The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
blocked for 7 days by Penwhale
Dacy69 (talk·contribs) has a long history of blocks for edit warring and is back at it after being absent for three months. The first thing he did after coming back was a mass removal of the WPNK tag, with the following edit summary "there is no such thing as Artsakh except armenian name of Azerbaijani region. It is clear attempt to legitimaze illegal entity" This was very disruptive and uncalled for. Not to mention Armenia being in lowercase. VartanM (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than those reverts his next edit was a deletion of an entire sourced section:[1]. That's all that he did after a three month break on the day of his return, not very triumphant or constructive. --ΕυπάτωρTalk!!20:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reverting my edit on the talk page calling it "vandalism" [2]? I am not sure if this is civil, when I clearly provided a rationale for the removal of the tag [3]. This project Wikipedia:WikiProject Karabakh is clearly a divisive nationalist WP:POV push by a group of contributors. The icon map used for this project is a pure provocative fabrication, as Nagorno-Karabakh never had such borders neither as administrative division within Soviet Azerbaijan nor as unrecognized military establishment of Armenia. But what's most disturbing is that some members of this project are trying to rid Wikipedia of any historical reference to word Azerbaijan or Azeri, examples [4], [5]. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Atabek, there wasnt any state in the place of the modern Azerbaijan called Azerbaijan before 1918. Its a fact. See f.e. the NYTimes archives to finish this long discussion. And lets assume a little more good faith and to not call Karabakh "nationalism". Surely you know the history, you know about historical Artsakh, about the anti-Armenian decision of Stalin according to NKAO, the oppression of Armenians during the soviet period, and that the existance of modern NK Republic is a fact! Andranikpasha (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, guys, please! This isn't helping anyone. Step back a bit before you all get yourselves banned at Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Deciding to promote Wikiproject:Karabakh at this point in time is a seriously bad idea. Can't you see how much Armenian and Azeri users are trying admins' patience here with the eternal edit-warring over Nagorno-Karabakh? How about a moratorium on NK articles for at least a month. Surely there's plenty to work on elsewhere. Remember, Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Folantin (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that when I do something harmless to the main article, the whole projects gets "killed", but when some other users disrupt the project by mass reverting its a "fight elsewhere". Please redirect the project to its talkpage, I had proposed something and I was waiting for a reply from the rest of the members. VartanM (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Nagorno-Karabakh topic is quite disturbing and annoying already as an article to further make a project out of it. Happy New Year and all the best to all! Atabek (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If even Artsakh is disturbing to you:) its exists! If to start to delete everything that disturbs me here I think will not be a good consensus! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andranikpasha, please, refer to WP:SOAP regarding "its exists!". It's not disturbing to me as a subject, what's disturbing is that Nagorno-Karabakh article and any subject mentioning it is a subject of edit wars since the start of Wikipedia. So creation of POV project under this name will not serve well to Wikipedia. Atabek (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year everyone. I was late to join this discussion, but I can say that this wikiproject is a very bad idea and will result only in further escalation of tensions between the 2 communities. I see no reason for its existence, it covers the same articles as Wikiprojects Armenia and Azerbaijan, and all the members of NK wikiproject are also members of the Armenia wikiproject. I don't see what this wikiproject can do that cannot be done by Wikiproject Armenia. NK wikiproject is clearly divisive and nothing good will come out of it. Wikiprojects are not intended to divide editors, on the contrary, they should help editors join their efforts to create an encyclopedia. NK wikiproject is not the one that serves this purpose and therefore it should be eliminated. Grandmaster (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grandmaster. Creation of that Wikiproject will bring to extensive editwarring. By the same token, Azeris can create projects on current Armenian territories which were claimed by Azeris (Zangezur, Geycha, Irevan khanate, etc.) and add tags to every article. Do you think it would do any good? Ehud (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am well familiar with AN's tenacity when he takes an interest in a subject as I was once the object of his attention and it took an arb ruling to get him to back off (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Anynobody prohibited from harassing Justanother). I am respectfully requesting that an administrator please inform AN is no uncertain terms to back off on Schwarz. It is of note that the DRV page itself was blanked. AN should stop with the undue attention to Schwarz. This project has made its decision as regards her and he must abide by it and not try to find ways around it. As far as his POV forks, I have fixed most of the one at Neutral reportage as that one was a no-brainer but I would appreciate if an uninvolved party would take care of the undue weight at Freedom of Information Act (United States). Thank you and Happy New Year. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're going to have to take this up with the closing admin IronGargoyle and ask him if outsourcing information from Barbara Schwarz to other articles is considered acceptable under the terms of his close of the deletion review. In my opinion, we need clear evidence that Anyeverybody's edits are considered disruptive before restricting him from Schwarz-related material under the terms of remedy 7. Picaroon(t)15:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the DRV comments suggested that Schwarz could be added as an element to related articles. It seems reasonable to include her at Freedom of Information Act (United States), although the content still must meet BLP and I am concerned about the length of the material. Neutral reportage is more of a stretch and is probably not needed, and the recreation of Barbara Schwarz as a dab page definitely falls outside the scope of the DRV (although the page was first recreated as a redirect by another user). Thinking about this some more. Thatcher15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see that the point I was going to make has already been pointed out by Thatcher, that the deletion review concluded that there was not enough for an entire article (not all mention of her from Wikipedia).
