This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tariqabjotu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please reply wherever you prefer (I watch pages where I post). When a hook is posted on the main page, the article is bot-tagged for that and the nominators receive credits, which are treated as a "legal" achievement, like GAs and FAs. The tag is later used to prevent further DYK or ITN nomination of the bolded articles. There are also personal issues - some noms are carefully prepared to appear in a certain timeframe; regular nominators get upset by our blunders in treating that (which do happen) to the point of turning away from the DYK project. Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I called you a liar or an idiot and I certainly didn't intend to treat you like an asshole. I looked at the page and it appeared to me to be different from the way you had described it. I don't read Arabic well (although actally I do a very tiny amount) - if you want to disagree with what I've put then you're entitled to and I see you have done that.
You say this as if this is a matter of opinion. It's not. What I said regarding the Israel article on the Arabic Wikipedia was 100% correct. There's no "if you want to disagree" nonsense. You're wrong. Period. No, I do not agree that the contents of our discussion are tangential to the main issues. You are unwilling to admit your error -- you have attempted to relegate this to a "disagreement" -- and so you want to sideline the issue. That's not going to happen; I consider your comment implying I'm a liar a serious allegation on a point entirely relevant to the discussion. -- tariqabjotu23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to try to convince you offline of the merits of my proposal at Israel. You, nsaum and others have latched on to this idea that writing "Israel has chosen Jerusalem" is in some way weakening Jerusalem's title to the crown. But I believe the context of this argument has clouded your judgement. No reader, other than those who have been personally involved in this convoluted debate, would ever read my proposal that way. Set yourself outside this argument, and read these two sentences:
"Israel has chosen Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is the seat of government and the most populous city."
"Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and largest city."
No, my judgment is not clouded, thank you very much. The question isn't which leaves me with a stronger impression of Israel's claim on Jerusalem -- as both indicate the claim that Jerusalem has been chosen/designated/etc. as its capital. The question is which leaves me with a clearer impression that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That's the latter. That's why I opposed the former formulation. Now, perhaps if the first piece had used "capital" instead of "seat of government", I'd be 100% fine with it, and would see little difference between the two. But we all know that the problem is with the C-word; that's why people are proposing removing it, or at least proposing qualifying it, in the lead. If the average person were to genuinely get the same message from both formulations -- i.e. that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel -- you wouldn't see people supporting the first, and opposing the second. I'm going to assume our readers are intelligent enough to see the difference, and thus will not support the evasive language that some editors would like to see used in order to cast doubt on Jerusalem's clear status as capital and fulfill their efforts to make this article a battlefront for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. -- tariqabjotu08:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you've named me as an involved party in the mediation regarding the Israel article.
I haven't been involved in mediation before, so I have a few questions. If you don't think you're the right person to ask, please point me at someone who you think is.
What happens if I decide I don't want to participate in mediation?
If I do participate and the mediation fails, what happens then?
If I do participate and the mediation goes well, can other editors bring up the issue again at a later date and try to "improve" on the compromise reached at mediation?
Considering I'm a member of the Mediation Committee, I should be able to answer your questions:
If you don't want to participate, the case will be rejected. All relevant parties must agree to mediation, and while complex, lengthy cases like this one often require very minor parties to be weeded out, I don't think you can be considered a minor party. If you disagree with the mediation, it will not go further. Someone may decide, if they like, to address the matter through other channels of dispute resolution. But RfM is generally considered the court of last resort for content disputes. ArbCom is only relevant if a user conduct issue could be formulated (e.g. some editor or group of editors is being disruptive to prevent a resolution).
If the mediation fails, it's chalked up to yet another form of dispute resolution that was tried but failed. Once again, someone could try to go through another form of dispute resolution. Even though MedCom is the court of last resort (which is not to say mediation results are binding), people will generally go back to RfCs, endless discussions... you know... what we have now.
Yes, they can. Mediation results are not binding, so anyone can "improve on the compromise" as you say, or bring it back closer toward the pre-mediation formulation. But the idea is that an agreement from a mediation request holds a lot of weight, and the likelihood of there being consensus to put in place anything other than the agreement should be very low. If others who followed the case, especially those who participated in it, start to ask for more than what they already agreed to with no change in situation or addition of new information and positions, there's obviously grounds for considering them disruptive. ArbCom would be a natural next step, if ignoring them is not sufficient.
