User talk:Proabivouac

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

Merkey

I was thinking of removing the proposals for that very reason. Also see my recent suggestion for a conflict of interest section in BLP. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Funnypop12

So I see. I've addressed the issue, for the time being. You'll probably find I have too much faith in people's ability to reform. Cheers, WilyD 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, WilyD.Proabivouac 00:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Per CU

"as per the checkuser, OWB is not a puppetmaster…" You misunderstand CU. It doesn't say who is the same individual. If one posts even the very same thing from two different places from two different computers, it should register as unrelated, provided one has not deviated from this plan. CU showed the accounts to be from the same metro area, which, while not in itself mandating sockpuppetry, is not in any way inconsistent with it (or with user bio claims,) or specifically with the work/home scenario which was painted even before the CU results. There is no surprise here.Proabivouac 10:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect I understand CU better than you seem to think I do. I am working on WP:AGF and the statements on wikipedia from the report - specifically Jonashart and Oldwindybear are Unrelated -- no IP-relationship exists between them or the other two. Whatever evidence you have or believe you have is not relevant to my statement at ANI that the CU identified seperate IP's for OWB and SS. Whilst other things may point to evidence of sock puppetry it has been implicitly stated to the satisfaction of a third party wikipedian with CU rights that the IP's are different. Pedro |  Chat  11:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What on earth has

"Jonashart and Oldwindybear are Unrelated -- no IP-relationship exists between them or the other two."

to do with it? Of course Jonashart has nothing to do with it. This isn't contested, and should never have been requested, any more than Dan what's-his-name should have been requested.Proabivouac 11:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just copied and pasted that direct and thought you had seen the comment before. To clarify - the point is the second part no IP-relationship exists between them or the other two - the other two being StillStudying and his sock. Pedro |  Chat  11:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I post from Starbucks down the road, there should be no IP relationship, besides us being in the same metropolitan area.

From Barneca's (since deleted) report:

"There is currently an RFCU in place Here. Please note a common misconception, that I am expecting OWB and SS to be editing from the same computer. This is not the case; my evidence #1 [ed. - re edit times] implies to me that the user is editing from one location, then travelling and editing from another location. The purpose of the checkuser is to verify that they (including FWS, too) are all three editing from the same geographic location; to investigate the two cases where FWS edited within minutes of OWB; to see if there are any times when the user slipped and edited from the wrong computer; and to see if there are any other potential sockpuppets that I have not found. A checkuser that simply says they are not editing from the same IP is not going to convince me; it's what I expect."Proabivouac 11:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your perogative of course, to not be convinced by CU alone. I merely replied to your query and commented at ANI based on the evidence so far presented. Best. Pedro |  Chat  11:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you ever sent an e-mail, I can't find it

Perhaps it's not important.

Did you notice, Pro, how the same debate has erupted with a different cast of characters, just a week later?

What do you think is going to happen next week? And the week after that?

Such concerns, and such editing patterns, keep (for instance) Jesus from looking quite the way I, a single user, might want it to look. And not that this is actually on my agenda, but I repeat the point because it is illustrative to the present case: No matter how many rules someone may cite, no matter how right about relevance someone may be, Jesus is simply not, as a practical matter, going to incorporate a satirical picture illustrating recent discussions and controversies about theories concerning the Messiah's domestic life. Relevant or no. Why not?

Same deal with Eric Robert Rudolph, a clear case of religiously inspired terrorism that doesn't happen to involve, you know, my religion. Can't say he's a Christian and a terrorist in the same sentence though, because ... well, because Christianity is special, I guess. Can you think of a better reason?

Same deal with Zionism. Has Noam Chomsky ever had an opinion on this topic, or published a book on it, or been regarded as notable for doing so? Funny how the text of the article contains no quote from him. Why do you suppose that is?