I don't want to get into too much detail about the merits of each article (that's what their talk pages are for) but feel that an overall explanation would be germane here. Regarding the FOIA section, it may seem a bit lengthy but all information comes directly from the cited sources. As to neutral reportage, one of the sources for the FOIA section was sued by her for simply reporting both what she and the government employees said about one and other. If anyone takes a moment to read it, the fact that it doesn't judge her one way or another comes through. More than one secondary source discusses the implications of her claims against the Tribune had the court found in her favor.
Anyone still having access to the old article may notice that there was also much more questionable information featured in it which hasn't been "reincarnated". (Nor would I support such a reincarnation without better sources.)
Also, doesn't changing consensus apply to this article as well? For example if Ms Schwarz was in the news for a new notable reason, surely a prior deletion review would be at least rethought and her article could be recreated. (Unless/until that happens the most I could see using it for is a disambiguation page. Whether one agrees or disagrees that this individual deserves mention in two separate articles, I think we can all agree that if anyone is mentioned in more than one article but doesn't have their own, a disambiguation page is just another "no-brainer".) Anynobody00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you were going to write an expansion of neutral reportage to illustrate how the doctrine has been applied in practice, there are presumably many fine examples that do not require delving into the personal problems of a possibly disturbed person. This is one of the facets of both BLP and NPOV#Undue weight. Choosing to highlight the specifics of this case over others would be inappropriate. The situation is possibly different at the FOIA article where Mrs. Schwarz is in a more unique position. However, I caution you to respect both the principles as well as the letter of the BLP policy, and note that even the FOIA article, becomes by extension, a Scientology-related article by its mention of the subject, and if your behavior is disruptive you can be banned from it (or even from mention this person) under terms of the article probation. Thatcher01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't planned on expanding beyond what was already there, but in regard to your assertion that other cases must illustrate the doctrine better, I'd be surprised. If you read the SLT article it simply presents both sides without judging either. So essentially she felt that the article ruined her life because people talk about it when they see her and call her crazy. They (the Tribune) didn't report any untrue information and lets face it, people think her story is crazy, and she essentially blamed the Tribune for it. Meaning that if, for some reason the court found for her, papers would be reduced to a policy of "If you can't find anyone to say nice things about people, then don't say anything." Other defamation suits I've heard of, there was at least a question as to whether the paper was defaming a subject.
I understand your warning about consequences for being disruptive, but could you please explain just how adding sourced information to relevant articles about a person is disruptive? (Shouldn't there be some edit warring or heated talk page debate to even begin talking about disruption?) Anynobody03:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to write a good article about Rape without describing any individual victim or their case, no matter how interesting. Likewise, it is possible to describe the doctrine of neutral reportage without referring to individuals or, if it improves the article to describe a case illustrating the doctrine, it is better to use a case that does not turn on the behavior of an individual. Part of BLP is understanding that just because we can say things about a person that are true (or at least properly sourced) but also hurtful to that person or their family, doesn't mean we should. This person appears to be notable from the angle of her FOIA activities, but I doubt she is a typical or even notable test case on the neutral reportage doctrine. (I noted for example no law review articles that mention her; meaning that she has not been written about as either a notable FOIA filer or as a notable neutral reportage case.) To answer your other question, it could be considered disruption if, for example, you continued to add information about this individual to multiple tangentially related topics and ignore concerns expressed by other editors. So far we are not in that realm. Thatcher04:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this does not appear to require enforcement at this time, the report is closed and the philosophical discussion can continue
Actually I have a question/point about an aspect of possible enforcement. I can totally see where adding information about this subject to articles without sources either at random or in remotely related subjects would be disruptive. That's not what I am doing at all, and it sounds like you think the general tone of the accusation is not far from true. For example please look at User talk:Tilman#Barbara Schwarz and Scientology if you haven't already.
I asked if he knew of any German sources discussing her unique situation where religion is telling her to stay away from what could actually help her, is mentioned.
He provided what he knew of.
I politely advised that while I agree with his assessment of the sources I also didn't think it was enough to source a WP:BLP claim on. Moreover I stated what type of source I thought would do to meet notability regarding her and Scientology.
