User talk:Vice regent/Archives/2021/February

Problem with rightwing users

Hi Vice regent,

I would like to discuss a certain issue with you in private, can you send me a PM. --BrownianMotionS (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You can email me using this link. But its better to discuss this on wikipedia. You can post on my talk page whatever you want.VR _talk 02:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC CLOSECHALLENGE request at AN closed

Hey, VR. Hope you've been well. Sorry I forgot to ping you to let you know that I closed your AN request with no action (permanent link), but with some notes still attached. I will say that I think the fact that this request remained at AN for over 2 months (and remained untouched for almost a month) seems quite emblematic of what I said both on that thread as well as at the MEK talk page. Namely, that no outside editor wishes to get into the content weeds for that subject, and no uninvolved admin wants to provide active enforcement, either. That is to say, enforcement which, if we were to follow the example of myself and Vanamonde93's (courtesy ping) approach, is about as activist (as in an agent, not in terms of advocacy, obviously) an admin's role can ever really be on the project.

I note that upon linking to Vanamonde's username just now, I happened to glance at his contribs (just a diff or two, as I am pressed for time at the moment) for a sec and noticed he's back at it, but that, unless I'm misreading, he seems to be at his wits end at this time (diff), just as I had been in the past. I'll stress that this amounts to my only peak into the MEK talk page since my last comment there, and all I read was Vanamonde's aforementioned comment in isolation. Anyway, I guess there goes the "cautious optimism" I expressed at my closing summary at AN. Please feel free to update me about what has been happening there since my last visit — in a breath only, though, if you please! Kind regards, El_C 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Baseless accusation

this edit contains several deeply offensive claims for which there is no evidence and for which you have been told repeatedly there is no basis, both by myself and others. I suspect you included them by mistake, having forgotten this. They are: GPinkerton's refusal to admit the existence of Muslims who were both offended by the cartoon but also condemned the murder. this is an outrageous claim and you should remove it immediately from you comment, since it a very serious allegation which is entirely untrue and unsubstantiated; it furthermore runs entirely counter to absolutely everything I have ever written on Wikipedia or elsewhere. You have previously adduced made by WhinyTheYounger who said "GPinkerton push[es] a very specific POV [that] Islam is incompatible with free expression" as evidence of this before, but someone else's incorrect claim is not evidence of your repeating it being correct. Again, you have been told this before, so I'm reminding you of this fact now, and advising you to revert your unsupported assertions and aspersions. Furthermore, we have already discussed at length that GPinkerton questioned the reliability of widely published academics, in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim" or "true-believers". is an accusation for which there is no evidence; this was an entirely relevant comment of mine and your (I assume mistaken) decision to label me Islamophobic has been shown to be incorrect in previous discussions on this very issue, and on your attempt to blacken my name as such before. Again, I urge you to remove these distortions, in case they are mistaken for personal attacks. GPinkerton (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton I really didn't want to wade into that arbitration case until I saw your mischaracterization of a dispute I was involved in. I didn't label you as Islamophobic, but that you use Islamophobic tropes when making personal attacks against Muslim users. You are well known for making personal attacks (eg Levivich noted how you managed to make 9 different personal attacks in a single diff).

Anyway, we can put this behind us if you agree to the three suggestions I gave. Can you do that? VR _talk 06:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, as you will be aware if you read the context, these are not so much attacks as statements of fact. As I said at the time, the source you added was inappropriate, as was the text you supported it with. It did not belong there and you were wrong to add it. We can put this behind us if you agree that, and that the three suggestions you made to which I refer above are deeply offensive claims for which there is no evidence and for which you have been told repeatedly there is no basis, both by myself and others, and if you agree further to remove them. GPinkerton (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent it takes some significant contortions to achieve the distillation of my questioning the reliability of a non-published, non-peer-reviewed, non-scholarly blog in which a professor makes a non-apology-apology about having outraged academia with incorrect opinions as a source for ancient religious practice into your unsubstantiated claim: At WP:RSN, GPinkerton questioned the reliability of widely published academics, in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim", when my actual comment was about the blog post being a blog post, an apology, a biased source and a non-scholarly work, and not as you you have mistakenly suggested, "in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim"". Here is the original that makes this clear:

Is this in-universe blog post by Jonathan A. C. Brown a reliable source for use on the article Rape in Islamic law. A professing Muslim, the professor has courted controversy on his idiosyncratic (let's call it that) view of slavery, which has ramifications for the content of his blog post(s)

As you can see, you misinterpreted what I said, and, recognizing this, it would be best if you now reverted your claims based on this misunderstanding. GPinkerton (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton you repeatedly brought up a professor Brown's Muslim faith when trying to discredit him. An author's race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc should never be a factor in their reliability. You questioned the reliability/neutrality of Muslim authors because they "have a vested interest in trying to make their respective ideologies coherent and internally consistent."

This is combined with your repeated WP:Aspersions and WP:Personal attacks on Muslim users. You called a user "the anti-blasphemy ringleader" and accused others of a "campaign to enforce blasphemy law on Wikipedia".VR _talk 22:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, I never once tried to discredit Brown! I argued his blog post apology was not a reliable source, and the community agreed with my position. The idea that ideologues "have a vested interest in trying to make their respective ideologies coherent and internally consistent" is universally accepted and is by no means unique or especial to Muslims, and I have nowhere suggested otherwise. I fear you are misremembering the conversation.

Whether or not editors are or are not Muslim is of no importance to me, and I can not be expected to divine editors' religious persuasions and treat Muslims preferentially. My remarks about a "campaign to enforce blasphemy law on Wikipedia" are accurate and have nothing to do with those editor being members of any religion. Blasphemy law is a gross and illiberal attack on human freedom and I am sure you will agree that it has no place in Wikipedia, as we know from WP:NOTCENSORED. GPinkerton (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

NB: Template:User Wikipedians Respect faiths exists and is used by Wikipedia editors. It is not a personal attack on anyone to refer to the existence of this. GPinkerton (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So basically when you accused others and I of enforcing blasphemy law, you were accusing us of "attacking human freedom"? This sounds like you're WP:RGW and casting WP:Aspersions. It also makes little sense given I was the first to call for the offensive cartoons to be displayed in the article.VR _talk 06:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, indeed it does make little sense, but only if you interpret my comments as including who you're claiming, which is not correct, or even plausible based on any of the words I used. As it happens, the cartoons have since been repeatedly removed and restored to their proper place, so neither was I at all wrong to predict that very thing. GPinkerton (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sharing books on MEK

Hello. could you share the books you mentioned in the MEK's talk page,(http://www.sussex-academic.com/sa/titles/politics_ir/CohenRise.htm) or other reliable books you think would help improving the article? Ghazaalch (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, sorry for the delay. Yes, I have PDF copies of some books. Do you want me to email them to you? Which ones do you want?VR _talk 23:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you VR. You could send the sources which are more reliable such as [1] and [2] by email. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)