User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Thirty-Five

Blocking and Reviewing Request
alSala';amu alaykum wa rahamtu alLahi wa baraka'atuh. I wish to request that this page should be locked from editing for now. Someone, within the past 48 hours, labelled Serj Tankian as "Borat".

Also, if you aren't busy, let me know what it would take to get Beirut to become a featured article. Thanks. - Omar 180 10:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a good enough reason to protect an article. As for bringing Beirut up to featured status... I think it's got a long way to go. Take a look at other city articles – Jerusalem, New York City, Mumbai, and others found under Featured articles. The lists under the "Districts & Neighborhoods", "Colleges and universities", "Public Spaces", and "Famous Births" need to be replaced with prose or removed altogether. You should have an well-sourced article made up almost entirely of prose. --  tariq abjotu  17:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
Hi Tariq

I'm a bit confused about this... Isn't this section for other parties to add issues? It is a related dispute in which both editors have been involved since a while and it would be helpful if it got cleared-up too.

I'm kind of new at WP:RFMs, so I'm probably doing something the wrong way... Do I have to get both parties to agree to add the Schechtman dispute to the mediation?

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet  - talk  - 12.11.2007 14:26


 * The problem as that you're not one of the parties. That section is really for, the signatory under "Parties' agreement to mediate" who wasn't the one who filed the mediation, to add other issues. --  tariq abjotu  14:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha, "other parties" as in "involved parties not having initiated the mediation"... All clear, thanks! pedro gonnet  - talk  - 12.11.2007 14:38
 * At the same mediation, I'm alarmed to see one of the parties immediately quote a source that apparently specialises in hatred, both at the individual and ethnic level. We should use sources that speak of "Palestinian duplicity" only when we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity". PRtalk 12:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Different understanding
Salam Tariq, I understand GHCool main argument is not the lack of use of primary sources by Finkelstein (that is in fact the critics made by other scholars concerning Finkelstein work and what he will find doens't concern the topic which is the palestinian exodus) BUT that GHCool evaluates the reliability of Finkelstein by pointing out that no scholar who does not share his mind recognize his scholarship. So I think it would be better to ask JaapBoBo to find scholars from the "other side" who recognised the quality of his work even if they don't share his analysis and to ask GHCool to find what wikipedia policy recommands not to use people who are not recognised by their pairs. Alithien 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only is his scholarship very widely recognised (check Google Scholar, Norman Finkelstein is streets better than many others who have been used even in this very same article) but the validity of his most ground-breaking thesis has now been recognised in an Israeli court - attorney convicted of stealing millions from Holocaust survivors. PRtalk 13:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Global warming
I've unprotected GW, so I'd better explain why. The main reason is that we (errrm, as in the people that edit there regularly) are doing our best to avoid having it protected, and would like to try the 1RR option for that particular sentence.

The edit warring is not too severe, if you mentally remove the last rv-pair, since DH broke 1RR over that. I've blocked him for that, which will lead to howls of anguish.

Raul's rv's: I haven't read through the 3RR page stuff or the RFC yet, but just looking at the edit, I'm inclinded to say that O has a history of trouble making and the edit, within the context of the GW article, could well be considered vandalism. It certainly was not a credible effort to improve the article

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I should add: it will not take you long to discover that I have an interest in this article. I believe that I'm acting fairly, but others may well not. If you wish to re-protect it and/or remove my last revert, then of course you must do so William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your revert and re-protected Global warming. Considering you are part of the dispute, I don't believe it was a good idea for you to unprotect the article yourself and then block on the basis of a 1RR instituted by someone other than ArbCom. I have, however, shortened the protection to five days. The 1RR rule is clearly not working out well, though. --  tariq abjotu  23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you clearly have the right to do this. I think its a mistake though - you will discover that the protect isn't working out either William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