You also re-added the material. As I stated on Talk:Neutral reportage, the fact that you choose to highlight this specific case as an illustration of the principle, rather than the cases that actually set precedent, suggests that your priorities are focused on something other than making Neutral reportage a well-written and comprehensive encyclopedia article. It would be like writing a biography of Abraham Lincoln and adding as the most important fact about his law practice the fact that he shared a bed with his law partner. It shows your priorities are elsewhere. Thatcher07:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looking at his contributions -- see for example the early edit to Oklahoma, the abuse of a good editor adjacent to that, and the long trolling thread at Talk:Fidel Castro, prior to the trolling to add ED links -- it's amazing he got away with it as long as he did. Indef blocked. Feel free to disagree, but there's no need to waste time with this kind of editor; we're an encyclopedia, not a baby-sitting service. Antandrus (talk)01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for pointing this out Future Perfect. In almost all of those situation those editors/meat puppets were reverting my edits with no explanation.Ireland101 (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why I was put on revert parole considering that I always include edit summaries and have no history of edit warring. I have only reverted vandalism and thought that was the purpose of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Ireland101 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Moreshi's request for "thoughts", reverting is not an endorsed editing method anyway, so 1RR is probably the least restrictive sanction we can think of, certainly less so than page or topic bans, and I would think it could be liberally applied, although with either an expiration date or a promise to review (after 3-6 months perhaps). Thatcher17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I reverted once after the revert parole. And what's more important, Cat, a supporter of sites like "tallarmeniantale", is adding another redical site on Armenian genocide denial marked by admin Picaroon as "...atmg.org is definitely not a reliable source. It is unsuitable for verification purposes, and should not be readded."[7] Other users also opposed but anyways Cat is continuing to readd the Turkish site on Armenian "terrorism" and "allegation" (ofArmenian Genocide) [8][9][10][11] etc. I was placed under revert parole after Cat sent suggestions to admin Moreschi ("User:Andranikpasha, a user you had once banned indef is causing problems at List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. I thought you'd want to look at the Arbitration enforcement page."[12]), while we have a conflict with Moreschi on Moreschi's possible pro-Turkism. Will User:Cat also be placed under revert parole?? Andranikpasha (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andranikpasha was your revert strictly to bait me into reverting again so that you can complain and get me placed under a revert parole? -- Catchi? 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
White Cat has a history of trying to add entirely inappropriate sources to that ASALA page. Nobody has edited it since December 30, so his latest complaint seems like stirring. He seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the Armenians so I'd favour a restriction on his editing on this topic area. --Folantin (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not all. Andranikpasha rvd Shusha pogrom (1920) on 31 December 2007 (removed the tags and the figure of 500 dead with the reference to de Waal from the intro, restoring his preferred version of intro under the false pretext of adding the source to the text) [16], and then reverted the article again on 3 January: [17]. So this is 2 rvs in less than 1 week, i.e. a clear violation of the parole. If you check the history of the article, you'll see that Andranikpasha was removing the reference to de Waal and the tags from the intro since 7 December. Grandmaster (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop, Grandmaster! Look again [18] I didnt delete the source by modern journalist de Waal but moved his number of 500 (see the talk, you never discussed!!) and even added some more text by the same author and other authors. At least read the edit summary: "expanded, journalist de Waal added"! Is it a revert?? About after-Dec. 7 edits: I asked you many times to start discussions for Shusha pogrom at talk but you never did, just reverting. Seems to be a simple pogrom denial! Andranikpasha (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You restored your version of the intro and deleted de Waal and his figures from the intro, together with the tags, it is a repetition of your previous rvs on this article. You persistently removed that figure from the intro for the reasons unknown to me. Same with the tags, you removed them many times without any consensus on talk. Clear violation of rv parole. Grandmaster (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: this intro is not only "mine": I discussed it many times at the talk, you never answered. And both "commonly disputted" tag deletion and de Waal moving were happened first time (and after I explained it at talk), what a repetition? I wrote about the intro at the talk, pls read it at first to not ask why?
And who's edit's are more dubious at Shusha pogrom (1920)? at first Grandmaster said:"This article needs to be nominated for deletion for obvious POV issues and lack of any reliable sources" (Aug 31, 2007)[19], then "The battle was initiated by the Armenian side. As result of the battle, the attacking Armenian side lost and the Armenian part of the city was destroyed in the counterattack of the Azerbaijani army."[20], now he's using a source which he call's reliable and this source says "terrible pogroms" took place in Shusha (just with a lesser number of those Armenians who was killed): sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not a good place for the propagand of denial... Andranikpasha (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cat seems to continue to wikistalking me. he added the same problem also to ANI [21]. The text contains even some false info included that I was placed under revert parole by... Thatcher. I prefer to have an admin comment on Cat's behaviour and suggested revert parole for him. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case of Shusha pogrom (1920) the parole does not apply retrospectively. Andranikpasha was placed on parole on 29 December, and after that he reverted the article twice, i.e. on 31 December: [22], and on 3 January: [23]. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion it is a clear violation of his parole. Grandmaster (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, considering the link to cu that you posted at WP:ANI: [24], we know that Andranikpasha was permanently banned in Russian wikipedia for edit warring, POV editing and sockpuppetry, see this cu at Russian wiki: [25], and his involvement in mass user page vandalism in English and other wikis, as well as in commons, source, meta and other projects, will there be any further actions based on the findings by cu? Grandmaster (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, pls read more carefully before to answer! About so called "revert" (do you mean the undiscussed one by Parishan?) I answered earlier! And pls differ "cu" from the "requests for cu". As well as we need to differ "Shusha pogrom" from "Battle in Shusha", and "Armenian allegations and terrorism" from "Armenian genocide". WP:SOAP. Thats all! Andranikpasha (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it being handled there. It is about a different issue. I think the history of disruptive activity of Andranikpasha across various Wikimedia projects, including vandalism in English wiki, should be reviewed by the admins. Grandmaster (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop to harrase me, Grandmaster! Andranikpasha never vandalised Wikipedia, do not represent possible wishes (I dont want to describe them) as a reality! Andranikpasha (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so too, especially contributions of this IP range: [27] According to cu on meta, "there is a strong technical correlation between the Andranikpasha ID on many wikis and 217.118.95.