User talk:Ahwaz/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look at any UN map, Kosovo is a part of Serbia. End of discussion. -- serbiana - talk 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- serbiana - talk 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Anti-Persianism by Arabs 2 Blocked 3 Trying to correct a mistake 4 Your mistake in accusing me 5 question 6 New article 7 Unblock 8 Email to Yamla 9 Greetings 10 Salam 11 RE:Your reversion on List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms 12 Terrorist groups 13 Signature 14 Human rights in Iran 15 Mediation time on Kosovo 16 Hello! 17 RFA 18 Civility 19 Trolling 20 Civility 21 sockpuppeting 22 Unblock

[edit] Anti-Persianism by Arabs

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --ManiF 06:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no 3RR. You need to show the proof.--الأهواز 10:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism? I haven't vandalised anything and you have not even bothered to detail the charges against me or what article you are referring to.--الأهواز 10:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This was not a revert [1] as I removed content that I had not removed before, but kept content that I had previously removed. Compare it with [2]. However, some of my edits to the page have been repeatedly blanked by two editors working in unison: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Will you move to deal with this blanking of my edits? I hope you will be fair to all sides.--الأهواز 10:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please reread WP:3RR: "There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that if I remove different parts of the same article, I am reverting. If that is the case, then the problem of reverting my edits is worse than I thought. Will you follow up the six reverts above, including four by Zereshk and two by ManiF, who appear to be working in unison?--الأهواز 11:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have accused me of vandalism, but blocked me for a 3RR violation. Which is it? Vandalism or 3RR violation?--الأهواز 12:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I used a standard template. Sorry I didn't adjust it for personal fit. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please revert LukasPietschs harassment on my talk. He is threatening me with a block and I have a right to remove his racist comments. Khorshid 12:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to correct a mistake

Ahwaz, I've just willfully removed your last comment over at User talk:Khorshid. It wasn't him who made these threats, it was an anon IP. Let's not enrage him further. Lupo 14:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your mistake in accusing me

The comment which you referred to [9] does not say you will erase text. It says you did erase texts. Which is true: You erased the text about article 15 of Iran's constitution: [10]. Please make sure of the veracity of your claims before launching an attack against me. Thanks.--Zereshk 22:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not knowing Persian is not an excuse for you to throw accusations at me, because that can be interpreted in very negative ways. Also, you did remove the text and provided a link. Thats still called removing.--Zereshk 23:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am an admin here. I have investigated the claim that you violated WP:3RR and found that you did not, not in this case. For this reason, obviously, I am not imposing a block on you. I would remind you that edit wars are rarely productive and that 3RR is the upper limit, not the acceptable limit of behaviour. This should not be taken to imply that you are wrong or, if you are, that you are the only person at fault. I am mentioning this only in the context of 3RR, not in relation to your and other people's specific edits. --Yamla 19:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question

Do you by any chance know the meaning of the word tazi, and whether it is an ethnic slur used by Persians aganist Arabs? I say this because one Persian on Wikipedia states that "Iranians refer to Arabs az Tazi, which means wild and uncivilized". [11] --Inahet 05:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article

You dont need my approval Ahwaz. You can write any article that suits you. But you might find that such articles already exist on WP. Watchout for duplicity. Articles on Terrorism arent really my thing. They are deep inside negativity wars against one country or another. Im not going to be part of it.--Zereshk 22:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The topic itself is too subjective and political for me. "Terrorism" doesnt even have a clear definition. One man's terrorist is another man's hero. Just as an example, while you consider Hizbollah as terrorist (which comes as a big surprise to me since you claim to be an Arab), they are considered a fully legit organization and political party by Lebanese; they have members in Lebanon's parliament, and even Hamas is now considered a "democratic" group.[12]. Sorry Ahwaz, Im not with you there. Youre free to trash Iran as much as you like with the Bushite neocon playwords of "terrorism". As the grandfather of Muhammad once said "the Ka'bah has its own God that will protect it". over and out.--Zereshk 23:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I can bet youre not an Arab, because EVERY Arab remembers Sabra and Shatilla, and how Hizbullah defended Lebanon. Accusing them of terrorism stinks of ignorance to high heavens. Im not at all interested in your demonizing publicity campaign of everything and anything negative about Iran. Leave me alone.--Zereshk 00:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are possibly one of the most arrogant and vain people I have come across. Hare dare you persistently call into question my ethnicity on every occasion? You seem obsessed with ethnicity, perhaps to prove some racial superiority?