People agree not to stomp defiantly on others' gonads, almost by definition, when they agree to follow WP:CONSENSUS. You are now among the stompers. BYT 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help with new sock

A new sock (probably of Kirbytime) is stalking me, see [1] and [2]. Arrow740 07:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be User:His excellency.Proabivouac 07:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So he was just blocked for 3RR, but no one has done a checkuser or a permanent block. What should we do? In this situation where no checkuser has been done, it should be alright to go over 3 reverts to stop him from contributing, right? That has been the situation with DY. Arrow740 23:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As we've seen, that is true in theory, but in practice, it depends on who is handling the report.Proabivouac 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Should I file at AN/I? Currently he is being allowed to influence the project, as his reverts have not been undone. Arrow740 23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here to thank Proab for his anti-sock efforts (so "thanks"!), but hope you don't mind me butting in: Arrow, I don't think we actually ever went over the third revert with DY71, although I was warning people I was about to. Ie, we never actually tested it - but I agree in principle. Try it, but for your protection, make it very clear in the edit summary what you are doing. quote WP:3RR, WP:BAN, WP:SOCK, WP:IAR. Tell a few admins too before you do it - it would help i think.

You could also try posting on AVI, but that also depends on your luck. It worked for me a few times - immediate blocks - but then recently, another admin didn't like that and directed me to rfc. But, make sure you know it who you think it is before you request action that circumvents the red tape.

It is this read tape that the socks are using to their advantage - ie, they game the system. But sometimes you need to, as Arrow is alluding to, it affects the project. A recent rfc showed there were at least two DY71 socks we didn't know about on the now closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force/Watchlist. regardsMerbabu 08:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me know on my talk page if this spreads to other pages and I will be glad to semi-protect them for you. Regards.--Chaser - T 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Chaser!Proabivouac 02:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure you saw my post here [3]. There's limits to how much I feel comfortable helping with this. Sorry.--Chaser - T 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad

I don't know if you meant to edit the version you did: [4]. Also there are references to the event in the Qur'an and hadith (though not explicitly). You should say according to Lewis, Watt, Cook, etc. Arrow740 10:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all from Tabari. There's no problem with saying "According to Tabari…," then including others following Tabari in the references.Proabivouac 10:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the mention in the hadith of pagans worshiping along with the Muslims when those verses were revealed does not make sense unless it is true, as the redacted version is very negative towards their goddesses. There are more extra-Tabari sources. Arrow740 10:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change that Tabari is the immediate source of the story. Unless I am misunderstanding something, which is possible.Proabivouac 10:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That is true. But to say "according to Tabari" obscures the evidence from the hadith, and the fact that the prominent scholars seem to agree it happened is more relevant. Arrow740 10:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The story goes back to Ibn Ishaq, see Guillaume pp. 165-166. Beit Or 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I had meant to say it's found in Tabari's recension of Ibn Ishaq, but not Ibn Hisham's.Proabivouac 10:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Ibn Hisham censored it is a small indication that his teacher probably wasn't inclined to fabricate it. Arrow740 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't assume that Ibn Hisham had made it up; obviously not. As there would be nothing whatsoever unusual about this from the standpoint of human history and politics, it's credible on its face, just (as with much of reality) doctrinally inconvenient.Proabivouac 10:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the original of Ibn Ishaq's sira did not preserve, it's probably meaningless to say every time whether a certain passage comes from Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, or al-Tabari. The least burdensome approach would be to stick to Guillaume's reconstruction and live with it. On a similar note, my greatest concern with this article is that it hops between various secondary sources for no apparent reason: "Watt says", "according to Welch" tec. If it is a "biogrpahy based on Islamic sources", then it must indeed be based on Islamic sources. Beit Or 11:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC

as an uninvolved editor in good standing, may i request you spare some time to review the dispute occuring on Historical persecution by Muslims? the RfC section can be found here. regards. ITAQALLAH 21:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look…been busy on a few other things.Proabivouac 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to sleep

Jesus Christ, did you sleep at all?? You were editing when I left last night...

I just added a couple of sections that I'll fill in when I have breaks; I'll only give one or two examples for each, but I hope it helps. I think this is what you were asking for last night. Take a look at the sections I added; is that the best place/way to organize them? And finally, I'm not duplicating work you've already done am I?