* (or 217.118.95.0/24)". Talk page of this IP is quite interesting too: [28] I think the admins need to investigate this issue thoroughly. Grandmaster (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, do you think the "Strong technical correlation between the Andranikpasha ID on many wikis and 217.118.95.* (or 217.118.95.0/24)" means "history of disruptive activity of Andranikpasha across various Wikimedia projects, including vandalism in English wiki"? One more pseudo-propagand and falsification of the text? Andranikpasha (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the logics, sorry? You said its me, and now you suggest me to check what that IP done! Thanks no need! Im not a checkuser (the checkuser didnt made any decision yet!), nor have a time for this IP. I just prefer a little more civility by you while calling my activities a "vandalism"! Andranikpasha (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I missed this thread before it closed, (I would have welcomed a nudge to come participate) but I and other CUs have been investigating this for some time. Let me reiterate, there is a strong technical correlation between Andranikpasha and the IP range 217.118.95.* (or 217.118.95.0/24) on this wiki and on many many (I ran checks on a LOT of wikis as part of this investigation using my shiny new Steward buttons) other wikis. On many other wikis the sole contributions made by users and IPs in this range (that is, by this user, see "strong technical correlation") are to attack other users (a persistent pattern is after an admin takes action on one wiki regarding this user, this user attacks or vandalises that admin's pages on many other wikis) or to disruptively interfere in the smooth functioning of the wiki. While en:wp does not and should not take what other wikis decide to do as the sole guide to what to do, it would not be prudent to completely disregard this user's history and behaviour patterns elsewhere. I would suggest the reason this user has been relatively well behaved here is because this user is being closely watched. Several other wikis have banned this user, or blocked the IP range. My conclusion is that this user is a persistent and disruptive vandal and trouble maker and I recommend at the very least that a very close watch be kept in accordance with the parole. Myself I would have just blocked the user completely here and been done with it. I welcome any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c15:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute! What means strong technical correlation? Is it proved we're factual one person (included the IP ranges)? And according to what a person can be banned in a Wiki if there's a "strong technical correlation" between him and other (mind, already blocked and paroled) users in other language (I found out only Russian and French) Wiki's. Sorry, looks like a stalinist principle! Be sure the users who made this retrospective "case" and wrote you to participate here are already watching me well:) Andranikpasha (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Originally Andranikpasha was banned in English wiki as well, but admins here took a more liberal approach than their colleagues in other wikis and replaced the ban with a revert parole. That most probably is the reason why Andranikpasha behaved more adequately here, but once his parole was removed because of a technical issue, he instantly resumed edit warring across multiple articles, for which he was placed on parole again. I think the admins should take into consideration the entire history of the activity of Andranikpasha in wikimedia projects when making a decision on this user. Grandmaster (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was me, but I unblocked while adding an established editor as mentor (VartanM, which in hindsight was probably a mistake — for appearences if for no other reason), and with the pledge that the restrictions will remain in effect. Somehow, these restrictions were lifted by Ryan Postlethwaite due to technical(?) reasons, and yet, he failed to inform me of that... El_C18:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreschi: not yet. Andranikpasha: Checkuser can never prove or disprove anything. What it provides is a way to estimate probabilities. "Strong technical correlation" means that I find it highly likely that you and the IP range's edits on many wikis are one and the same, and higly improbable that you are different. I'm a strong believer in giving people a second chance, if they come clean. You can pussyfoot around if you want, but you'll get farther with a lot of people if you are more straightforward. I'll ask you here what I asked on my talk: Do you admit that you are the same user as the IP range, and as the other users named, across the many wikis that the case names off? Do you admit that you have in the past been disruptive, and have vandalised pages of admins at many wikis in retaliation for something they did to address your disruptiveness at one wiki? Let's for the sake of argument say I am only referring to things that I believe you did more than 3 months ago. Your honest answer to that question will in part determine what I do next. ++Lar: t/c18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El C, do you have a diff for the pledge that Andranikpasha would stay on restrictions?
Here is the set of events that resulted in the restrictions being lift:
As a result of VartanM being put on parole at 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC), and clarification being sought, Kirill clarified the remedy here at 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC), after which VartanM struck himself and Ryan removed him
Soon after Andranikpasha, Baku87 and E104421 were also removed based on the same lack of incivility.
The point is, given Kirills clarification to the case, Andranikpasha should not have been under a supervised editing restriction. Regardless of a prior agreement before unblocking with another admin (even though I originally placed him under supervision), this doesn't give anyone the right to overule what the committee has decided. RyanPostlethwaite23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, that was a condition of him being unblocked, so making the unblocking admin (yours truly) privy to this, was prudent. El_C23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have contacted you, but given I didn't know that this was a condition, and given that he would still have been under my supervision order I don't really think it's fair to suggest that I was really out of order. When I removed his name, I did so because I made the orginal decision and realised it was wrong. RyanPostlethwaite23:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Andranikpasha was indeed banned from other language Wiki’s, he was then punished for what he did. According to which policies is it acceptable to watch over his other contributions in other Wikis to punish him here?
If indeed using evidences from other Wikipedi’s are valid, then in this case there are evidences of members canvassing to have Andranikpasha banned from English Wikipedia. Grandmaster's first post on meta was on 09:16, 21 December 2007 [30], only few hours after Jayvdb made his checkuser request on Andranikpasha [31]. With his limited knowledge of Russian, (he doesn’t even claims to know it in his userpage), Jayvdb managed to make such a history of Andranikpasha's contribution on Russian Wikipedia. It would have taken some basic mastering of the Russian language to know according to the contributions and have verification on that Ashot account. We know very well that on English Wikipedia Andranikpasha was first banned because of Grandmaster's attempt to have him banned; we also know that Grandmaster who masters Russian is also a regular contributor on Russian Wikipedia. I don’t think there is any coincidence or it is too much far fetched to say that Jayvdb proxies for Grandmaster by posting those evidences gathered by Grandmaster to request a checkuser. What use these really have if not to bring it over to English Wikipedia to further discredit Andranikpasha?