Were you also cheering on the murder of Rafik Hariri?--الأهواز 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

I have not been told why I have been blocked and I have not committed any 3RR violation. I reverted three times on Ethnic politics of Khuzestan because someone was blanking and vandalising content I wrote. See: [13] [14]--الأهواز 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Additionally, the previous block was not for vandalism, as the admin later stated, but for a 3RR violation caused by my deleting and rewriting of content in different parts of the article (as opposed to simple reverts).--الأهواز 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How can I "incite 3RR"? [15] Please explain this to me. Also, bear in mind that I have been the subject of malicious false reports by certain editors, eg [16]--الأهواز 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems apparent from your own edit summaries and the other discusion that you knew the other editor believed the material not to meet wikipedia's standards, so it is a content disupte, you cannot cast any edit you disagree with as vandalism. Please read WP:3RR it is not a permission to revert a set amount of times, it is part of a simple policy don't edit war it is disruptive to wikipedia. Since you have recently been blocked for similar behaviour continuing the disruptive pattern does warrant a block. So unblock denied. --pgk^(talk) 17:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Will the others involved in this revert war be similarly punished? Given Korshid's insults and threats in the past few days along with his blanking of my edits, I think he also warrants a block. See [17].--الأهواز 17:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace the unblock tag, I've reviewed you request and denied it. The status of anyone else being blocked/not blocked is immaterial to the status of your block. Your block was for continuing disruption and stands. --pgk^(talk) 17:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What disruption? The disruption has come from the user, Khorshid, who complained about me - he has blanked material on the Ethnic politics of Khuzestan page and has threatened and insulted other editors. Just take a look at his contribs. Your position is grotesquely unfair.--الأهواز 17:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Korshid has been involved in a number of civility infractions [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26], etc. He has also been one of a gang of editors that has decided to attack the demographics section of Ethnic politics of Khuzestan - a section that had remained there for months, without any dispute. Suddenly, they take an interest because they object to what I have written about Iran on Anti-Arabism - the intention is to drive me off Wikipedia because they can't cope with the proof of Iran's abuse of Arabs.--الأهواز 17:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The disruption is that of edit waring for which you have previously been blocked. If you are in dispute with other editors (which happens) you are expected to deal with it in a constructive manner. Wikipedia also has dispute resolution to give some pointer for both formal and informal ways of dealing with disputes, edit waring is not one of them --pgk^(talk) 17:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But if there is edit warring going on, then why block only me? Why not also block users like Korshid?--الأهواز 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that your previous block for the same activity was only a few days previously, which would suggest a tendancy on your part to edit war. At this stage blocking them would be inappropriate, blocking is preventitive not punative. If in the future you find other people engaging in personal attacks/incivility or other generally disruptive activity then look at dispute resolution to help deal with the issue. --pgk^(talk) 18:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If an Arab runs towards the edge of Wikipedia rules, he is banned. If a Persian chauvinist insults and threatens editors and blanks content, he is given sympathy. To some, this would be racism. But I could not possibly comment.--الأهواز 00:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no special conscience towards either those of Arabic descent or those of Persian descent (I am of neither, nor of any close affiliation with either) The fact that you choose to attribute the block to some bias, rather than on your own failing of wishing to war rather than approach issues constructively speaks more loudly about you than about anyone else. --pgk^(talk) 00:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at the facts. A Persian editor threatens to run a campaign to sack an editor from his university position using Iranian students in the student press and the Wikipedia editors lean over backwards to accommodate him - and a whole number of other civility violations. I revert the blanking of my content (and I am not accused of 3RR violation) and I am blocked. This speaks volumes, indeed. I have approached everything constructively, but have repeatedly been called ignorant, an imposter, a terrorist, etc, and admins have done nothing. It speaks volumes, indeed. Racism against Arabs is tolerated, perhaps encouraged, by Wikipedia.--الأهواز 00:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email to Yamla

