Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David.Mestel (talk | contribs) at 07:34, 21 February 2007 (→Szhaider: heading). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Status

OK - there is an obvious problem. This "workshop" is like a steel cage match between the involved parties and other users. I've made most of my suggestions and arguments. Unless the arbitrators and clerks (all "missing in action") can restore some sense of direction, all that we're doing is to intensify the dispute. Rama's arrow 17:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat agreed. The Proposals and comments for endorsement and opposition should be left on the page, and all the irrelevant comments should be moved to an archive page just to keep record. I must admit, I participated in the irrelevant discussions, which seem pointless now, but I believe progress has been made with the current proposals. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 07:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed. this case needs more input by uninvolved/neutral parties, and less escalation between the camps. The problem is that few uninvolved people can be bothered to embark on taking this mess seriously. But both sides should appreciate Rama's arrow's point: if you just keep heaping abuse on each other along party lines, it will not make your side look any better. We get it, you don't like each other. I should add that I wonder what Bakaman's comments are doing under the "uninvolved" headings, there is one stout partisan in the "Indian camp" if I've ever seen one. dab (𒁳) 11:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is pointless. For every proposed Pakistani block, the four involved Pakistani users voted oppose, for every proposed Indian block, the four involved Pakistani users endorsed. Is there a pattern? Same pattern goes with Bakaman and a couple of other users, but many Indian users have not endorsed Pakistani-related blocks and have instead only opposed those India-related blocks which seem outrageous. The votes of the involved parties are predictable and clutter up space and this page, which is not meant to be a battleground. — Nobleeagle 06:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And remember, all of you: it doesn't help your defence to a charge of assault to get into a fist-fight in front of the jury. If I were you, I personally would not want to establish a character of being argumentative in the eyes of ArbCom. David Mestel 07:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A question: Is it legal to go on other users talk pages and ask them to comment on this matter? Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 13:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that when you say illegal, you mean allowed, the answer is yes. However, understand that the ArbCom doesn't usually take nosecounting into account when reaching its decisions, and it will look seriously bad for you if you're seen to recruit people to carry on this fruitless argument on the Workshop page. David Mestel 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean like this? . This is just a question, since the nature of that comment doesnt look like he is pursuing Neutral opinions. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 16:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

comment from outsider

I have been watching this RfA for some time, and I must admit that right now /Workshop is a complete mess. I propose that people stop posting material in BOLD as it really really hurts my (and probably others') eyes. We definitely need someone to copy-edit it. Also, On almost everything proposed, the involved parties are arguing each other, needless to say, for no good. If it was ever going to be resolved by arguments, there would have been no RfA. But that's just me :) --æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 02:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a complete mess - just an obvious battleground. After all, everything said here - constructive and obstructive - will be weighed in the final decision, made by the old, wise men watching quietly yet with omnipresence from the top of the hill. Rama's arrow 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get the reason of a workshop. Is it supposed to show the conduct of involved parties? Or is it like a 'last way' to persuade each other? Because all the other workshops that I have seen also have discussions, but they are more like, explaining their own conduct (why I did this, how the accusation is wrong, and of course accusing too), but here it is like, everything /Evidence should have is being listed on /Workshop, just not in the 'templaty' manner. Just look at the number of diffs being listed here.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good observation - I think its also due to the fact that all the parties are uninitiated in ArbCom cases. Folks here need to realize that this is actually not a court - "arbitators" act as decision-makers but the process is open to all involved/interested. So I guess the workshop lets that happen. Its not like (1) give evidence, (2) receive judgment. Rama's arrow 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Does that mean Arbitrators can be "talked into"? :-) Because requiring more than evidence is just that, isn't it? Not suspecting there judgement capability here.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, the purpose of the evidence + workshop is to interact as present the case and data as clearly as possible, being persuasive. To my understanding, arbitration is like a blend of dispute resolution, mediation and court-style rulings. The only real difference is the finality of the ArbCom decisions. But if the parties are able to reach a mutual resolution by themselves, its not like the arbitrators will overrule them (unless a policy is being violated). Rama's arrow 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. well thanks for your input. (... being persuasive without being argumentative :) )--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Szhaider

Clerk note: Discussion moved from workshop page. The \Evidence page is the place to present evidence to substantiate your allegations, and the talk page the place to debate. Brief comments only on the Workshop page, please. David Mestel 07:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has abused other editors () and committed racial and religious abuse(, )