And good lord, you've been busy; 6 more?! Bravo. --barneca (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it occurs to me that not everyone on the planet lives in the US. --barneca (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New sock

Appears to be HE, can you look at the edits and tell me if you think it's his style? Here's the history of the article he's at: [5]. Arrow740 04:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I need to be sure that he's the one to put in a checkuser request for. Arrow740 08:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely, but I'm not certain.Proabivouac 22:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OWB

What are you doing? Just let him go. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He's stated he's leaving many times before. Actually, I don't want him to leave. He's made many valuable contributions. He's just got to straighten up, that's all. It's the community's shortcoming for not having demanded this at a time when he'd not have lost too much face in doing so. There is no sense in allowing what we will hold someone to account for later, but that is what we do again and again..Proabivouac 10:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The incident is finished and done... We'll open an arbcom case if he comes back, but it will be unnecessary stress to do it when he is about to leave. --Dark Falls ^talk 10:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I supported this guy in his RfA. This makes me sad. Proabivouac good job. I noticed you were attacked by people while going through the process, but I guess that's why we do these things. But what's particularly difficult to comprehend is that he slipped through the RfA process unscathed (in fact, I think it was unanimous). Now I'm going to be so skeptical of any further applicants. Anyways, I'm glad you did this work for all of us. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Unreal detective work. The grammatical and colloquial nuances alone are the result of excellent wiki-forensics. In fact, the initial discovery would have to be impressive as well. Nice. the_undertow ^talk 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For me, the smoking gun was when Stillstudying signed one of OWB's comments by accident, then claimed someone else must have changed the sig. But certainly as a whole it's quite convincing. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That particular piece of evidence was e-mailed to Barneca who e-mailed it to me. Not sure who found it.Proabivouac 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That diff was supplied by New England. I should note (and should have noted somewhere before this) that New England and Roundhouse0 both supplied several diffs that made the case stronger. I'll go to the report talk page and make a note of that now; thanks for reminding me. --barneca (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

the sock report is perhaps one of the most comprehensive i have seen here. of course, this raises questions as to how effective WP:SSP actually is (i think it, like a few other pages, is broken), how closely RfA candidates are scrutinised, and how this ever managed to occur as long as it did with almost all of us oblivious to it. well done. ITAQALLAH 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with WP:SSP is that too few people investigate the reports, there's a low signal/noise ratio, and the investigations themselves are often quite time-consuming. All of which leads me to encourage Proabivouac to continue to contribute there. Yes, we need more admins on the board too... I burn out pretty quickly on dealing with the reports and the inevitable barrage of innocence-proclaiming emails after each case is closed. MastCell ^Talk 03:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing work. - Merzbow 08:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Orangemarlin, The undertow, Itaqallah and Merzbow!Proabivouac 10:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar It is difficult and tedious, and sometimes people do not want to hear it, so you deserve credit for your hard work and diligent research identifying abusive puppet accounts. Tom Harrison Talk 13:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see Tom beat me to it, but by God I'll add another one, for the same thing, right below it. Barnstar inflation be damned. --barneca (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Proabivouac took the reins when the horse was a little too wild for me to handle. The care and dedication he showed in preparing an incontrovertable case saved the community from a long, tedious, divisive battle. Thank you for your help. barneca (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One more won't hurt.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Well, you won't be getting any from OWB, so here is a barnstar from me. For the incredibly detailed work in exposing the OWB/SS sockpuppetry. Thank you! Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big barnstar-giver-outer, and it looks like they're piling up too fast to be archived anyway, but I'll say this: as an admin who frequents WP:SSP, I don't think I've ever seen a suspected sockpuppet report so detailed and convincing. You and Barneca both deserve a huge thanks for putting in the time to review the situation so exhaustively. The report confirmed what was, on my part at least, no more than a strong hunch. I'm sorry to see things turn out as they did for Oldwindybear; I don't relish seeing a reasonably productive contributor leave Wikipedia, but it was clear he did not have the community's trust to carry the admin bit, and he preferred to leave rather than resign adminship, which is his prerogative. Anyhow, notwithstanding the outcome, which was not ideal but under the circumstances reasonable, I just wanted to thank you and convey how impressed I was by your and Barneca's report. We need more admins who are interested/skilled at looking into that sort of thing. Regarding RfA, I agree that the scrutiny we apply is far too hit-or-miss; I've become much more choosy, but I'm not sure how to "fix" that particular system, or if these occasional lapses even indicate that it's "broken". MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm blown away. Thank you Tom harrison, Barneca, Flyguy649 and MastCell!Proabivouac 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what's said above, simply amazing work. It's people like you who help keep Wikipedia on-track. Oberiko 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I just had a chance to read the report after I saw the link to it on WP:AN/I, and I'm impressed by the work you all did in putting it together. As a new user I'm a little surprised (maybe even scared) that one person could use so many accounts for such a long time and get away with it. Hopefully this won't happen again. Pats Sox Princess 17:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just piling on the kudos to you for your seriously impressive work on this case. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting into the Award thing...