Ahwaz, you sent me a message via email which I have responded to. If you did not get my response, please let me know. Email is not the most reliable means of communication and sometimes messages go missing. --Yamla 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Ilir had simply gone too far. I have abandoned the article myself when I could not stop him and Bormalagurski edit-warring. As far as I am concerned Ilir provoked them with an on-your-face attitude on the Montenegro referendum forecasted results. Hardly a mature or civil thing to do. He is indeed well-mannered towards people that share some or all of his views but I found his treatment of Osli very rude indeed. He knows the rules well. I just hope this 24h break helps him to clear his mind and we could all move forward. I have no intention of long-term involvement on the Kosovo article, as I have expressed previously, but I would like to see a fair resolution to the last conflict. You are more than welcome to contribute to the debate on the introductory text.

I would also like to present you a brief poem from my land:

The whole world in all its diversity is one, and all men are brothers and neighbours (Al-Zubeidi, tutor to Al-Hakam II)

Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 17:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that some editors, including Ilir, moved too fast to dissolve the Serbia and Montenegro union before the referendum results were even officially announced. Anyway, I got bored with the arguments over Kosovo's status as they were going around and around. Fairly sensible suggestions - including mine, which was to just state the status of Kosovo in the UN Resolution and the Constitution of Serbia and Montenegro - have been rejected by both sides and instead we have an overwhelmingly mad argument. I feel that if Ilir is to be dealt with in this way, then so should some of the pro-Serb editors who have been responsible for atrocious conduct - conduct that has not been addressed by admins for some unknown reason and which is generating a lot of the animosity and preventing compromise.--الأهواز 17:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say but maybe you failed to spot that both bormalagurski and c-c-c-c have indeed been blocked recently too. I actually requested the page protection in order to get things calming down a little. I think User:Reinoutr is doing a good job in that sense too. Well, we shall wait and see. Cheers, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that bormalagurski and c-c-c-c had also been blocked. Let's hope some order is achieved.--الأهواز 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salam

Hi Ahwaz, thanks for your positive attitude in the 3RR page, where (not only) I got attacked by some users who think differently than me in a particular subject. I see that above you even got flooded by one of them (or their lawyers). Indeed I am having a tough time reaching compromise, having in mind that are tons of sockpuppets and meatpuppets circulating around here, but I am a patient person by nature, and refuse to talk to people that offend me directly. So I have all the patience needed to deal with them, even if that means I have to be alone in this dispute, against this many suspicious users. Take care. ilir_pz 18:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer, and give me advices in my talk page, Ahwaz. There is a mistake in your advices, as you asked me to refer to the Constitution of the Federation of Serbia and Montenegro. First of all, this federation does not exist as we speak, Montenegro was just declared independent, and recongized internationally. Second of all, from 1999, the moment when international administration was installed in Kosovo, UNMIK is the highest body, which governs with Kosovo, and whatever laws or constitution other countries (read: even Serbia and Montenegro) pass, and they are related to Kosovo, are as such invalid for the reason I mentioned above. The only law to be used is the UN security council resolution, even if it is a temporary one. The next one is yet to be released once Kosovo's status is clarified by the end of this year. Anyways, as a neutral (non-Balkans) reader, I encourage you to express your opinion, once some kind of polling will be held on the introduction part. Take care, ilir_pz 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Your reversion on List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms

Thanks for the heads-up. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Remember 6/4!} 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist groups