I should add as a final point that the proceedings of a request for mediation cannot be used against you in an ArbCom case or pretty much anywhere else. If necessary, the proceedings may be held off Wikipedia on a more private site. -- tariqabjotu21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The case involving Trock95, and Gantlet's subsequent revert after the expiration of the block, is quite clear, so I blocked him/her accordingly. Unfortunately, the case involving Dewatchdog is unclear. Now, it seems highly improbable that someone else would take up Dewatchdog's campaign on his/her own volition, but the IP addresses that are following his lead come from two locations -- New York (192.193.xx, 66.234.xx) and Singapore (218.186.xx). That does not by any means exclude the possibility that those edits are Dewatchdog's -- they probably are his -- but it's just not as obvious. I've semi-protected the article to prevent issues with sockpuppetry, but I'll hold off to see Dewatchdog's next move before blocking him. -- tariqabjotu16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The Block on Gantlet
I've realised you've blocked Gantlet for two weeks for edit warring (I think). Is it possible to extend the block because Gantlet has abused multiple accounts. His sock, User:Trock95 was blocked indefinitely. Minimac94 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi- while you blocked Routerone (talk·contribs) for clearly edit warring/3RR, and while my interactions with this editor were tainted by their POV and deplorable use of an IP as a sockpuppet, I don't think the block was entirely correct. I mean, Routerone and John Foxe (talk·contribs) were discussing things on the article talk page and had gone to the WP:DR step of requesting and getting a WP:3O, and Mr. Foxe didn't even levy a 3RR warning against Routerone.
I'm not going to wheel war with you, and as I said I'm not a fan of Routerone based on interactions, but I do think short full-protection and/or 3RR warnings to both users would have been an option worth considering. I'm curious what your thoughts are. Cheers, tedder (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised that he, at least according to you, is progressing through WP:DR. Given his comments on his own talk page and WP:AN3, it seems like he's more interested in deflecting blame to John Foxe (talk·contribs). I'm standing by the (short) block. -- tariqabjotu00:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
As it happens I had come to your talk page to remind you that, as the article is under a probation that specifically focuses on the kind of WP:BATTLE issues in play here, much stricter standards apply, and you should not overturn such a block without first discussing it with the blocking admin. --Tasty monster16:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, please, guys. I don't care if the article is under probation, a fact which was already noted on the talk page; the double-standard in speech was obvious. Three admins agreed that Vsmith's characterization of ChildofMidnight's comments were a gross exaggeration. What else needs to be said?
The start of this thread speaks volumes about the firm grip on power admins feel so privileged to hold. Am I really getting a complaint that I didn't notify someone on their talk page that his action was undone, even though the matter was thoroughly contested on a page that that someone no doubt was watching? If you were interested in what happened after your action, you would have followed the page (as it appeared you did, as you saw what happened less than half an hour after the fact). If you weren't, you would not have done so. Yes, it would have been a courtesy, much like saying "thank you" to someone who held a door for you is a courtesy. It'd be great if I did that, but don't chase after me if I forget/choose not to. You look silly. And, more importantly here, it looks like you're a bit offended that someone undid your action. I'm not interested.
And this thing about the remark? So what? Tony, you know as well as I do that both you and I have said worse things on better days on articles with similar restrictions. It's human nature, and no one cares except the person who is unhappy they were called out and the people who just want to get the oppportunity to brush off their block buttons. I get it. We're admins, and ChildofMidnight is not. But I am not going to sit around while petty, albeit snarky, comments like that are punished -- and that's what it was, punishment. If you still have a problem with the way I handled the situation -- perhaps for not notifying X, Y, and Z, or because it was I, not someone more heavy-handed, who handled the unblock request -- please post in further detail in someplace I can blissfully ignore you. -- tariqabjotu17:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Request
May I request that you reconsider your 24 hr block of JzG to time served. I agree that he should have known better but at this stage the block is becoming punitive rather than preventative. It may well become counter productive. Regards, Justintalk18:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to respond; I was in transit. However, although I wouldn't care if anyone overturned the block, I'm not going to do so. Another administrator tended to JzG's unblock request and declined it. -- tariqabjotu13:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops, our protects of iPad clashed, so my 2 hr seems to have overwritten your 3 day one. So that we don't clash again, I'll leave the protect duration up to you; I've no problem if you want to restore it to 3 days. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I might be coming off a bit pessimistic with three days, but I think you're being way too optimistic with two hours. I'll settle with two days. -- tariqabjotu00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You have a day or so if you want to keep it from FAR. I really hope outside eyes will tell everyone to shuttup but it could also get delisted. An article with this amount of reverts over a tag plus the potential neutrality concerns make it not OK. We can't even get a simple conversation started without people popping off and we need to figure out if it is FA or not. It sucks because this and the city article are so close. Both should be up there but this back and forth is garbage and not acceptable. Let me know what you want to do to correct this. I want everything to work out.Cptnono (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your threats. If you want to put the article up for FAR, just do it. But it looks like you're not at all paying attention (a point which you practically acknowledged with your comment about shenanigans). Heck, Tiamut and I actually agreed on something. There's no back and forth at this point, and discussion on the talk page does not make an article ineligible for FA status. -- tariqabjotu16:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