For keeping the Integrity of Wikipedia intact by working to report puppeteering by OldwindyBear, you get the "Upholder of Wiki Award". Thanks for Your Efforts Pats Sox Princess 18:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation, so to speak

Hey dude, I hope you're doing alright. I hate to be a bother but I was wondering if you could throw in your two cents on something. I wanted to see if I could get some third party opinions to chime in on this.
On the page for Bin Baz, some anonymous users were making some edits that I felt were inappropriate; the same set of users (the same user or group of users was using multiple IP addresses on this one) were also making edits to Albani that I also felt were inappropriate. When I reverted them and explained why on the talk page, User:Chubeat8 created his account to argue his case, he apparently being at least one of the anonymous users. He made some more additions which, as you can see from the Bin Baz talk page, were very dubious; all of them containing original research and most of them very obviously misquoting the guy. I did a point by point breakdown of all his edits on the talk page. User:Swapant showed up soon after, arguing the same points and also occasionally editing from a similar IP address up in the Montreal area. User:Uss-cool is the latest one of their friends to join, all of them having only contributed to these two articles. I tried to assume good faith but they've really worn that thin; it seems like a group of friends just up and decided to bum rush the talk page when I started quoting various Wikpedia policies and behavioral guidelines.
Maybe i'm out of line, which is why i'm asking you to take a look, especially at the Bin Baz talk page. You seem to be a very level-headed guy so I figure you could help sort things out. Any help would be much appreciated. MezzoMezzo 19:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi MezzoMezzo…I am alright, thanks for asking. Although exhausted. I'll try to take a look in a little bit.Proabivouac 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man, something seemed a bit funny and I was starting to think maybe I was just assuming things. Get some rest soon though man! MezzoMezzo 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Aminz!

This was impressive. --Aminz 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, Aminz!Proabivouac 00:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your support there.

I appreciated it. It's not the best picture I've ever taken, but then, I had 2 minutes in a darkish theatre (and I seriously thought she'd talk for more than 180 seconds, and I'd have a chance to take more than 4 pictures). I didn't think it was terrible, and well...it's more than anyone else has ever released. I'm not a good photographer, but then, since I don't get paid to do it, it's no lost profit when I then give it away ;-) --Thespian 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oldwindybear

I don't know if you spotted this yet, nor do I know if you wish to include on your User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying page; however I will comment to you that both Oldwindybear and Stillstudying botched thier rfa requests: SS incorrectly filed OWB request (which I later refiled in good faith), then when OWB went to nominate me he botched the rfa nom as well. In OWB's case, ElinorD pointed out that he botched the rfa nom and helped OWB refile it correctly. You may want to look into that to see if they both botched the nom in the exact same way. If you would like to see the paper trail scope out these links and advance them accordingly: bottom of the page [6]. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TomStar81, for your suggestion. There's actually a bunch of other evidence I haven't added (including pretty much every post to the last ANI thread, it's quite uncanny) - however, at Barneca's suggestion,, someone had already checked this out for me and the errors are different: the first was misformatted, but was on a proper RfA page; your own was created in mainspace; hence there is a deleted article TomStar81.Proabivouac 06:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

No, but I do like Pink Floyd and King Crimson. Connell66 06:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like them. I love Roundabout by Yes. Genesis is cool.Connell66 06:42, 29 July 2007

Request for mediation involving you -- please reply

[7]BYT 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What about everyone else?