Thanks for your comment on the cfd discuission. Just to let you know the reason why the content is not very consistent is because it's a new category. Once we've sorted out the question of what cats should exist and what they should be called, I'll then sort out the contents. In the meantime I dont' want to do a lot of work on the cat only to have it deleted. Hope that makes sense! AndrewRT 12:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Dear Ahwaz, I recently noticed your signature (الأهواز) is not in line with the guidelines for signatures as they should always also include latin characters (See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Language and alphabet). You might want to change it to include also your username (Ahwaz) perhaps. Regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing, it looks fine to me now! It is not really a rule, but a guideline. In this case, it makes your signature also readable for people without arabic fonts installed for example. And yes, the rules and guidelines on Wikipedia are often obscure and sometimes even contradictory. Guess, we will have to live with that. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights in Iran

I'll be happy to work with you (albeit slowly because im at a busy point right now). Having said that, I don't care much for pointless non-backed up arguments about Kurds, Arabs, Turks, Bahais, Politics etc.. I just want to work with referenced hard facts and provided they come from a reliable source I will be more than happy to accept them. And believe me, I know there are people here who are more than willing to scuttle this article. Tototom 07:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"When you say you want "backed up" evidence from reliable sources, do you accept human rights organisations such as Amnesty and HRW and UN agencies as reliable sources?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tototom""

Yes definately - I guess we could say a good source is an "internationaly recognised human rights organisation". But I would feel that regional independence movements or anti-regime groups, or even the iranian government itself, would have a bias (i.e. MKO, PUK,... and god knows how many others). Newspapers would have to be on a case by case basis depending on the standing and reputation of the newspaper. How does that sound to you? Tototom 09:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation time on Kosovo

I don't think we're getting anywhere with the Kosovo introduction, particularly since Ferick has openly rejected WP:NPOV and is now refusing to discuss sources. Accordingly, I've submitted a request for mediation. Please indicate on that page whether you consent to having the matter mediated. -- ChrisO 09:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Since you and i support the Ahwazi cause then i thing we will be friends, add this template {{User arab world unity}} to your page to get:

Sanatruq 07:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

I withdrew because I didn't think that the threshold of consensus, roughly 75–80 percent support, would be reached in the remaining two days. Some of the oppose votes were legitimate, based on lack of edit summaries which I will (and have been) working on. I am not naive however, I know that the sudden burst in Iranian Wikipedians (in particular those who Zereshk spammed to get keep votes in the Miscoceptions of Iran Afd) voting oppose on my RFA wasn't a coincidence particularly after Zereshk hinted that he would use e-mail to get votes after what happened in the Afded article in which he was blocked for internal spamming. [27] What is really sad though is that I don't have anything against Shi'a or Iranian Wikipedians. I think that we need more of them to be quite honest because of the lack of information in articles pertaining to those groups on Wikipedia. But if the aforementioned user goes on Persian/Farsi Wikipedia, or talks to other Shi'a/Iranian Wikipedians and says things about me out of context well then there is really nothing I can do about it.

Another thing that amused me was the last oppose vote was from a user that hasn't been active for three months (four months really if you don't count two minor edits in April) and before that only editted articles pertaining to his website Spinnwebe who's afd was in fact filled with meatpuppetry. [28]

Not that it really matters at this point, and not that JD will read it, but the fun bits here are that 1) he makes a claim that's false (I only edited SW-related pages) and links directly to the page that shows the proof of his inaccuracy, and 2) blows off my opinion as invalid because of his feelings for me and my "worthiness" as an editor, not because of the merits of my statement. Come to think of it, the really funny thing is that I voted against his RfA because of his habit of ad hominem attacks, and here he is. --Spinn 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really disappointed however, most of the Wikipedians whom I respect voted support and those whom I respect but who voted oppose or neutral voted on legitimate concerns about my lack of edit summaries. I'm sure that if I just continue on the track that I am now and change my habits towards always using edit summaries that next time I'd get consensus for adminship regardless of the vote stacking attempts.--Jersey Devil 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