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to make one thing clear about . I am a Muslim. If someone says that he/she is offened if she is accused of being or called a Muslim, I do not consider it anti-Muslim remark and it does not offend me in any way. For me it is simply his/her expression of strong loyality to his/her own faith. Said comment was posted in the same context and spirit. It was grossly misintrepted. I do not have WP:ANI in my watch list and there was no way for me to know if a complaint against the comment was posted there. I was blocked without any warning or any request to remove the said comment. Szhaider 02:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see User:Zora#Thumbs down which according to Rama's definition is offensive to a whole lot of groups but I do not find it offensive at all. Please note that my comment was criticised particularly because of the use of the word "accused". Szhaider 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I take it that you did not consider the "warning" section under Re:Jinnah and Iqbal as a warning? Was not this an effort to remove the personal attack prior to your blocking? The problem with your comment is that it did offend others - you should not make such comments if you don't think you mean them the way they read. But the comment was put out there - completely unnecessarily, as you were obviously aware that user:Baloch Victory was merely taunting you. You raised a hue and cry by expressing outrage at being associated, however mistakenly, with Hindus. That is your own fault. Rama's arrow 03:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But I was blocked for "comment" on my user page. Warring doesn't deserve 7 day block. Szhaider 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked on the basis of the ANI report, the personal attack on your userpage and 3RR on Iqbal. The ANI report had been linked to you and I had explained my rationale in the block summary. As to what duration you were to be blocked for, you had yet again violated WP:3RR, compounded with series WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL violations. Rama's arrow 03:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And outraged as you were by user:Baloch Victory, why did you offer him your advice on the proper behavior for patriotic Pakistanis? Why did you feel it necessary to comment: A personal note! I am of Arab ancestry. Secondly as a Pakistani I believe only in Pakistani nationalism and I strongly despise provincial nationalism which is extremely dangerous for our country and unity. Szhaider 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Why did you not warn the user with {{npa}} (which you did - my bad) alert an administrator? The political advice was more important, was it? Rama's arrow 03:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And you assail user:Bakasuprman for welcoming him in a sarcastic manner (which I condemn), but you were keen on mentoring the user on how Pakistanis should think on key political issues with your "personal note"? Rama's arrow 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems you did not read what I wrote before the political advice. It was that "npa" template. I know why did he post the comment on my page. It was because of that Punjabi user box on my user page and I knew where he was talking from. That "political advice" was meant to prevent possible future attcks from him on the basis of ethnicity. Do you think that political advice was in some way destructive or "offensive"? Szhaider 03:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem, my dear sir, is that such political/religious views are not business that have anything to do with Misplaced Pages. You had dropped a warning against personal attacks - that should have sufficed, right? As a self-avowed "Pakistani nationalist," you immediately connected this user, whose name was "Baloch Victory," with the Punjabi userbox on your page. You sought to confront and deal with this user on this ethno-political level/issue - instead of dissuading him, you were provoking him. What you have routinely failed to understand is that the personal views, background, religion, ancestries, ethnicity of Misplaced Pages users have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. One is required to not discuss issues of this kind with no direct connection to Misplaced Pages business - this is not a blog or any other kind of webspace - its an encyclopedia. Rama's arrow 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to see a direct connection of my "political advice" to Misplaced Pages. Whatever I do or write is always is for the benefit of Misplaced Pages and its community. Sometimes you have to use your evolutionary skills of Interpersonal communication to understand what motivated an individual to do what he/she did. You have to go to that level to counter it in the politest way possible. You cannot scream from the top of a mountain when someone is drowning down in the valley. You have to go down there if you want to help. Your interpretation of my words is again wrong. I actually calmed him down. He never posted again. You are seeing my message to him from entirely different perspective. You have to read his message to me again to understand what I am saying. Szhaider 06:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No - you cannot claim you calmed him down - there are many cases of obvious trolling users logging in and editing/vandalizing 1-2 articles before disappearing. One of the pressing points is that you claimed you were upset over his comments for days, taking deep objection to being called "Hindu" and "Kaffir." If you were so conscious about Interpersonal communication, why did you do something so obviously offensive and stupid like posting that provocative statement on your userpage? Why did you use my religion to attack me? Nope, your explanation is full of holes. Rama's arrow 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I never attacked you. I just revealed the fact that you religious inclinations along with your nationalistic approaches to different topics were grossly affecting your activities. Szhaider 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose.He has done nothing of that sort.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Oppose Szhaider has edit-warred for sure, and done it brusquely on occasion, but nothing he has done qualifies as "racial and religious abuse." WP has to be careful about characterizing spur-of-the-moment (albeit animated) edit summaries as "abuse" (racial, religious, or any other). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No way, Jose - nothing what he did was "spur of the moment." He reverted and reinserted personal attacks. All his unblock requests included personal attacks. The reviewing admins said as much. That is an excuse nobody can really use, for anybody can make personal attacks and then claim "spur of the moment," "emotionally cornered" positions to justify. WP:NPA would be reduced to a sham in that case. The best anybody can say is that if one's emotions are unbalanced by something, just don't edit. Rama's arrow 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)