User talk:Jeppiz/Archives/2016/February

Any comments on a recent dispute about Muhammad?
See Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Your name is familiar to me, and since you left a comment about this dispute at AN3, I assume you know something. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If there are two sets of people arguing here, who are they?
 * Can you link me to any place that gives a good summary of what's in dispute?
 * Can you suggest how this ought to be resolved?
 * Why is there no RfC on the talk page that seems to address whatever this is about?


 * EdJohnston, those are good questions. My two cents:
 * In the widest sense, one could say there is an ongoing dispute between a set of Muslim users and a set of non-Muslim users. This is not to say that one set is "right" and one is "wrong". There are good serious users in both sets who make reasoned arguments, probably have a POV but find sources for them and discuss on talk pages. There also less good users in both sets; users who already 'know' that their POV is correct and barely even need sources or, at the very least, will always go for an unreliable source in support of their POV than a good one not supporting their view. This is a simplification, there can be disagreement between subsets (Shias and Sunnis on the 'Muslim side', or Christians and seculars on the 'non-Muslim side'). I really cannot identify any question where one set is clearly wrong or right. There are users with whom I disagree on almost every aspect on the talk page, but who make perfectly good arguments and behave impeccably. Identifying the sets and subsets is useful to understanding the discussion, but not to determine who is right or wrong and even less to determine who is helpful and who disruptive.
 * I would say this discussion quite nicely sums up the different views on several questions regarding Aisha (a recurrent theme for arguments) and this is a (less good) discussion on Muhammad and slaves (a less recurrent but not rare theme). Then there are IPs and new users who regularly come to request removing images or insert PBUH or SAWW but that is covered by existing policies and rarely create much disruption.
 * I think there are a few discussions that were intended at RfCs but those who started them perhaps did not indicate it clearly enough that they were RfCs.
 * Despite accusations to the contrary, I'd say there are no vandals involved and that most users, in all sets, can make perfectly good arguments. Regrettably, some tend to combine discussing with ignoring WP:BRD, or believing that a reached consensus only last a week and then it's time to go again, others see it and react, and the whole thing spin away again. I personally think a general 1RR and perhaps coupled with a block on those with less than 500, as on the Israel-Palestine conflict would work wonders. Jeppiz (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please block me for any 2RR on Muhammad in February
, I've posted this suggestion on Talk:Muhammad for how to improve what has been a tricky page. Part of what I propose is a general 1RR, and to underline it, I've committed myself to following 1RR throughout February on the article. No use in committing to a policy if it has no consequences, so could I ask you to block me on sight if you see me perform the same revert twice on Muhammad in February? No need for warning/reminding me or taking it anywhere. If, during February, you see me not following this policy I've suggested myself, just refer to this post and block me for an appropriate length of time. Thanks! Jeppiz (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, typo in my ping. Jeppiz (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. Or might it be simpler if I blocked you right now? Bishonen &#124; talk 23:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC).
 * It would rather defy the purpose. ;) Not that I couldn't need a break, and not that Wikipedia would suffer even a bit from a month without me, but the intent is to contribute to a better atmosphere for everyone at Muhammad and to less edit warring. Strictly adhering to 1RR and AGF may be helpful and set an example. I hope. Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't even have Muhammad on my watchlist, so if you reverted 20x, I would be blissfully unaware of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, Bbb23. Needless to say, I'm not asking anyone to keep watch on me; just pointing out that if you'd see it. Just ignore it (but if anyone would suggest a general 1RR - 500 - 30 rule, as EdJohnston and I discussed, I'd be all for it. Jeppiz (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's a consensus to enforce 1rr there, I'll help enforce it, even on you. But if there isn't, then I feel that not enforcing it on you would be better for the project.  Still, I will try to remind you of 1rr this month.  If you insist on a block after that, you're not gonna like it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of sacrificing yourself for the team, why not try to persuade at least one person from another point of view (on Talk:Muhammad) that a general restriction would be helpful. If several people requested it at AE it would probably be a done deal. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Re your RfAr
If your proposal has been strongly supported, then implement it. ArbCom handles conduct disputes. There is no conduct dispute, is there? Understand; ArbCom works for the community, not the other way around. The community has ultimate power in this situation. Use it. But again, I would strongly encourage you to match the sanctions at this remedy, else there will be a chaos of rules all over the project. Nobody wants that. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, thank you but I am not an admin. I built on the suggestions made to me by admins EdJohnston and Ian.thomson . All the best! Jeppiz (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be an admin. "Editor" is the highest level of contributor here. Every other stratification of users descends from Editor, and works in support of editors. If you contributed to the discussion on an RfC on the subject at hand, it would be inappropriate for you to close the RfC. But, if consensus was achieved (and you can ask for an outsider to evaluate consensus), you can certainly work to enforce the consensus. If a person doesn't abide by the consensus, you can warn them pointing out the consensus. If they continue to act against it, you can give them scaled up warnings and a final warning eventually. If they violate that, you can ask for a block at WP:AN/I. Only the block requires an admin. The rest of it can all be done by you. Admins aren't some special class here. You have considerable power. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration withdrawn
Hello Jeppiz, this is a message to inform you that an Arbitration request in which you were named a party (which can be found here) has been closed as withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

administrators' noticeboard/incidents: Jesus page
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Let's hope we can finally reach consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Block warning to الكاتب السابع
I saw this warning and I went through their contributions. I am not seeing where they are using talk pages inappropriately. While their view point differs significantly from what is likely to gain consensus they are discussing the article content. I don't see anything that would justify a block warning. Am I missing something? HighInBC 15:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * HighInBC, I don't see how going through my edit history and taking comments from me out of context is relevant to the article, but that I still left in though I found it irrelevant. This is 100% about me. It has nothing to do with Muhammad, just about what the user think I said on another article. Even if it would be correct (and it's not), it still would have nothing to do with Muhammad. Jeppiz (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm genuinely fed up with all of these allegedly "new" accounts that appear on Muhammad, with remarkable knowledge of Wikipedia, to suggest we should rewrite it to suit Muslims, that only Muslims should be allowed to edit, that all Christian-Atheists [sic!] are trolls, that we must create a Muslim-only ArbCom and so on. The constant harassment against users who disagree is a bit tiresome. . Jeppiz (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * HighInBC, I'd say Ian.Thomson summed up it better than I did . Jeppiz (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The template you left very poorly communicates this concern, a custom message would have made more sense. I am familiar with the persistent POV pushing at the article, it has been going on for over 10 years. If you can find any evidence that they are engaging in sock puppetry then let me know.


 * There is very good chance that it is a new user. There are a lot of Muslims and many of them have similar opinions on how our article should be. I have met people on that article whose concerns were carbon copies of sock puppets, and they turned out to be productive editors. Other of course turned out to be sock puppets.


 * I would not get too worked up about proposals that fly in the face of our neutrality policies. Just explain why we can't do it and let it be, it has about zero percent chance of gaining consensus.


 * I understand how frustrating that particular article's patterns can be, but when you give a block warning it should make sense. They are not using Wikipedia as a forum to discuss unrelated topics, they are arguing for a version of the article. The ad hominem comments were out of line, and comment saying so would have made sense. I am going to leave them a note about this as well as make sure they are aware of the discretionary sanctions on that article.


 * Thank you for your explanation. HighInBC 16:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Iran-Israeli cartoons
Thanks for this edit. FYI, I have also politely commented on user's talk page about WP:RS etc. Zezen (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of other editor's comments
You may (or may not) want to appreciate the delicious irony of this edit... Keep warm! BushelCandle (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)