From the recent discussion, I think it is possible to form an interim consensus for that dispute now. Is it possible the article could be unlocked sooner than the 22nd?Zebulin (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can make a request for unprotection at WP:RPP. --  tariq abjotu  15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tel Aviv as Israel's "diplomatic capital"
Apparently Jerusalem is Israel's official and administrative capital, and Tel Aviv is Israel's "diplomatic capital", whatever that means. My understanding was that this was all worked out long ago between Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Israel. Perhaps you have some idea on how to resolve this, as the editor in question is insisting that those entries actually support that contion, and has resorted to quite incivil language.  Tewfik Talk 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wind Power article protection
Why did you protect Wind power against vandalism. You did it after my edit. Was my edit considered vandalism? Ga2re2t (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit is not vandalism and it was just coincidence that the semi-protection came after your edit. I semi-protected the article due to the large amount of vandalism that has been occurring on the article recently, even though not all recent edits have been vandalism. Since I only implemented semi-protection, you are still able to edit the article. --  tariq abjotu  18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

History of Israel
Hi Tariq,

I would be greateful if you could look at/watch this article over and make some comments.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadian monarchs
I had, and was just checking to see what I could find. As a newbie with the mop, I'll leave it entirely up to you to decide whether to unprotect and block, leave protected and block anyway, or leave it as it is. There's clearly a history to this situation that I hadn't appreciated, so take whatever action you think best. Regards, BencherliteTalk 16:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Lock of List of Canadian monarchs
Tariqabjotu- I noted your comment at Requests for page protection. I understand what you must see, but please understand that it's the tip of a very deep iceberg. I'm trying to deal with User:TharkunColl's overall disruptive and incivil demeanour, and, in the process, have filed a Wikiquette alert accordingly. It gives much background into this issue. Attention from outside parties would be greatly valuable, so please, if you feel it necessary, weigh in. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Israel
Thanks for taking care of that misguided bigot, it's amazing what some people think is appropriate discourse. Newtman (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk: victor falk
It wasn't a "warning" it was a caution (good faith at that, I hoped it was a mistake), as he blatantly refactored the talk page and deleted quite a few comments. I don't see how a friendly reminder that, that is not kosher, was unnecessary. On what grounds did you revert my note? Newtman (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that that template said closest to what you wanted to say, but it's rather condescending to use a template for an experienced editor, particularly in a situation where the error was not intentionally out the error, so you used a standard template that gives extraneous information: I'm sure Victor knows what the sandbox is and he does not need to be reminded about it. Also, you acknowledge that you hope the major issues with the refactoring were a mistake, but used a template that says "Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism." --  tariq abjotu  07:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason I even used the template was because you didn't leave a message when you reverted his refactor, and I wanted to make sure he was aware of why that occurred. In my late at night haze, a template seemed a valid of way of doing that.  I'm glad to see that you later added a comment to the talk page apropos to his mistake. Newtman (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You hardly gave me a chance to comment. There were four minutes between the revert and my comment on Victor's talk page, and there would have been even less time in between if not for the fact that I encountered the edit conflict with your comment. --  tariq abjotu  07:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant a comment in your revert edit summary. Generally reverts of other's work seem to have a word or two on the reason.  Anyway, no hard feelings I hope. Newtman (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Tariqabjotu, hope you're well. I've just been taking a look at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and see you placed Aynabend under supervised editing. I've added a few users recently for edit warring on pages related to the page, but Kirill clarified that for an editor to be placed under supervision, there must be incivility with the edit warring, but I can't see any incivility coming from Anyabend. Could you look at removing him please? I've just removed quite a few of the users I placed under supervision for the same reason. Cheers and take care,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Does being a party to one of the Armenia-Azerbaijan cases have any bearing on whether a user can have supervised editing applied to him/her? I notice being a party to the first case was given as a reason for some of the editors to be put on supervision. --  tariq abjotu  22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan and Tariqabjotu, I have indeed never been involved in any discussion that had incivility in it. My role was to find a common ground by bringing third party sources, develop and edit small articles, and sometimes being against the edit warring that had no scholastic backing. I also think parole discussed here [] was unfair and would be better if it was removed. Thank you for any help in this regard. --Aynabend (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: BLock on Elhector for Talk: An Incovenient Truth
Tariqabjotu,