Also, what are we trying to mediate?Proabivouac 21:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See the description there. If you want to propose other users, I'm amenable, as long as one from each side is represented. Also, please discuss (here or on my talk page) changes in the description of the dispute you think are worth proposing. I'm amenable to reasonable rewrites of this. BYT 21:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems very strange that you'd single me out of everyone there - I didn't broach the subject, and I'm not representative of either polar position - my involvement was to write a relatively brief deadpan description which attributed claims and characterized the undisputed points 1) it appears in the earliest biographies 2) later Islamic scholars came to reject it. It seems you want us to go further and lay out the Islamic arguments against its historicity, but if we do this, we'd also obliged to lay out the findings of academic scholarship. The result is to grant this undue weight relative to the rest of the bio. The right place for these detailed arguments is Satanic Verses.Proabivouac 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, I've addressed your most recent edits on Talk:Muhammad. Please raise the issue of mediation there, making clear what there is to mediate, and between whom.Proabivouac 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

further discussion moved to Talk:MuhammadProabivouac 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonder

I'm at a loss to understand how the Hagia Sophia exemplifies respect. Arrow740 05:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about such drivel. The first two are fortresses, yet no one thought to mention that they exemplify "well-justified paranoia" (or in the case of the Acropolis of Athens, an unfortunate place to have stored ammunition.)Proabivouac 06:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Satanic verses

In the case of alcohol, which was permitted at first in Islam: The Quran began by gently reminding Muslims (many of whom drank at the time) that they should alcohol is bad. This later escalated to a ban on alcohol when prayer time is approaching. Much much later in Medina, alcohol was completely banned. Yet the verses earlier were not expunged from the Quran, they are still there today! Satanic verses were supposedly uttered by Prophet Muhammad as part of the Quranic text, yet we do not find them in the Quran.
I would like to remind you that I am not against mentioning the 'incident', but I am against mentioning it as though it is fact. Check my edits to the section. Thank you. Unflavoured 08:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For showing me that guideline, and I'll admit the 'mossad' wasn't intended seriously. However on a serious note, there has been alot of speculation both on and off wiki with regards to an editor's motivations. When I saw you had removed all the discussion, it looked a bit like a coverup. Is there an appropriate place on wikipedia where it is/has been discussed objectively? --Hayden5650 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is - and must - be found off Wikipedia. There's a whole worldwide web out there which we do not control, and that (though I'm certain some would disagree) is as it should be. I read what is said about editors here (including me,) and have learned a lot from it. However, Wikipedia should not be a platform for the harassment, or for the enablement of the same, of its own volunteer contributors. I don't claim or imagine this to be an ideal solution - I understand completely why someone might say this reduces our accountability, that we are creating a detached bubble, etc. Good points, no doubt.Proabivouac 12:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing discussions

Your recent edits are an embarrassment and do you no credit. Catchpole 11:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Catchpole, I do what I think best to protect our contributors from harassment, per."Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action."[8] If you think it misguided, you've a right to your opinion, and I encourage you to dispute my conduct in the appropriate venue(s), in some way which doesn't enable (intentionally or otherwise) the harassment of our valued contributors. I am "Proabivouac," and my address is right here, so fire away…and leave other people's purported real-world identities out of it.Proabivouac 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your disingenuous responses to RFM for Muhammad

I really had expected more of you.

The dispute is, of course, about the appropriate description of the "Story of the Cranes"/"Satanic Verses" material in Muhammad, a dispute that has been ongoing, and that has involved you personally, since approximately July 20.

Your claiming not to understand the nature of the RFM, or the conflict, is deeply disappointing and, frankly, more than a little disturbing, as I had thought of you as a person who brought a certain intellectual integrity to these matters.

