Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Germen

Removal of dispute tags
The reason I removed the tag was that there was no reason anymore to maintain this tag: all explicit points were addressed. So this was not vandalism, rather cleaning up. --Germen 09:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You should not remove dispute tags so shortly after they are added and unless there is a rough consensus to do so. Axon 09:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If there are no reasons stated in the talk page or the reasons stated in the talk page have been addressed, the disputed tag can be removed. See Accuracy_dispute. There is no talk about consensus. May be you misunderstand Wikipedia policy. It would not be the first time. --Germen 10:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, you must give other editors the opportunity to actually explain why they feel a dispute tag is warranted and you should not make a decision to remove so soon after a dispute tag is added. As we can see from a recent example, other editors find removal of dispute tags to be hostile and it can lead to further revert wars. Axon 10:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Some users consider the removing of tags hostile, other users consider the addition of tags more hostile, because adding a tag means: you are ignorant of the facts or you are biased, your work was of low quality. Wikipedia rules do not refer to hostility, but to the procedure which should be followed, summarized as:
 * Check the Talk Page for motivation of the tag.
 * Verify the sources, remove biased wording.
 * When all sources are verified and all problems mentioned in the Talk Page are addressed, remove the tag.
 * I followed this procedure, so I acted according to Wikipedia policy. Tags make an article less readible, therefore Wikipedia guidelines regard adding tags as a last resort. Please note that unmotivated mass reverts are considered hostile by some users as well. --Germen 11:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR
In editing conflicts, the party which opposed my view is in the majority, so they could easily overwhelm my edits. Note however that Wikipedia 3RR policy has a provision for this: when multiple parties are involved, all parties shoudl be treated equally. This regulation was ignored by the admins who blocked me. --Germen 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That does not mean multiple parties should be treated as one group for the purposes of collecting votes, but that multiple parties should treated as equally without favor to one side or the other. Otherwise, if that were true, we would all have been blocked: only you were. Those blocks were carried out legitimately by administrators and you should be aware of this if you decide to break the 3RR in future. Axon 10:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The administrators which blocked me did not follow Wikipedia policy in this. The wording is clear. Different sides should be treated equally. Wikipedia is not about a tug of war in which the biggest party wins, the latter system is called democracy. --Germen 10:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case please reference the policy that expicitly states this above because I can't find it. The part you are referring to is when "multiple parties violate the rule"... I certainly did not violate the 3RR in the above case and neither, I think, did any other users. Perhaps an admin would like to clarify the issue here for arguments sake? Axon 10:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I will quote the applicable section of the 3RR rule below. If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.  Obviously I am one party, you, Yuber, Mustafaa etc. are another party. So according to Wikipedia policy, I was unfairly exempted for disciplinary action. --Germen 11:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Parties' in that policy is to be read as 'individual users'. David | Talk 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This alternative interpretation is inconsistent with the dictionary definitions of 'party' and 'side', thus amounts to original research. --Germen 12:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Party One concerned or interested in an affair; one who takes part with others; a participator; as, he was a party to the plot; a party to the contract. [1913 Webster] Axon 14:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The 2003 Webster edition talks about one or more persons with common interests which are engaged in e.g. a conflict or juridical situation. So your point is not correct. --Germen 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The 3RR policy is clear. At the top of the WP:3RR page it says "This policy applies to each person. Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the 3RR specifically does not apply to groups." -- BMIComp  (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy
I have told SlimVirgin by email that I was not the user who sent her that message. As we weere in an email discussion and she already stated why she blocked me, there was no reason why I should ask this question. I did not use a Pennsylvania University proxy. --Germen 10:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I have no way of proving or disproving if the anonymous IP was yours, I cannot say and I make my amiguity clear above. I submit the evidence here and ask people to make what they will of it. I would argue that, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and smells like a duck, it's a duck. If you have any evidence that refutes the claim I suggest you submit it in the Response section. Axon 10:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have provided sufficient evidence above which prove that I had no motive to send this message to SlimVirgin. Sending such a message would give her another reason to ban me for a longer time and as I said, I already had a working communication channel with her, so it was not necessary, even counterproductive to evade the block. It may be some enemy of me which did not know I had an email conversation with SlimVirgin sent this message in order to discredit me. War is deceit, as a wise man of the past which is highly revered by 1.2 billion people has said. Proxies can be used by anyone. --Germen 11:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please supply the evidence in the Response section, with diffs/links, then. Nothing further needs to be said. Axon 11:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In the Response section I have referred to this Discussion section. I have proven that I was not the person that sent a message to SlimVirgin. Nothing further needs to be said. --Germen 12:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no proof here other than your say-so. Axon 13:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then look better. --Germen 13:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Without the links to the documents supporting your position, it's really hard for anyone to know where to look, let alone agree that the proof exists. I agree your argument makes sense, but you could easily clear things up by justing posting the darn links. --Habap 21:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Creating articles does not disturb Wikipedia. There is no Wikipedia rule which forbids articles to be created. --Germen 10:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It does if you are doing so to make a point: for example, seemingly creating Prejudice (islam) for content you can't put into Islamophobia. Axon 10:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not make a point, key to solve the dispute on islamophobia is defining what is islamophobia. When we take the dictionary definition as a reference (I think all agree on that one), we read "islamophobia is defined as "any [negative] prejudice about Islam or Muslims". So in order to say anything meaningful about islamophobia,. it is necessary to identify this prejudices. A prejudice which is true is not a prejudice. For this reason, i.e. improving the qiality of the islamophobia page and resolving the editing dispute bymeans of arguments I started a page "Prejudices about Islam and Muslims", so we could answer that question. Reasonable enough, I think. --Germen 10:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the page was hopelessly POV, with content lifted from the talk page of Islamophobia, containing parts that discuss whether or not "Muslims are homosexuals" and so forth. Again, I submit that these articles were not created for legitimate reasons, as Germen claims above, but because he could not find an outlet for his POV elsewhere and refused to compromise and mediate on the Islamophobia talk page. Again, I leave it to those regarding this RfC to decide properly on the matter. Axon 10:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Prejudices are POV by definition and I positively identified them as prejudices. I do not believe that all Muslims are homosexuals or have sex with animals, for instance, as many people seem to do but identify this nonsense as a prejudice. Exactly for that reason I listed them as prejudices. May be I should have enclosed them in brackets to make it more clear. This is not the first case, by the way, you get confused by meta levels. --Germen 11:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've known some pretty ignorant and prejudiced people in my life, but none of them thought that Muslims were homosexuals or practiced bestiality. To add those in really limits what can be considered prejudice against Muslims to the rantings of lunatics. --Habap 21:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I had legitimate reasons to press for undeletion of Islamophilia, because during deletion Wikipedia policy was violated, there was no qualified 2/3 majority, there was no consensus, even no rough consensus and there were and are valid reasons to maintain islamophilia as an encyclopedic entry, because: This is just one example of the twisted way some editors seem to prefer to press their POV. --Germen 13:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * the word has been used in several English-language printed mass publications
 * it is used in hundreds of English-language websites
 * as is the case in several other languages, i.e. Dutch, French, German
 * it describes a real phenomenon.

Wikipedia:Vandalism
Removing a tag does not constitute vandalism as by Wikipedia definition. Moving a tag is not vandalistic. Removing several hours of work by collective reverts can be qualified as vandalism. --Germen 10:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Admin David, who endorses our summary, considers this to be vandalism and he blocked you for 24 hours for it. Axon 10:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad meritatem. Administrators are humans, not gods. Note that Dbiv is party in this conflict hence non-neutral. Please address my point: removal of tags is not considered vandalism as per Wikipedia policy.--Germen 10:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am staying neutral on the issue of the merits of your edits and accusations of them being POV. Moving VfD tags to the bottom of articles, or removing them entirely, is and always has been considered vandalism. David | Talk 10:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you back up your claim with a reference from vandalism? --Germen 10:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see Guide to Votes for deletion which says: "You must not modify or remove the VFD notice." (emphasis in original). David | Talk 11:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Does moving something consider a modification? I don;t think so. I left the label intact. --Germen 11:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the location is always at the top so that people see it before reading the article. Imagine if you moved the "Exit" sign from above a fire exit door down to the floor. People wouldn't expect to see it there, so might not see it at all. Moving it is modifying it. --Habap 21:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed the time Germen vandalized my signature by adding a link to my talk page. If it's in someone's signature block, one assumes that the author intends it to be there, so I am at least a bit perturbed. Germen, if you wish to point out that Axon informed me of this RfC, why don't you do it here? Discussion belongs on discussion pages, not in the editing of someone else's comments. (I also note that you even edit your own comments instead of creating a new comment explaining and expanding the original. I suppose it is your right to do so, even if it confuses the discussion.) Please don't vandalize my comments any more. --Habap 13:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith
About 90% of the people who complained were Muslim. Coincidence? --Germen 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant and a demonstration of bad faith on your part. Axon 10:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is relevant, because Islam requires muslims to have a subjective POV on this matter. Democracy, my dear Axon, is a lousy way to do research. --Germen 10:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not, it isn't relevant on Wikipedia and that is besides the point: by assuming the muslisms are out to get you and publish their "propoganda", as you like to put it, you are demonstrating bad faith.