Jayvdb has a long history of coming to Grandmaster’s defense in an interval of few minutes, like here where he voted 14 minutes after Grandmaster [32] supporting his position and even claiming fringe opinion about a subject he didn’t seem to know anything about. Here we can check the history of Shushi Pogrom and see Jayvdb's persistent one sided interventions. Or Paytakaran where he introduced Grandmaster change by merging both versions etc. Apparently he now wants to become a clerk, I believe he should be restricted to enforce any policies concerning this case as a party to this case.
Those harassments have to suffice, Grandmaster was able to have Andranikpasha restricted, more than this would obviously be a bad faithed attempt to have him silenced. It is nothing more than a double standard, WhiteCat's actions on Commons are claimed to be irrelevant here, so lets be consistent and judge Andranikpasha according to his contributions here. Administrators canvassing and talking behind our backs has TO STOP!!! VartanM (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention one minor detail, Vartan. We are talking about Andranikpasha's contributions to English wikipedia in the first place. That IP range was engaged in repeated user page vandalism here, in the English wikipedia, which seems to be a continuation of Andranikpasha's conflicts with admins at other wikis. His disruptive activity across the multitude of other wikimedia projects is just a useful background to demonstrate the editing pattern of this user, which is the same everywhere. I don't think this thread should be diverted towards discussion of other editors and admins, the point here is that CU supports that Andranikpasha was engaged in disruptive activity on many wikis, English one included. He is not an innocent victim of the conspiracy of certain users and admins. In that case the conspiracy must exist in every project he was banned from. We need to wait for Andranikpasha's response to the questions asked to him. Hopefully it will clarify certain matters. Grandmaster (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't deny that Jayvdb proxied the evidence for you. How old is that IP vandalism, and do you have direct evidence connecting it to Andranikpasha. VartanM (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, even this IP range stopped his activities at English Wiki much before I opened my account (Andranikpasha). And in the list at MetaCU we can find only one user who was banned (that is Russian one). And even without this all you wrote never justifies the sad reality VartanM marked! Andranikpasha (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked you a direct question and I'd appreciate a direct answer. If you choose not to answer I will take it as tacit agreement that you and the IP users are one and the same. ++Lar: t/c22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me the policy under which this investigation is being conducted. And can you tell me what does a six month old IP vandalism has to do with Andranikpasha's current status here at en.wiki. This whole thing looks like a witch-hunt to me. VartanM (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VartanM, Grandmasters involvement in this is totally irrelevant, but in the interest of clearing the air I will answer this as I can provide a more detailed history. He did initially email me with the Russian CU page and explained that the "Hayk" user page had been vandalised on RU and EN by the IP range 217.118.95.* around the same timeframe, and asked whether I would look into this. Due to the attacks here, I accepted on the condition that he AGF until the results were final, and warned him that it would probably take a long time because the attacks were a long time ago. (As far as I know Grandmaster has done that, otherwise he would have received a short block in the same way I blocked Fedayee!) Beyond that initial involvement, Grandmaster has had nothing further to do with this, and was not involved in collating the evidence presented in the meta CU page.
I am a bit miffed that you think I am incapable of collating this evidence myself. While I am the master of only one language, I am intelligent enough to be able to grok most languages with varying degrees of effort. You will find a long list of interwiki links on User:Jayvdb and s:User:Jayvdb; most have a few contribs, and I also administrate the Multilingual Wikisource. Languages are not my strength, which is why I dont advertise my language skills with userboxes, but they are a hobby that I enjoy. As an example, it required a few hours to figure out enough Hungarian in order to source this, even though the article on the Hungarian subdomain didnt have any sources at that time, and still does not. Throughout the evidence on m:Requests for CheckUser information#Andranikpasha you will see it is based primarily on interwiki links showing a pattern of the same IPs and usernames editing the same articles on different sub-domains. Ironically, often those interwiki links were put there by the anons/users under inspection in the meta CU request. Lar and other English admins can confirm that I was seeking uninvolved parties who could help to translate some Armenian, French & Russian information; Grandmaster did not provide any assistance and I did not ask for it. Also, some of the evidence is deleted content on the English Wikisource, which Grandmaster does not have access to - I found it by following those anons/users across all the projects and sub-domains.
Like lar, I am willing to let bygones be bygones because I have seen good contributions by Andranikpasha, but only if Andranikpasha responds to the direct question posed by lar in an open and honest manner. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You’ll have to excuse my skepticism, so Grandmaster's registration[33] soon after you requested the CU[34] was a coincidence? And how have you insinuated that I meant you were unintelligent to make the link yourself? What I said was that it would have to take some level of Russian language mastering to be able to go and find Andranikpasha on Russian Wikipedia. And it is hard to confirm what you report, contrary it is the opposite. The attacks here, as you say, do not match with your affirmation. Andranikpasha was banned on English Wikipedia, but not a single userpage got vandalized. This should have to be enough to settle the issue, he was then unbanned and there were no attacks afterwards. So the evidence you provided does not fit in the context you are presenting it.
Furthermore, some interesting observations from those IP addresses, is that those are not vandalism [35], the IP address has reverted what was obviously inaccurate information which Lucrèce was POV pushing. Lucrèce was banned from French Wikipedia. What was removed by the IP, was also removed by other users. [36] Neither this removal on Dutch Wikipedia, was a vandalism, here on English Wikipedia the usage of such terms as statment is not only discouraged but it there is a consensus not use them at all. On Armenian Wikipedia he created the page, nothing more.