I'm asking for clarification on the blocking of Elhector. First, let me let you know, I'm not him, I'm not related, I don't even know him. I'm asking for clarification as I'm still learning the rules here. (That's why I read 3rr and the rest of the admin boards!) Anyrate - he posted a long comment on the talk page of "An Inconvenient Truth". OrangeMarlin removed his comment. Yes, he re-inserted his comments back in 5 times and yes 3rr means you revert 3 times you can get blocked or banned. However, I thought removing someone else's comments (especially on a talk page) was considered vandalism and therefore exempt from 3RR. Woulnd't this be the case here ? Thanks ! KoshVorlon  ".. We are ALL Kosh..."  18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tari, Have you forgotten about me ?    The Vorlon entity formerly known as Kosh  "..We are ALL Kosh..."  13:03, 11 December 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm still confused on this one myself. I've asked a some of the admins involved a few questions on this and haven't heard anything.  Just to give you a little more info though, the comments that kept getting reverted weren't even mine.  They were another editors comments.  That's why I'm still kind of confused.  It's not like I was trying to defend my own comments or anything.  I was simpley reverting the inappropriate removal of another editor's comments from the talk page as I felt the manner in which they were being removed was censorship and vandalism.  What made it worse was that it was an admin doing the removing. Elhector (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From where I stand, it's a grey area. If it's looks diruptive, I'll take it as such. The fact that you were reverted by multiple editors gives me the impression that there was a valid reason for the removal of the comment in question. Additionally, you were warned about the 3RR rule. As noted by Allison on your talk page, instead of taking the issue up the appropriate admin noticeboard (or simply asking about the removal on the talk page) after that warning, you proceeded to revert again. And I'm not sure why. --  tariq abjotu  08:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is one of the fundamental problems with Wikipedia. Most of the time admins such as yourself are so overworked and flooded with things that you don't have enough time to fully investigate the situation.  I did in fact place a notice on an admin notice board.  It was ignored.  I also went more than out of my way to warn the other users involved before reverting each time.  Lastly, there was originally only 1 editor reverting.  The other editor Orangemarlin has never been invloved with that article and only stepped in to be uncivil and "back up" the incorrect behavior after he saw that I had warned the original editor.  There was absolutely no valid reason for the removal of that discussion other than censorship.  So in conlcusion I was blocked for reverting vandalism and being more than civil about it might add.  The other 2 users involved were uncivil, used threats, and were the ones breaking policy.  If you get a chance you should go back and look at all the conversation between myself and other editors involved.  If you don't have time and would like I can provide the diffs to back up what I'm talking about.  Again, I don't really blame you, I blame what seems to be a broken system at this point that does not prevent admins from inappropriately running roughshod over regular editors and acting like they own articles.  I know that it was only a very short block and there isn't anything that can be done at this point, it's just the principle of the matter, you know what I mean?  Thanks! Elhector (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Embassies
I've asked a question on the discussion page of the Jerusalem article, I'd appreciate it if you could respond. Thank you. David Sher (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, I have responded there. David Sher 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have responded again. --  tariq abjotu  06:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you help?
Hi, I'd like to ask if you could step into a little situation I have here. It's been some months since I was last on Wikipedia and some things have changed around, so I don't know where and how to report this. I have a problem with a disruptive and uncivil editor who is harassing me with links to defamatory sites. After I removed a partisan and original research external link from the links section of Sathya Sai Baba, Kkrystian promptly began a mini-edit war which continued even after I explained to him on his talk page why said link was inadmissible. He continued to re-add this link but has stopped now as another editor has stepped in to seek consensus. If you ask me, there is no consensus to be sought since this issue was discussed at ArbCom and all editors agreed to leave it out do to its violation of WP:OR, WP:EL, and possibly more.