"You have a day or so if you want to keep it from FAR." You can use ultimatum if you prefer, but I'll stick with threat. -- tariqabjotu16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It was neither. You didn't need to read it as such. You said earlier that you wouldn't let it happen. I was giving you a heads up since I thought you would be the one to know how to fix it. FAR seems like the only option to me. I would be happy to see the article improved before or worse comes to worse after independent eyes saw it over there. Only someone who is to pissed off would view it as a threat and then an ultimatum after someone says it wasn't. The fact that you even took it from threat to ultimatum after I wasn't a dick shows that you are way out of line. Stop being weird about it.Cptnono (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, then you misread what I meant when I said I won't let it happen. When Jerusalem was nominated for FAR, I ultimately voted to delist it, even though I worked hard to make it a featured article in the first place. I was saying that I'm not going to give into a push to delist this article; the Jerusalem point is so minor in the context of the whole article here, that it shouldn't be the source of Israel's loss of featured status. Obviously, anyone can file an FAR. But using the threat of FAR as incentive to resolve this conflict right now, as you did, doesn't help. And I'll reiterate again that you don't seem to be following this latest discussion. Never has there been so little disagreement on how to formulate the last sentence of the lead. At this point, Dailycare, RomaC, Tiamut, and I have all agreed on just about the same sentence. -- tariqabjotu17:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I misread a thing. You don't want to see what should be a perfectly good article lose its status. I agree with you. It wasn't a threat. It wasn't an ultimatum. It was a request from one editor to another to get it fixed. All of the editors involved have not agreed on how to get the lead, infobox, potential notes, and the silly inline citation fixed. You again called it a threat. It was: "PLEASE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO FIX THIS BECAUSE NOOONE ELSE IS". If I list it at FAR it is not to piss you off or to hurt the article. The talk page shows that there is not consensus. Mediation failed. Editors are bickering back and forth over neutrality tags. Fixing the lead is a big step. We'll see if it can get done. It isn't a threat. Knock it off with that since it is the third time you have brought it up like it was.Cptnono (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
And, again, if you are following the current thread, you'd realize your request to "figure out a way to fix this because no one else is" is a day late. No one is bickering about the neutrality tags now, or bickering at all. There is agreement right now on all those things you mentioned, and there is a distinct possibility that this conflict will end before January does. I know; amazing. But you need to read the thread. -- tariqabjotu17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Or you could just say sorry for being a jerk. It was not so when I made the mention and it is only questionable now if it is. Cptnono (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
And I will be doing a happy dance if the lead gets fixed based on editors pushing for it. I will try to get an image uploaded just because it will be that sweet.Cptnono (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I couldn't figure out why you were coming across funny and mentioned the shenanigans comment again. I reread the thread for a fourth time and think I figured it out. I thought you were asking what shenanigans meant not what I was referring to. I wasn't commenting on the ongoing discussion to finding consensus. I was referring to our inability to get the lead worked on without other stuff coming up again. It was more of a general musing and not meant to be taken as "this recent conversation is no good". So I actually need to apologize for that. Cptnono (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Israel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Cptnono (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
In August, you blocked User:Tarc. It is too bad that Tarc did not get the message because Tarc is mentioned on ANI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Tarc.27s_ongoing_abuse Tarc wasn't very nice and was unconstructive toward me but seems to have made other people more mad at him. It is too bad Wikipedia is not a nicer place. I didn't know about Tarc until someone told me about the ANI complaint on my user talk page. JB50000 (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
On 18 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Several people have written to thank me for my improvements of the Israel
article, which had a collection of boring, colorless photos that were not representative of Israel with a clear focus on POV maps. I cannot understand your objections. The photos I have chosen show more of the diversity of the country and are better quality photos than the ones that were there before. --Gilabrand (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Several people have written to thank me for my improvements of the Israel. I don't believe that for a second. The images I removed were:
An image of Hussein and Rabin signing a peace treaty: This is nearly identical in composition to the one showing Yasser Arafat and Rabin, and so it adds nothing to the article. We don't need every single peace treaty depicted in the article (with that image, that would be Number 3 in that section).
An image of Mevasseret Zion: Unclear what this is depicting. Fine for the Mevasseret Zion article, unclear for its relevance here. I also don't understand how you believe this adds diversity and quality over this one (which you removed on February 11).
An image showing districts: From the thumbnail, it is impossible to read the names of the districts. It's more useful to show a numbered map with a legend, as is there now, and as was there previously.
An image of the Bahai Gardens: The "tourism" section is far too short to be illustrated. I also said it didn't make much sense to illustrate Tourism using the sixth- or seventh-most popular site in a country as small as Israel, but that's another matter.
An image of a 1992 Egged bus: Picture is 18 years old and doesn't depict what a standard Egged bus looks like now. Also, the section is very short; questionable whether two images would fit, even opposite each other.
An image of a sculpture with Haredim: Haredim are not mentioned in the associated section. Also, the picture is a poor depiction of Haredim as they are secondary and small in comparison to the sculpture which the image is primarily depicting. Compare to illustrating the Empire State Building with a picture of Manhattan's entire skyline.
I'm also not sure you understand what a blanket revision means. A blanket revision would have meant that I just reverted the article back to the version prior to all of your edits, without caring if there were any obviously legitimate edits in the interim -- sort of like what you did here, reverting your own edit and reverting shifts of images left and right (as if those need "consensus"). -- tariqabjotu12:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll grant you the first one, perhaps, but the second fix wass to something that I couldn't make sense of. Although, I do use BritEng; might be an American thing? urban f o x12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
