Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive Personal Attacks

Attacks secondary to the language discussion

Go take a hike asshole. I am not here for an idiot like you to talk to me like i am a grade school kid and you are the teacher. You are dumb man. You are not a traffic cop here. You have no competence in this subject and the only reason you are involved here at this point is because you are now in a state of childish war and argumentativeness. Go play with a dumb kid like yourself. --Amir 18:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your behaviour is getting increasingly out of control. Maybe you should take a rest from Wikipedia. Refdoc 20:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? On the one hand, being rude and abusive deters NPOV discussion, which may be his objective. On the other hand, he is determined to keep putting the image at the top of the page, contrary to the reasoned arguments of other contributors and without any real justification. It must be time to go through the dispute resolution procedure.--Occamy 20:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolutionGeni 20:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This "dispute" is actually not about the picture, but about the literary quality of Bahaullah's writing . Amir is not alone in the view that the picture should be at the top, but has the support of a few others, respected Wikipedians. He is alone on the second matter. Or rather he is as usual unable to engage in a useful way and has clearly no understanding of how to use a Wiki constructively. Refdoc 21:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well the same disspute resolution procedures are stll avalibe

Attacks secondary to the photo discussion

Voting doesn't work in this case. First of all, as we all know there are a number of bahai sockpuppets here. Secondly, wikipedia articles must follow a set of standards and they should be in conformity and consistency. Besides, taking votes in a religious article where naturally the majority of the "regulars" are the follower of that religion and they all have this page and its related pages in their watchlist, is anything but democratic. --Amir 10:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Amir. If you are going to use this kind of language to support your campaign, then I strongly suspect that Martin2000 is your sock puppet. Some of the higher-level admins can find out for sure, so if you're going to open this as a topic for debate here, you'd better be damn sure you won't end up with egg on your face for making such accusations. btw, I presume we can count your comment here as two votes for "leave it at the top where it causes maximum offence to my enemies"? - PaulHammond 16:20, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

You can suspect that Martin2000 is me all you want. As if I need to hide my ID to speak the truth about Bahism. heh. I insist that you to go to your high-level admin friends and ask them to determine if I have any fake ID's ... I DO NOT. But it is obvious that you guys (the few weaky sneaky cheaty bahais here) have sockpuppets. Every time I have introduced a fact in these articles, a new Bahai ID was created (the last one was User:Occamy which was created almost immediately after I introduced some new facts in the articles) to "refute" it or to fight me out. Ask your high level admins if I have a fake ID or if Occamy is a fake ID of someone who is a regular here -- and there is more than just one bahai sockpuppet here. I have to prepare for some exams these days, but afterwards, I will balance these bahai articles out more with facts. Stay tuned kiddo. --Amir 11:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First can you support you acusation of sock pupets? Second Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) has no mention of photos so there are no standards here. Third this article has recived quite a bit of publicty lately for example I'm pretty sure that neither of the admins who claim support you are follows of the relgionGeni 10:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amir, you are free to contact all the contributors to the discussion pages to solicit their votes. Sockpuppets? As you do, Baha'is feel deeply about the subject and will intervene through their own volition. --Occamy 10:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the vote be taken at Wikipedia:Requests for comment to get an outside perspective. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 10:42, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Listing it at Wikipedia:Current_surveys would be standard practice Wikipedia:Survey guidelines may also be of interest (if anyone was wondering I was treating this as a straw poll)Geni 10:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'straw poll' - this is exactly what I was looking for. A number of people came onto the page and changed their opinion half way through (myself included) on the matter of the picture. So this is what I want to clarify. Refdoc 10:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was not a binding vote, neither publically announced, nor running for any major lengthg of time. but it seemed to encompass everyone who was active on this page over the last few days and a few beyond. As major changes really need consensus particularly if they need to be enforced against the odd troll, my suggestion would be for those who want the picture off the upper corner of page to accept that such consensus is - at the moment - impossible to achieve - even when one discounts the trolling of one particular contributor, who might well end up being banned for good if his career continues in his usual disruptive ways. So my suggestion to those offended by the picture is to leave the picture where it is, in the upper corner, continue to build the article itself and not to sink into the abysses of a real edit war. The alternative is to call for comments via the RfC page and possibly even ask for an arbitration i.e. go down a more formal route - but be aware that such a route can usually be gone only once and a result would be binding - with little hope to convince people gradually and achieving a better result slowly and with time. This is easy for me to aks from you as I obviously am not offended by teh presence of the picture, but I still think it is sound advice Refdoc 22:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion about avoiding edit wars and taking more time to achieve consensus. However, I think it unfair of you to characterize an editor with a dissenting opinion as being a troll. I certainly don't view the dissenter as a troll. I see valid argument for perspectives on either side, both representing Wikipedia ideals. Religious accommodation is not a Wikipedia obligation, but then there is also no absolute standard about where and how pictures are placed in articles, and so there seems reasonable flexibility to attempt to format the article in a way that would satisfy readers from various perspectives. Negative labeling of or veiled threats to editors won't help build consensus, however, and I've seen it coming from both sides on this article. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 23:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

As it is I have no problems labelling user:Amir1 a troll - not for his opposition in this particular matter, which is fine by all standards and defended with using a miture of valid argument and other not so valid ones, but for his behaviour across a whole section of the site. Indeed I have so far not seen much constructive at all coming from him. And I did not make any veiled threats but simply made a prediction. Prophetic speech, so to say... He got himself banned yesterday due to his abusive behaviour, but appeared to continue to edit via open proxies - so I assume he has little or no respect for the commuunity and will continue to walk on a path which leads into wilderness. Unelss of course he changes tack dramatically. Unfortuantely he will see this particular episode as a victory for him and not as a normal and common process on Wikipedia, hence my pessimism wrt him. The proof really from my point of view is the edit summaries [1] [2] he left on several recent page changes and the small caption[3] he had tried to put into the top of the Bahai article about the pictures used. Finnally you may have a look at some of the personal attacks he made on this page in the section on language ( a bit up from here) Refdoc 00:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"other wikipedia users may come in defense of the troll" - this is exactly what is happening here with all those votes on number 3) . very unfortunate - --Cyprus2k1 11:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We're coming in defense of a position, not a person. --SPUI (talk) 23:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

then support the position. Provide a decent set of logical answers to support it the last lot have been slightly shot down. At the moment your comments suggest you are supporting a cause rather than a positionGeni 23:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)