion of the users whose talk pages the coversations took place in. Thanks in advance. El_C 12:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits of banned users are to be reverted. This is always true, but especially so when they are defamatory, as on User talk:Netscott. Though I fully understand the motivation for your actions, please consider how the material you've restored might impact third parties referenced in these posts.Observation Post 12:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to explain to me what the impact might be, specifically. Otherwise, I leave it to the discretion of the respective users. El_C 12:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not actually have to explain it: they are posts from banned users, which are to be reverted on sight. If you have further questions, feel free to contact me by e-mail.Observation Post 12:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you had to, I said feel free. But, unless you can offer something concrete (in terms of "third parties referenced"), you are not permitted to remove conversations, even if blocked users participated. You need the consent of the other parties. El_C 12:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert again or you may face administrative sanctions. If you wish to involve other administrators, you may place a notice on WP:ANI, or personally contact the three users with your concerns. Thanks again. El_C 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need the consent of the other parties. El_C 12:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC) The users in question are not merely blocked, but banned, a significant distinction. You are certainly welcome to restore comments from active, non-banned users. However, since these were conversations between active users and banned ones, this will make the formers' comments look unprompted and inapropriate. I thought it simpler and more respectful to blank the threads.Observation Post 13:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those active users are experienced editors/admins/arbitrators who nonetheless opted to respond. They could have —and still can— remove the threads at any time. The best thing to do, I think, would be to querry their opinion on the matter. Unless, again, there are pressing concerns. Had the comments been removed on-the-spot, then this would be a nonissue El_C 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of this material contains personal attacks on third parties. Party A and party B, however experienced (or however banned), are in no position to agree to posting personal attacks on party C. Again, these are banned users, in at least one case for vicious, sustained and libelous personal attacks. Wikipedia is a free encyclopdia, not a forum for libel. Restoring such posts is simply a very bad idea.Observation Post 13:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask Jay or Blnguyen what they think should be done; they're probably more familiar with the issue than myself as they participated in the discussion. If you revert again, however, you will be blocked from editing. El_C 13:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:3RR - there is no limit to the number of reverts which may be applied against the edits of banned users.Observation Post 13:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. 3RR does not apply in this case. You have been blocked indefinitely pending further investigation. Thx. El_C 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely? That seems rather harsh, especially considering that this entire time I've been inviting you to e-mail me to discuss the situation.

Would you kindly unblock me, with the understanding that I'll revert no more?Observation Post 13:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite is not infinite; it can even be for a few minutes. But in light of concerns on the part of one of the users whose talk page you were reverting, I opted for that route. Sorry, but I do not have access to my email at this time. It is regretful that you chose to revert rather than contact Jay or Blnguyen as I suggested. At any rate, the incident has been submitted to the incidents noticeboard here, so let's wait and see what other editors think. El_C 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but having arrived at this stage, I would prefer to let someone else handle that. Too many questions have been raised with regards to this account. Sorry again for any inconvenience. I will note your request, though. El_C 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an e-mail, and request that you view it before taking further action.Observation Post 14:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No further action on my part is likely at this point. But certainly, I will review your email when I can. El_C 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect when I say that your actions here were really misguided. You're a fantastic editor and administrator, but you're too stuck in Wikipedia mode (as opposed to real life mode) to see what is likely occurring here, and why. Since you can't get e-mail (and shouldn't be taking admin action, actually, in that situation, for this very reason), suffice it to say that the sockpuppet of User:Kgeza67/User:Wik hypothesis is completely and ridiculously wrong. And, I'm contacting the office.Observation Post 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly concede the possibility that my actions were in error. Yes, by all means, I welcome review of these by any channel, and will of course attempt to draw any applicable lessons accordingly. Thanks again for your patience. Also, I appreciate your kind words very much. El_C 14:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]