Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Germen

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  'Parties' in that policy is to be read as 'individual users'. David | Talk 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I see no proof here other than your say-so. Axon 13:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then look better. --Germen 13:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Blocking policy 

message: Creating articles does not disturb Wikipedia. There is no Wikipedia rule which forbids articles to be created. --Germen 10:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point 

message: Removing a tag does not constitute Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Can you back up your claim with a reference from Wikipedia:vandalism? --Germen 10:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Editing an article nominated for deletion which says: "You must not modify or remove the VFD notice." (emphasis in original). David | Talk 11:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does moving something consider a modification? I don;t think so. I left the label intact. --Germen 11:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Interesting Note

message: 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)
thread_title: Anti-Islamic Bias