On a more practical note: One either does or doesn't agree to take part in mediation. Which is it, please? BYT 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, thank you for your message. Of course I understand what the mediation would be generally about; to pretend otherwise would indeed be disingenuous. That does not, however, answer what is disputed. Specifically, what will (or won't) be disputed after the regular process of talk page discussion has taken its course. You say there has been a dispute involving me since July 20. Whatever it is, it hasn't involved you since July 25, when you quit the talk page. I've attempted to discuss your last edit, and you didn't respond. Other people are discussing things there that hadn't even been brought up last week. What do you think about them? We don't know. What input could you have offered during this time? We don't know. As for what version of the passage I'd support, that, too has changed, not due to inconsistency of principle, but because new materials have been added to the mix of proposed inclusions, new arguments have been offered, etc. I don't see that we're at a point where we can say we've hit the proverbial brick wall. If and when we have - and presumably at that time, what is disputed will be much clearer - then naturally I'd agree to mediation. But at this moment, there is an active discussion on talk and I see no reason to abandon it, or to conduct our conversation in two places. If there is a broad consensus to move the talk page discussions to the mediation page, then naturally I'll follow, for the same reason (i.e. if you can bring everyone else on board, you can count me among them.) I hope that I've addressed your concerns.Proabivouac 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so much. Will you be saying, one way or the other, whether you will take actually part in the mediation I've requested? (Aminz has agreed to do so.) Or will you be, as it were, waiting for the clock to expire? These are fair (and concise) questions that deserve, I think, responses that are equally direct. BYT 20:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it strikes me as premature, because there is still an active and non-redundant discussion underway on talk. If there is consensus among the talk page participants to move this discussion to the mediation page, then, naturally, I'll follow.

Now for another direct question: why won't you participate on the regular talk page?Proabivouac 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like playing out the clock to me. (That's just a personal observation, mind you.)

I am not participating on the talk page just now because I believe there is an organized, obstructionist effort from someone (I do not know who) that has as its aim the prevention of actual, collaborative editing on this paragraph.

I was so hoping to work with you in a cooperative way, Pro. If you ever decide you're up for it, try actually placing a draft of something on my talk page. That wouldn't break any principles of yours, would it? BYT 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This content dispute has become quite dramatic. Arrow740 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Make it routine, then, Arrow. Make it just as boring as all hell. Sign on for mediation and work out a draft that results from actual collaboration with an editor with whom you happen to disagree. BYT 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought an acceptable compromise would be to just state the facts and keep the arguments out of the article. That's quite a concession, because the arguments for the side of historicity are more numerous, held by more and more authoritative scholars, and far more convincing. Aminz has not been able to do that, and has been putting in one argument, his own, even after saying on the talk page that we should leave the arguments to the main article. Who is preventing collaborative work? You're just wasting our time with baseless accusations. Arrow740 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"I thought an acceptable compromise would be to just state the facts and keep the arguments out of the article."

The doctrinal bases for its eventual rejection are interesting, provided they're briefly presented (as they currently are.) What we definitely don't need is another unencyclopedic face-off a la the Aisha age "controversy," where we set up a dichotomy based upon our own beliefs, then try to find sources to back them up. The inclusion of the Hawza link demonstrates exactly this kind of thinking; the only conceivable case to be made for including it is a doctrine of "equal time" for editors' own beliefs, now operating under the black-boxy label of "consensus" (this bothers me, therefore I don't agree/there's no consensus,) with random websites providing the fig leaf of WP:V.Proabivouac 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I may not be communicating clearly here.
• Reality check time: If we don't engage in mediation, there is going to be an endless series of revert wars about this, even if I get hit by a bus tomorrow and even if Aminz decides (understandably) that dealing with the endless obstructionist reverting is simply not worth the effort.
• On the other hand, if we do engage in mediation, we can point to a) a version that editors with different world-views, but equal respect for the encyclopedia, developed together, far from the trained gang-revert artists; b) greater stability in the article; and c) who knows, perhaps the possibility of future collaboration on equally sticky topics. That's what we're here for, Arrow, you and I.
• If your arguments are so very strong and your documentation is so very good, bring them to the table and let's work something out that we can all sign off on and thus prevent future quality-shredding convulsions in this important article. Check my edit history. I think you'll find I've learned to be quite responsible when it comes to incorporating the viewpoints of others.
• One more thing: Mediation resulted in pictures of the Prophet appearing in this article. I wasn't crazy about that, but it was the result of the process, and it is the consensus on the article, and this is a secular, not a religious, encyclopedia, so that's what I go by. Howsacome no go both ways, dude? BYT 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, please see my latest comments to the mediation page. I'm not even certain that there is any significant dispute.Proabivouac 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there is. That you wouldn't notice it is, perhaps, significant. BYT 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is it?Proabivouac 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Check my edit history. I think you'll find I've learned to be quite responsible when it comes to incorporating the viewpoints of others." I've seen nothing but blanking and propaganda websites from you recently. Arrow740 04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, let's keep it productive: I just want to know what is in dispute/what I am being invited to mediate. "That you wouldn't notice it is, perhaps, significant," doesn't help.Proabivouac 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to edit Muhammad at all in the next twenty minutes? I noticed you are active and don't want any edit conflicts. Arrow740 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All yours.Proabivouac 05:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, what do you think? Arrow740 05:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Hi, thanks for your friendly warning. However, let me clarify that I reverted only once and never indulged in a edit war. You reverted my edit saying that the front page source isnt a good source, so I added an additional source. Addition of information is not a revert. I reverted another users edit (my first revert) after I responded to him in talk. Thanks NapoleansSword 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: your message on my talk page