 * Reverting all of my changes without discussion certainly did not help restoring my faith. I know opinions about what is islamophobia and what is not differ widely, e.g. islamologists who worked before 1980 are widely regarded as islamophobes by the modern generation of islamologists (e.g. Edward Said) of mostly Middle-Eastern origin. --Germen 10:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, as I recall, your first few edits on Islamophobia were uncommented marked as minor and you made no attempt to explain them on the talk page. For this reason, I and others legitmately reverted and I certainly took care to explain this in my own edit comments and on the talk page. This is no excuse for your bad faith remarks Axon 10:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a few words or one sentence. This can be considered as minor. --Germen 10:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are referring to but one of your many edits: as I have demonstrated above, you also frequently mark non-minor edits as minor without comments. Axon 11:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, many minor edits can be considered as one major edit. If that is true, I was at fault. Note, however, that this was in the past, e.g. one month ago. --Germen 11:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true: I have demosntrated above that you have marked several major edits as minor and without comment. You certainly did so when you first started editing Islamophobia, despite my initial warning, which jump started all of this. Axon 11:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are now referring to events more than a month ago. Since then I have tried to be more careful with minor and major.
 * And, to be fair, my dear Germen, I've never seen you actually carry out encyclopaedic research in Wikipedia to demonstrate your strong claims. Axon 10:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How come, my dear Axon, that I have several strong references which illustrate my points, while you and your friends have to resort to the opinions of some Saudi-Arabia financed university teachers? --Germen 10:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to your original researcg on the Islamophobia talk page, I would prefer to leave discussion of this for the RfC. I think we both know how we feel on the matter. Axon 10:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not add original research to the Islamophobia page itself, I just used primary and secondary sources to validify the reliability of information, which is encyclopaedic. See the section on Original Research. --Germen 11:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attack. Your attack demonstrates bad faith (and may also indicate Islamophobia). Argue against the arguments, not the people who present them. BTW, I am not Muslim. --Habap 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Germen, it is easy to increase the perecentage of "Muslims complaining about you" when you start assuming users like myself are Muslim. gren 20:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research
Note the difference in abstraction level. I am not discussing the Runnymede Definition in the Islamophobia article itself but in its talk page. The discussion is about whether the Runnymede Definition should be used as a authoritative definition of islamophobia or not. Of course validating an information source is a legitimate encyclopaedic endeavour and not original research. --Germen 10:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The point here is that, by focussing on original research to demonstrate your thesis on the talk page, rather than actually working according to Wikipedia policy you are prologing the dispute and making resolution difficult if not impossible. The discussion in the above case, isn't about whether the RD is authorative or not as you claim (you have yet to provide evidence that the RD is actually disputed or supply contradictory definitinos as I have asked you multiple times) but just a solipstic monologue where you are, through original research, attempting to "prove" that the RD is wrong.


 * Furthermore, I am not going to discuss any of the above with you any longer: I feel further discussion both here and on the Islamophobia page is a waste of my time as you do not actually seem to listen and even basic principals must be debated at length. I have explained my case and ask the RfC people to consider the above case. I suggest you spend your time drafting your own Response. Axon 11:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In order to solve a dispute there must be a common ground for understanding, according to Habermas. In which I agree. The most logical way therefore is to refer to more or less objective, primary and secondary sources, in this case:
 * islamic sacred texts, i.e. Qur'an and hadith
 * fatwa's from reputed islamic scholars
 * opinion polls and research from reputed sources.
 * I have proven that the Runnymede Definition calls the orthodox interpretation of islamic texts, as agreed upon by reputable islamic scholars from e.g. Al-Azhar University as "islamophobic".
 * This means the definition has some basis flaws and cannot be considered universally agreed upon.