However, on a related article (Sai Baba of Shirdi, Kkrystian has been removing reliably sourced information because he does not agree with it, stating that the words "violent" and "uncouth" is the author's POV and thus inadmissible. You can familiarise yourself with that discussion here and here. As Kkrystian has declared on his userpage that he is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba (and by extension, Shirdi Sai Baba) in his real life, there may be conflict-of-interest issues here. Either way, it seems that editors generally agree that reliably-sourced references should not be removed. Kkrystian had been engaging in an edit war over that issue and was blocked for 24-hours over 3RR by yourself here. He refused to discuss the issue on his talk-page or on the article talk-page until after his block, preferring to explain his actions in edit summaries. But it appears that he hasn't learnt much from his 3RR block because he has begun indulging in personal attacks on me over at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba by way of posting URLS that happen to be defamatory against me and which include my surname in the URL title, as well as insinuating that I have ulterior motives for removing a link that is violating WP:EL and contributes nothing to the article.

After I informed Kkrystian on his talk page that he shouldn't be indulging in personal attacks here and that he shouldn't be revealing other people's personal information (even indirectly) here, he simply told me to "get lost". I even tried to refactor the discussion as per WP:RPA and WP:LINKLOVE here, but I noticed just now that he has restored this link here that is defamatory against me and which includes my surname in the URL title. He is clearly uncivil, personally attacking me in a hostile way, revealing my personal information, and harassing me without any provocation. Do you think that this issue could be treated with a block that I think, by all accounts, is well-deserved?

I left Wikipedia for several months because of all these harassment issues and, after feeling ready to return in the last few days or so, did not think I would have to face these types of unprovoked attacks so soon. Please help out, thanks. - Ekantik talk 19:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just by way of giving an update, it appears that after another editor tried to refactor the discussion whis displayed that defamatory link, Kkrystian reverted it back. I have also discovered that at Talk:Sai Baba of Shirdi he displays the same pattern of disruptive editing and removing reliably-sourced information simply because he does not like it. This is a clear case of tendentious editing I believe. Thanks, Ekantik talk 03:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to block him now. He has not made too many edits since the first block and there's not; I'll make a note of this on Kkrystian's talk page and then see what happens next. --  tariq abjotu  04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I notice that he continues to malign me on the talk-page here by continually displaying a shocking ignorance of WP policies with regards to acceptable source material, as well as making continual bad-faith assumptions on my part. That too, without any provocation and with every effort on my part to make him understand how to edit properly in accordance with WP policies. I'm about to put in a request for oversight regarding those URL-diffs but frankly speaking, his behaviour is becoming seriously unproductive and disrupting. Sorry to take up your time. Thanks, Ekantik talk 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there, sorry to bother you again. I'm afraid the guy just won't stop attacking. See here and here for some more examples. Apparently I am now getting accused (?) of stalking the guy when I am just editing related articles on the same subject (Sai Baba of Shirdi). And the second example is just an attack on constructive criticism regarding the availability of better sources. Is there anything you can do, he completely ignores all his warnings, please help, thanks, Ekantik talk 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Atarot
Hello,

Regarding your phrasing, the reason I changed it back was that 'Atarot is home to Atarot Airport' isn't saying much. To be really consistent, you could also say it is 'home to Atarot industrial park' instead of 'Jerusalem's largest industrial park'. However, the airport, like the park, is significant because of the city that it served, and in whose municipal boundaries it is located.  Tewfik Talk 10:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And?  Tewfik Talk 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And what? There did not appear to be a question to which you wanted me to respond. --  tariq abjotu  00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant to elicit some response to my rationale... :-)  Tewfik Talk 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User trying to get support for edit-war
Jesuislafete recently wrote this on Kuburas user talk, encouraging him to have an edit war with me regarding Široka Kula massacre. I have had an argument with Kubura wheter the massacre that happened there was a war crime. He has failed to show any source that states that what happened was a war crime. But now Jesuislafete has joined in and it seems as he want´s Kubura support in a revert-war. Paulcicero 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tariqabjotu. Jesuislafete didn't encourage me on the edit war. I am maintaining and enriching that articles (I've started that and similar articles). As I know Jesuislafete on en.wiki, he's also contributor to the articles, the user that enriches articles and tries to constructively talk on the article talkpages and usertalk pages. He's not the revert warrior. On the other hand, who's the accuser above, Paulcicero? - you're also familiar with his behaviour User_talk:Paulcicero Your actions from February of 2007 were invain. Here's more info what he did later: - he has been warned few times on his behaviour (at least twice, see here) User_talk:Paulcicero (on 30 Aug 2007, on 31 Aug 2007). See his answers there. - he was reported on Admin's noticeboard (27 Sep 2007) As I've seen his contributions on the articles about the massacres (massive war crimes) over Croatian civilians, committed by Serbs, Paulcicero was persistently (trollishly) reverting article under childish excuses, or removing the lines, in order to relativize, belittle or deny war crimes. He behaves like he never reads the full content of referenced pages (ICTY, newspapers). He behaves like he cannot comprehend the more complex text (but he does interfere in the articles that deal with complex and serious things). Recently, he's not on those articles (another user's shift, so that Paulcicero can calmly edit somewhere else?). Kubura (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Smile