Checking those IP’s and reading those contributions, there is no doubt, that most of the contributions in those other language Wikipedia's were average for a newbie.
As for the banning from Russian Wikipedia, and? Atabek was found having used socks[37] and edit warring here. Anything in that collection which could be of any value would be the vandalism of a members talkpage. Did those continue? Did he vandalized any pages here?
This borders harassment, and I discourage Andranikpasha to answer anything at all. User:Hetoum I was harassed by Grandmaster over and over again for the mistakes he made during his first days of contributions (which was also vandalizing user pages), the way Grandmaster gathered administrators and made things blow over proportions, bringing it back every chance he got discouraged Hetoum to continue contributing here all together.
And your involvement here, right now could be interpreted as acting as a cosponser of this harassment. For exemple check your involvement in Shusha pogrom (1920)[38] article, where Andranikpasha was most active, systematically taking Grandmasters side and even making fun of Andranikpashas mastering of Russian[39]. You are flaming it, your actions brought nothing positive. For months Andranikpasha has been OK and that's all that matters. Lar's question is a double edged sword. If Andranikpasha say yes, it will be used against him, saying he’s an admitted sockpuppeteer and vandalazier, if he answers no, it will be used to say that he denied something which was obvious. VartanM (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my intent that the question be used as a double edged sword. We have had vandals reform before and go on to be admins, no less. I think you should assume a bit more good faith, the persecution complex thing doesn't go over well with some, including me. ++Lar: t/c23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it's not your intent and I am assuming good faith with you. But it’s the fourth time Grandmaster attempted such an indirect gathering of evidence to have his foes banned because of content dispute. Call this persecution complex, I’ve seen what he did to Hetoum, seen his attempt to have Meowy banned and more. I am simply putting an end to all of this. As I told you before, if you want your personal questions answered, you can email him. If Andranikpasha starts doing what is reported on meta, then perhaps you could bring it back. I hope this settles it. VartanM (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A question to the admins. Is it OK that VartanM continues making assumptions of bad faith and baseless accusations of other users? Some claimed here that WP:AGF is not an official policy, is it really so? Yes, User:Hetoum I vandalized my user page 18 times, inserting obscene images and messages, and yes, I brought that to the attention of the admins. How come that it was me who harassed Hetoum and not the other way around? And yes, I presented that info to the arbcom, since it was dealing with the disruptive editing on Armenia – Azerbaijan and Hetoum was also involved in a lot of disruption. What does it have to do with this thread? I think wikilawyering by VartanM has to stop, this thread has no relation to him and Andranikpasha should come out and answer the questions that admins posed to him. Andranikpasha has a history of disruption across various wikimedia projects, and why should everyone pretend that it never happened? In English Wikipedia Andranikpasha was placed on parole twice, so it does not look like there has been a total reformation. I proposed to the arbcom to change the reporting rules on WP:AE to prevent the reports turning into endless and pointless discussions, I hope it will be taken into consideration. Grandmaster (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGFThis guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary As you can see I presented evidence to what I claimed. VartanM (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous, you know Vartan isn’t referring to Hetoum’s vandalism, but you bringing it up over a year later, again and again harassing Hetoum, wikistalking him when he already paid for what he did and how he behaved. I agree with Vartan that under the circumstances, Antranikpasha should not answer those questions. Any administrators who would again tell me to assume good faith, would do better reading these evidences on Grandmaster’s abusive reporting, stalking and following of members. So Lar, the persecution complex may not work for you, but under the circumstances it is understandable. - Fedayee (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fedayee, VartanM accused me of harassing Hetoum, who vandalized my user page many times. Yes, I did present the info about this vandalism to the arbcom, as such info is required for the arbitrators to evaluate the overall history of this user's contributions. All the info that I presented was factually accurate and not disputed by anyone, so I don't see how this is a harassment and why VartanM keeps making baseless accusations, irrelevant to the topic of this discussion. So far he presented no evidence of me harassing anyone, but keeps claiming that he does not need to AGF with regard to me. Grandmaster (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, I prefer if you assume a little more good faith. Had the so much dubious incident-pushing to the article on Armenain Jews [40] a purpose to be deleted by someone from Armenian side (it can be me) for another "evidence" of "sourced"-info deletion. And for a result its you who are continuning editwarrings started by Parishan and deleting the whole sourced (this time detailed and sourced by many reliable sources on Antisemitism in Azerbaijan - see for example FSUMonitor site) chapter[41]. Count how many times you putted my name here and how many times I putted yours(just once or maybe never?)! Should you put your name here now with a text like "Another deletion of a whole sourced chapter by Grandmaster" if you were in my place?? Andranikpasha (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andranikpasha, I reverted myself and instead I'm going to ask third party editors to take a look at that article and the section of Antisemitism, created by Andranikpasha. It is bigger than any other section in the article, and while all human rights reports agree that antisemitism has never been a real problem in Azerbaijan, Andranikpasha tries to present isolated incidents as a general trend. I don't mind covering this issue in that article, but I believe it should be done in an objective manner. Now you can create a separate report on that, if you wish, but let’s not distract from the topic of this particular thread. Grandmaster (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A self-revert after my protest is not justified. You're not the only editor of that article and before controdictional actions you should discuss them and have a consensus with all the active users. Its not acceptible to do what you like without asking if other active authors are agree... Yes, before collecting "evidences" a little more tolerancy is needed. Anyways, an independent review will be good... if you think so. Andranikpasha (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this: [42] I do think that those sections on Antisemitism in both articles are blown out of proportion, but you just did the same thing you were accusing others of doing. I hope you do the same as I did and wait for independent review after that. Grandmaster (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we need common standards. EhudLesar was the first who added an incident from the paper to Armenian article, and also Parishan and you were the first who deleted the section from the Azerbaijani one. Im sure if no any hopes for additional "evidence" and a little more tolerancy such an editions will not take place. Andranikpasha (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VartanM, I was not involved in the prior ban of Andranikpasha in any way; I didnt know of it until it was done. The vandalism here that I refer to here on enwiki is [43][44](Ashot)[45][46][47]. If you could translate those, there may be clues that help us with this inquiry.