 * Your refusal to discuss using sources is, I think, symptomatic. --Germen 11:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I will say nothing except highlight the use of the word "proven"... you do not "prove" things on Wikipedia (i.e generate new knowledge), you summarise existing knowledge. Axon 11:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You do not prove things in the article itself, but you can prove whether a piece of information is valid and hence its status. As proven, the Runnymede Trust Definition does not qualify as an universal definition of islamophilia, because it considers mainstream Islamic opinions about islam as islamophobic. --Germen 12:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So, what you are saying is that, since there are no primary or secondary sources to support you thesis that the RD is invalid, you are attempting to create your own on the talk page through "logical deduction" (i.e. your own reasoning). This is clearly against Wikipedia policy and any "evidence" you uncover in this way is inadmissable. The evidence you should be looking for are reputable sources that dispute or contradict the Runnymede Definition. NPOV is about representing all significant views not about promoting your own, original ideas. Axon 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your axiom that there are no primary or secondary sources to support my thesis is wrong: there are several primary and secondary reputable sources which contradict the RD, e.g. Qur'anic and Sunnah source texts, fatwa's, mainstream Islam theological opera etc. Therefore, so is your deduction. --Germen 11:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I said directly contradict the RD, not contradict the RD if you also use the following additional logic (i.e. the secondary source you are seeking to generate). A primary or secondary source should stand on its own and make clear what it seeks to support in the article. However, additional reasoning with your sources is required to actually demonstrate your thesis, hence WP:NOR. Nowhere does the Koran, for example, state "And hence the Runnymede Definition is incorrect" and the suggestion it does is ludicrous. And, once again, you are certainly not working in the spirit of policy here: I think NOR is pretty clear on this score. Also, NOR does not apply when explaining Wikipedia policy and you reference to it above is sheer pedantry. Axon 11:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
In order to "solve the dispute", Axon pushed his POV version of islamophobia. I, alongside with other users, have participated in several discussions regarding the introductory paragraph about the definition of islamophilia. I have proposed to remove the disputed content to a separate section, this proposal has not been accepted. There have been attempts by my side, to discuss the exact meaning of islamophobia by means of evaluating the universality of the Runnymede Definition. I have accepted the proposal of user:BrandonYusufToropov to resolve the dispute and rewrite the article together. This acceptance has been rejected for unclear reasons. Note also that this page is under dispute for a long time and has been nominated for a deletion. --Germen 11:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey there -- a query about your use of the passive voice. I don't know where your assessment that the offer to work together on the article "has been rejected for unclear reasons" is coming from, but I certainly haven't rejected anything, and I hope we can work together on talk pages to develop a draft that works for everyone. BrandonYusufToropov 14:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think, exchanging this kind of personal accusations as in this RfC is a terrible waste of time which is better spent by improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. The time Axon and others spent in collecting all the references equals to writing a 40kb+ article, not to mention my responses. So I welcome your proposal and agree to continue editing the Islamophobia article in collaboration.
 * By the way, with "logic" I meant Boolean logic, not my own personal logic.--Germen 02:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting Note
It strikes me as odd that the four outside parties who seem to favor Germen's side in this dispute are all fighting the same anti-Islamist POV wars in other threads. I think that's what I saw in their contribs: Babajobu, Klonimus, Karl Meier (the Wikipedian formerly known as Stereotek), and Existentializer. When only folks who share your POV agree with you in these things, I think it tends to point out a problem. I think of myself as a disinterested parties in regards to Islam (Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists rightly scare me, of course) and some of the others who found Germen's actions out of line seem to be similarly neutral. --Habap 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Depends: how many Islamic Fundamentalists do we have dealing in entirely bad faith on those articles? I'd be happy to include their POV on matters, but they outright refuse to allow any POV (meaning, anything that doesn't butt-kiss Islam) but their own to appear. Existentializer 22:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, Habap, I find it somewhat dubious that the people signing under the "outside view" section, given their islamophobic personal attacks on other editors and endorsers, can really be considered to be taking an objective "outside" view of a dispute that is clearly part of a wider dispute on Islam ongoing throughout Wikipedia. They should really be signing under the "Response" section to correctly attribute their views where they belong. That they do not just seems indicative of the uncompromising tactics the anti-Islam lobby regularly indulge in, such as the anonymous IP vandalism this page recently experienced. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic Bias
I note that Germen is now creating a problem by repeatedly inserting his anti-Islamic bias into the article Neofascism and religion. This article is very carefully crafted to allow harsh criticism, while attempting to be respectful of various religions. I think this is further evidence of a POV problem with this user.--Cberlet 13:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)