You're in no position to make demands, and I've got better things to do than babysit you. Bottom line is don't do it again, period. --InShaneee 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Shame on you"? Consider this your last warning. Keep your tone civil, or you will be blocked. --InShaneee 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for 48 hours for trolling. If you choose to return after your block expires, I suggest you find better things to do here then go around making demands. --InShaneee 00:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What trolling? Give the diff. I wanted an answer to a simple question: why pick me out for a warning when others are saying the same thing (and more) without one of your comments? The truth is that you cannot justify this, so you have been rude for your babysitting remarks and then abused your admin powers by blocking me. I demand accountability for your decisions.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me the diffs then. And I would like to know whether calling an admin a baby for questioning their judgement is an example of the civility you claim to uphold.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I demand to know why this [29] is considered incivil, yet this [30] is not considered incivil? Is it not the case that incivility can be tolerated on Wikipedia if it is carried out by an admin? Wikipedia is not a democratic non-hierarchical encyclopaedia, it is a form of bureaucratic authoritarianism that can be manipulated by those with enough time, stamina and in-depth knowledge of its arcane rules. There is no genuine system of accountability.

It would not matter to me if this was a blog, but Wikipedia purports to be the repository of unbiased collective human wisdom - and receives large grants for its work. Wikipedia falls well short of its stated aims, primarily because of the shameful behaviour of some admins.

I have asked repeatedly for accountability from an admin who refuses to apply rules fairly to all. Instead of receiving an answer, I have been blocked for 48 hours and called a troll. I have no objection to being warned or blocked if others are warned or blocked for the same alleged breach of rules. I have not received answers and instead have been cold-shouldered and bullied.

You demand respect, but you are not respectful.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now reset your block for Wikitruth trolling. --InShaneee 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Seeing as how your first act on returning from your block was to troll, you've now been blocked again. --InShaneee 18:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Regarding this: Please do not throw out such accusations, as they are considered personal attacks, and thus not allowed. --InShaneee 22:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove warnings from your talk page. --InShaneee 23:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is vandalism, and if you do it again, you will be blocked. --InShaneee 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you, I'm being a good admin and following up on things that concern me. It is a personal attack, and I did say this to the other voters who claimed vote stacking. --InShaneee 23:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Me, for starters. Then everyone else who voted "Oppose", since it was a blanket accusation. --InShaneee 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Question all you want, but know that that comment you made was incivil, and making any more like that will result in a block. --InShaneee 00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but do not make more personal attacks; it doesn't help your case. I discussed the matter with each and every person who made such incivil accusations, whether you can track down the diffs or not. --InShaneee 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppeting

I have blocked you for a week for abusive sockpuppeting (see [31] )please do not do it again. It is strictly against the rules and many good editors were permabanned for it. Alex Bakharev 21:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

unblock|Khalilak and I are two different people. I've already e-mailed Dmcdevit providing him with enough evidence to figure this out. Could you check with him and then unblock me?

After a chat with Dmcdevit through IM, he said "I'll look at it. Hopefully no one will mind if I take a few hours to get to it". Please be patient - Dmcdevit will either leave you blocked or unblock you based on your email, so no other admin will be judging. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not a big deal. I just wanted to make it clear that Khalilak and I are not the same person. But I do know him in real life and I asked him to help me with some of the edits.... I didn't know that would be considered "sockpuppetry". In any case since this is my first time doing this - and since I didn't intend to do it intentionally - could you or Dmcdevit unblock me with a warning? One week seems too much of a punishment. الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Only the original blocking admin can really unblock you. If you asked him to make edits for you while you were blocked, this is counted as a sockpuppet. Actually, a meatpuppet. Similarly, you are not permitted to have your friends "vote" in AfD and other such discussions. I don't know the specifics of this case, however, I'm just noting policy. --Yamla 17:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

I have unblocked you. Please do not use sockpuppets as you promised Alex Bakharev 01:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)