Grandmaster's action on meta is definitely not a coincidence. I notified Grandmaster that the meta CU was underway once I had compiled enough evidence for me to feel comfortable that it warranted further inspection. Why are you surprised that I should notify Grandmaster, and he would register on meta as a result? Why is it of any consequence that Grandmaster found the Russian Andranikpasha user page instead of me finding it on on the first page of results for a simple search of Andranikpasha site:wikipedia.org. The crux of this investigation is that we have a very strong correlation between the Russian Andranikpasha, the IP range, and the English Andranikpasha, and the IP range has been attacking French admin Sand as recently as November 24, 2007. "DOWN WITH ADMIN SAND!" Note the French contributions by this IP range revolve around asserting that the name "Shushi" should be used [48][49][50]. This correlates closely with Andranikpasha's attempt to use Shushi as opposed to the name Shusha on the English article for the exact same topic Shusha pogrom (1920). I rejected this much like the French did in a similar NPOV discussion that determined that the Azeri『Şuşa』was preferrable.(fr:Wikipédia:Liste des articles non neutres/Massacres de Shushi) The diff you provide above shows my frustration with Andranikpasha's insistence that his approach at transliteration was correct, despite nobody else agreeing with him then or since. To construe this to mean that I was siding with Grandmaster is both misrepresenting what happened, and part of a disturbing pattern of Armenians calling for my head on a platter any time that I make a decision that they are not happy with. I renamed the article, after being involved in discussing the matter for an inordinate amount of time, with nobody agreeing with Andranikpasha that the prior name was correct.
These attacks are a serious matter, crossing many sub-domains, and my meta CU request was raised to shed light on the ongoing pattern so that admins on all wikis can put a stop to it continuing.
VartanM, if the attacks that are raised in this CU are by the same Andranikpasha, his improved behaviour here on enWP can be attributed to your mentoring; please dont spoil that by shooting the messenger instead of heeding the message. Urge Andranikpasha to answer honestly and be part of the solution whichever way he responds. If he acknowledges that he was involved in these attacks, I would welcome you resuming your mentorship of the user, perhaps with another uninvolved admin keeping an eye on things. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above you claim such a contact which you deny here during the Christmas period. It is also very difficult to assume good faith, when you don’t say the truth on what went on in the French Wikipedia. The French did nothing of the such, no user of good standing who is neutral would call it Şuşa for an event which happened before the invention of that alphabet (that wording in French Wikipedia is obviously wrong). Andranikpasha was actually true and anyone on French Wikipedia who would push the term Shusha for that period would be POV pushing and if that person doesn’t know anything and does it regardless without requiring sources like Sand did, then that person didn't have editorial judgement. In French works, the term Chouchi (the “Frenchisized” word and for the period) was generally the most used term for the place for the period. See these [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63].
These are only a few of the results, which includes encyclopaedias. Here you can have the rest from Google books [64]. Chouchi is by far the term mostly used in French for the period. The word with the i in the ending is actually the original name, as Panahs Shoushi was named after the nearby village, that name was existing at least since the 11th century [65], centuries before the town was build near and almost touching the village of that name.
Andranik’s approach on French Wikipedia WAS correct, as even in modern times French literature uses the term with the i ending. The historic documents and publications support Andranikpasha, and under the circumstance that he was right, his frustration could be understandable.
Your renaming of the article was one sided, much like your intrusions about a subject which you perhaps know nothing about yet you take a position because you do not assume your target could be right. And this :’’ and part of a disturbing pattern of Armenians calling for my head on a platter any time that I make a decision that they are not happy with.’’ is not assuming good faith, weren’t you the one who tried to do that with Andranikpasha? Besides, this isn’t about us being not happy with you but your intrusion and taking the side of Grandmaster systematically and things which you know nothing about.
Grandmaster requested mediation on Paytakaran then the mediator started making propositions, which did not satisfy him, then shortly he is away, Grandmaster starts edit warring, he is reverted, you come and intervene by merging with the original version… Grandmaster’s inaccurate version. Since then you have been acting like a partner to him, voting like the example above minutes interval with him, running his investigations, coming and participating and the witch hunting on the Shushi pogrom article, which was at first the reason why Grandmaster wanted Andranikpasha’s head, much like Grandmaster tried having Meowy’s head because of his involvement on Kish article.