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. NHRHS2010 talk  01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol mediation
Hi Tariqabjotu. I know that this mediation must be frustrating, but I guess it is the only way to move forward. Even if it's time-consuming, it is probably better than edit-warring and long talk-page arguments. I really appreciate many of your comments and wish you could agree to keep your role for the time being. Best regards. PHG (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not. The mediation is actually not very time-consuming for me, and it would become less so as my semester draws to a close in the coming weeks. As I noted in my closing rationale, I stated there was the participants' unwillingness to participate in good faith. For example, every week or two, someone has to begin finger-pointing that the reason the mediation isn't working is because of the other participant. I am not going to elaborate on my specific reasons any further unless another mediator asks me to, because such reasons are aimed more at one of you than the other. But, ultimately, no, I am not going to re-assume my role as mediator in this case. The case is closed. --  tariq abjotu  15:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox civilian attack
I would appreciate your input here and/or here. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:38, December 7, 2007
 * Well, you added the weapons field. If you agree that the weapon doesn't need to be in the infobox, would you agree to remove it? I really don't think this is the kind of very important first-glance info that needs to be emphasised like that. I dorftrottel I talk I 04:37, December 8, 2007

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Heckling
Be careful about jumping to conclusions. I had good reason to be suspicious of those opposes as Requests for checkuser/Case/Aramgar confirms. Of course I will defer to another bureaucrat in determining the outcome of the RfA but I am not going to allow blatant vote fraud to go unchallenged. WjBscribe 00:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You linked to the wrong place. Regardless, I have a feeling you didn't read my addendum, which clarified that I don't believe that was what you were doing. I stand by my point, though, that it may have looked bad to some because you have been a strong supporter of Elonka for quite some time. If you're willing to put up with that opposition, and defend your actions (hopefully, beyond your curt statement in response to Johnbod), then fine; that's up to you. (Yes, I know this seems reminiscent of the discussion over whether I should have !voted on Elonka's RfA.) --  tariq abjotu  00:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hajj
Hi. You seem to have reverted my edit to the calendar issue in the introduction. I think it's better to say you can't peg Mulism holidays to the solar year than to the Gergorian calendar, since the issue is independent of the solar calendar you use (you can't peg them to the Persian calendar any more than the Gergorian one). The difference is between the lengths of the solar year and 12 lunar months, not between any two particular calendars. WLior (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * e does not redirect to solar calendar; it redirects to tropical year, which is not precisely the same thing. And, yes, it's true that you cannot peg the event to the Iranian calendar, but you can't peg it to a variety of other things either (say, for example, the Hebrew calendar). The point is that you can't peg it to the most commonly used calendar, the Gregorian calendar. Yes, there are other calendars, ones that aren't used as widely, but the comparison is mostly there help the average reader – who primarily knows the Gregorian calendar – understand the concept. --  tariq abjotu  05:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Fictional film
Hi, I'm quite at a loss as to what to do now that you, following, as it seems to me, an informed minority, decided on "no move" in the case of Fictional film. Not only do the List of Seinfeld fictional films, the Category:Fictional films itself, the article on Fictional character, and the List of fictional books follow a different definition of "fictional" (while Category:Fictitious films is obviously a no-no), there also seems to be no place now where I could put, well, the films that exist only in the world of a work of fiction which I came across while reading Gilbert Adair's A Mysterious Affair of Style.