Responded by email. Rebecca 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As have I. Orderinchaos 08:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, OIC. I'll be in touch soon.Proabivouac 07:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You did some good work on the OWB case yourself. We'll have to talk at length one of these days. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. And I'm wanted at Talk:Cherokee, I know…shortly…Proabivouac 07:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New sock

You may not be aware of this new sock. I can't follow it up myself today. Arrow740 20:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Initiating

Thus initiating... the attacks provoked. No, Muhammad was deliberately setting his community on the path of "aggressive political violence" as Peters puts it. I know that your goal (and mine too) is to keep speculation about the thoughts and feelings of those involved to a minimum. However, this will be extremely difficult and my feelings about your completely detached tone here are mixed. Arrow740 07:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I chose that language only because is is shorter. I didn't consider this difference in meaning. Still, isn't it trivial? When one party attacks another, one is obviously aware that one has initiated conflict, and observers can safely conclude that the action is deliberate. In this regard, I suppose the question I have is, was the goal to provoke Mecca into responding, or merely to appropriate their monies and merchandise? The latter seems both more rational, and more in line with events later in his life, and in the lives of his companions/immediate sucessors.

Detached tone…what's the alternative? It's the only thing that reasonable editors can agree is acceptable (if not ideal,) despite different points of view.Proabivouac 07:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Raids vs Razzis

Proab, here we are talking about a concept that can be best described as Razzis and not the english word "raids". The word Razzis as understood in Arabia of that time was for example a "natural and legitimate act of war". The word "raid" itself does not automatically convey a package that contains the meaning of say "natural and legitimate act of war". When we use the english term "raid", we are imposing the sphere of the meaning of the term "raid" to Razzis (much like clothing a word with another one). That's why we should not use the word unless we restrict its meaning: i.e. it is a special type of raid that Arabs of that era were doing and had such and such connotations/meanings/understandings. Muhammad didn't involve himself in raids, he involved himself in Razzis. --Aminz 07:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are horribly misinformed; see Ghazw.Proabivouac 07:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a fitting conclusion to tonight's editing. I hope the conflict has subsided. Arrow740 07:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Proabivouac, but I can not understand why I am misinformed. Ghazw is the name for those battles that Muhammad himself participated. A Razzi might be a Ghazw but not vice-versa. --Aminz 07:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, "razzi" is only a French spelling of the Arabic word.Proabivouac 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghazwa is used (by Muslims) to specifically refer to the battles that Muhammad himself participated. Regarding Razzia, Watt says:"the raid or razzia was a normal feature of Arab desert life". Watt uses it in its general sense(the one I did). But for God's sake, what does this have to do with my argument above. --Aminz 08:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not getting it, Aminz: there is no Arabic word, "razzia."