I'm going to post a copy of the above at Talk:Fictional film, but can you yourself think of a solution?

All the best, &lt;K  F&gt;  12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments
I have commented on your mediation page. I hope you don't mind. David Sher (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have moved David's comments to his own TalkPage and attempted to answer some of his points there - I trust that was alright. I've been itching to make interjections into the mediation myself (particularily as a result of seeing such seriously distorting edits as this being entered into the record).
 * However, I've not interrupted at that mediation page becaue I've taken the view that it is vital that you should be given space to come to your own conclusion as regards the worth of the different arguments. Are you aware that GHcool's objection to Finkelstein, as well as being apparently undefendable, is also entirely against consensus? I did a "relative reliability" chart here, and I did a "consensus of editors" chart here. These indicate that GHcool is not in compliance with policy, and has not been abiding by consensus. I trust you have the right tools in your box to deal with this kind of disruption and allow the article and the project to move forwards. PRtalk 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am becoming alarmed at the very dubious tactics now on display at this mediation - edits such as this look like flat out falsehoods made to poison the atmosphere and defy anyone else to label them as lies. Here is the text: "JaapBoBo's last post grossly misrepresents Finkelstein. ... Finkelstein goes much further than that alleging that Zionism also entails calling "into question any Arab presence in Palestine" and "that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking" even before 1947-8. These two points are highly debatable and rejected by virtually all mainstream historians."
 * I trust that, by this stage, you are in a position to recognise what is going on here, an attempt to defame one of the foremost scholars of the Israel-Palestine business and block good information from appearing in this article, and the whole of the project.
 * I further trust you're prepared to rule definitively who is right and who is wrong. While one tiny bit of the excellent scholarship of Finkelstein has been bitterly edit-warred out of this article, considerable chunks of quite atrocious work from the likes of Schechtman has been edit-warred in. This is more than "a content dispute", it's a systematic attempt to undermine the integrity of articles. And all in total opposition to consensus, which appears to be 5.5 to 1.5 against GHcool! PRtalk 12:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you haven't noticed, I'm not taking your comments into account. I'd prefer you not interfere with the mediation since GHcool and JaapBoBo are doing just fine. --  tariq abjotu  23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw this stuff right now. Thank you for not giving credence to PalestineRemembered's interference.  I don't want to start a pissing contest, but you can see evidence for PalestineRemembered's more extreme views (including comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and Israeli historians to Holocaust deniers) on my talk page.  PalestineRemembered should not be taken seriously and I applaud you for not allowing him to dissuade you from being a fair mediator.  --GHcool (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Tariqabjotu, this is the time that I'm going through and thanking people for participating in my RfA. Though, I have to admit that I'm not sure how exactly to respond to your own participation. Regardless of whether you opposed or supported, I don't think that it was proper for you to participate, considering that you were supposed to be a neutral mediator in our recent (failed) mediation. I also don't think that it was ethical for you to bring up the Franco-Mongol alliance issue as part of your oppose. It's not just about my situation in particular, but I think that this is important for all mediators, and even for your own future mediations -- I think that you would be more effective as a mediator, if everyone knew that you maintained a strict position of neutrality, but I feel that you broke this trust. :/ There also seems to be friction between you and WJBscribe, and this worries me as well, so I hope that you can work things out, or at least try to keep off-wiki disagreements, from flowing onto the wiki.

Now, getting back to my adminship, please do rest assured that I paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good holiday season (are you celebrating Eid ul-Adha? Or something else?), --Elonka 17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Literate Ravings
You're right of course. I just get so frustrated with the trolls sometimes. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)