"Battle in which Muhammad personally participated" is not even a genuine attempt at translation; that is the fault of that article and its lead.Proabivouac 08:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about "The raid or Razzi" that Watt is talking about. The one that was a normal feature of Arab desert; the one that Muhammad in his time participated. The one that was viewed as a "natural and legitimate act of war". --Aminz 08:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, it's the same word. The version with R is just a French transliteration. It means roughly "raid for plunder." Nothing to do with naturalness or legitimacy at all.Proabivouac 08:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's proceed in this way. I "define" a word "Youresh" to represent the action as understood by Arabs 1400 years ago, and today is approximated by terms such as "Razzis, Raids, etc etc." I hope the definition is clear enough. Now, please rename all the terms "Razzis" to "Youresh" in my original post in this section and read it again. --Aminz 08:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone reading the above discussion will plainly see that you thought there were two different Arabic roots involved here, one beginning with r and one with gh, an impression that was strengthened by the misleading lead in the Ghazw article. You came around to teach me a fine point of Arabic semantics which is lost in translation, and were caught not having the remotest idea of what you were talking about. Now you're just flailing.Proabivouac 08:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was misinformed about the linguists of the matter but I didn't want to teach you anything about semantics. My point was that Muhammad engaged in an act that can not be accurately translated into the word "raid". But the way I expressed my point had a flaw (which I've tried to correct by my last comment). --Aminz 08:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent massive removals of facts and insertions of opinions does a great disservice to readers of this encyclopedia, who are interested in the details of Muhammad's life for religious or non-religious reasons. Arrow740 08:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

socking on Hornplease thread

Hello Proabivouac, I am the one who started a thread on Hornplease block. I had the distinction of being blocked months after I left the account. If it were not for my noticing and reporting it, nobody would have raised it because Blnguyen never left a message on Hornplease's talk page. Hornplease is currently inactive. I am hardly a constructive editor now. But even constructive editors are not spared. For example, you can check the contributions of Rajamankkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was not me but he was on my IP. Not a single problem edit from that user, still he is blocked. The admin who blocked most of my accounts has also blocked a vast range of IPs used by thousands of users in India. See

• 16:46, 2 August 2007 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Talk | contribs) blocked "59.91.252.0/22 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Whole-sale abuse by a banned editor on a dynamic-IP network.)

But I am not bothered about that, as you can see.Yuyutsun 10:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to be talking to banned users…now I have two of them on my page. I suppose there's no need to blank your comments, so long as you refrain from attacking other editors. Calling Baka a "criminal troll" was pretty ridiculous, wouldn't you agree? You're lucky anyone even looked after that poor start.Proabivouac 22:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Partisan sources

I would like to restore Mubarakpuri to Safiyya bint Huyayy (although have not done so). But you will probably object that he is a "religious/partisan" source. However, so is Ibn Hisham. I think it's highly unfair to include one but omit the other.

Anyways, can you please provide me the link the to policy that says "religious/partisan" sources are unacceptable. I believe it existed but no longer does.Bless sins 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bless sins, something happened to it in the course of the proposed merger into WP:ATT, but that didn't quite get completed. I'm not certain what the state of it is now. However, that doesn't mean that there is any kind of consensus to equate partisan sources (religious or otherwise) with academic ones; to the contrary, this distinction is broadly accepted by the community. The last time I checked, WP:V did have language emphasizing a preference for academic sources, though this changes all the time, so I don't know where it is now. Ultimately, these policies are based on and evolve with the longstanding practices of the community, which have been moving towards stricter source policies, not away from them. Unless we want to take this discussion over to WP:RS (which might be a good idea, actually) as a practical matter, the question is, do you want to make a point about purported systemic bias by repeatedly asserting that religious ideologues are as reliable as academics, knowing that your edits are likely to be reverted on this ground, or is your goal to work collaboratively towards improving the articles? I ask this because, per our previous conversation, you've resisted efforts to separate these issues so that we can move forward in one area while agreeing to disagree about another. What I see instead is you bundle good edits with ones that you know will be contested on this basis, and when someone reverts you, you ask (disingenuously, so it seems), "Why have you reverted Stillman (or whoever else is not contested as a reliable source)?" Such an approach has made your edits probably the most frequently reverted of any regular editor's in the articles on my watchlist. You'll have a much bigger impact if you focus on material upon which you're more likely to attain agreement.Proabivouac 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Excellent job on the His Majesty case. You know what? I don't know where they keep the barnstars or whether there even is a sock-catching barnstar, but let's just consider this an unofficial barnstar. Again, excellent job. LOZ: OOT 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And that was massive sockpuppetry he did, too. LOZ: OOT 21:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you User:Connell66. Are you going to behave yourself this time?Proabivouac 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zakir_Naik&diff=149352003&oldid=149114666