Golbez, who was pushed away, was doing a pretty good job. Had he been acting on the Armenian side the way you have systematically acted on Grandmaster’s behalf, I would have not given much of his future here. - Fedayee (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
24 hours block by Moreschi
User:Andranikpasha was placed on a supervision parole under Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Arbcom [66]. He has also been warned just 4 days ago about another violation of his parole [67]. Today he reverted an edit by administrator at Thomas de Waal article, leaving no comment on the talk page again:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe that Matthead has constantly - for well over a year - crossed boundaries we expect our editors to keep. Below I will present a sample of his uncivil and disruptive edits that occurred since the last ArbCom ruling (Digwuren's case); please note that just a week ago User:Jossi, witnessing disruptive behavior of Matthead on this very forum, told him that "In looking at your edit history, I would argue that you need to be placed under the same restrictions specified atWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction" (technical note: there is even a dedicated template for this, see {{Digwuren enforcement}}). It appears that this warning has had little effect on Matthead, just a few hours ago he has attacked me on my user page, with the obvious intent of trying to minimize my contributions, offend me and chase me away from this project: [68] (for some reason, he is evidently unhappy with me creating content - some of which was DYKed - related to Duchies of Silesia; his recent comments suggest I am a 'disruptive Polish nationalist' who should feel sorry for writing articles: [69], [70]). In either case, those edits of his represents only a tip of an iceberg; he has been uncivil and disruptive for a long time, and I believe that such behavior should not be permitted - especially since Digwuren's ArbCom made it clear it is not welcomed, and Matthead has been warned about it.
Comment. Please do not drag me into your never ending and constant quarrels with other Wikipedians. Please desist from insulting me by calling me a flamer (I'd like an apology, btw). Your opening salvo of calling this a editor a "flamer" is not a very civil way to begin your displeasure with perceived incivility. Anyone is welcome to post on my talk page, and I encourage it, and do not consider it stalking. I read your posts and accusing someone of Racism here is really too much. This constant attempt to censor people who do not agree with you is unhealthy and unecessary. Lastly, please try to be fair and at least chide some of your own colleagues who engage in similar actions. That would be a good start. Have a good day. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was not offend you, but to link a relevant and similar case that was discussed here. I have refactored my post to address your concerns; please note that your name was not mentioned in my original link. PS. Please note that I am refactoring and replying here in this archived thread after a request from the closing admin.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you did offend me, and I expect an apology. Let it be noted that you claim that your refactoring was not due to a sincere realization that your remarks concerning myself were inapropriate and wrong, but as you put it, but because of a request of the closing administrator. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed sources and information provided by Matthead have been controversial, right now another creation of the user is being considered for deletion:
As one neutral editor remarked:
[74]I understand German very well and I can say: the websources that are there do not even mention this event - only the events at Nemmersdorf. And very telling: the website that does not work mentions "Junge Freiheit" (a extreme rightwing/nationalist German weekly) and when I google the names of the people there I come to Nazi pages, revisionist pages that dare to list this "event" alongside Auschwitz and Dresden
Matthead's responce was
[75]Either User:Noclador does not understand German very well, or he is a liar, or both, as evident from above statement(..)In addition, User:Noclador attacks the Junge Freiheit as "a extreme rightwing/nationalist German weekly". This a newspaper was and is attacked by leftists as it exposes their shenanigans, yet defended by "the German Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the paper which can not be called right-wing-extremist". Frankly, noclador should be banned from English Wikipedia for spreading such lies
Such remarks seem incivil and provocative in my opinion
I will mention that Matthead's previous creation which was nominated for deletion:"Polish occupation of Czechoslovakia" had a title that could found only on one revisionist propaganda site outside of Wiki [76]
under the title『JEWISH RACE WAR CLAIMED
20 MILLION GERMAN LIVES』(sorry for bringing this rather ugly example).
Lastly, as an example of emotional, incivil and flaming remarks Matthead engages:
In a discussion about medieval scholar other users received following remark:
[77]I love those Polonophil & Germanophobe guys that brought us the Polish Corridor, one or two World wars, Odra-Nysa line, and Wikipedia naming conventions
I believe current actions of Matthead to be incivil and not productive, also his usage of sources and terminology is a matter of concern as they seem to be unreliable or coming from sources that aren't of best scholary nature. Some warning to stop such remarks and engage in friendly dialog with other users would be a good start, as well as better look at sources used.--Molobo (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question and an important one: What is the user supposed to be doing now that prompts intervention? I understand that Piotrus has a big book of misdeeds from the past, and the user sure seems from such evidence to be unpleasant, but let's be very clear: the user posted to Piotrus's user talk page, and that's why there is supposed to be intervention? The statements that Piotrus points to as being the offensive ones that are supposed to be triggering this really don't seem like a big deal. I doubt that anyone believes that Piotrus is going to be driven away, and anyone attempting such a thing would have to really be misjudging things. I'm entirely uninvolved, although obviously contacted to take a look in, and even I thought that DYK was having a tremendous number of Polish themed mentions that seemed a bit trivial. I have little doubt that Matthead has/will cross the lines dramatically and be subject to sanction, but this really seems a bit minor to be bringing in all of this. Ioeth is correct to notify, but I would also like to say that it would be nice to bring in matters here only with better cause. Geogre (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
not a debate page, both warned
Giovanni33 was placed on revert parole (once per week, per article) here for a year, as was I. On the Jung Chang article he reverted 08:33, 31 December 2007 after a break of 1 week and 10 minutes (the previous revert was made 08:23, 24 December 2007. Such a tiny time difference indicates he is gaming the system. Furthermore I think reverting during the holiday season on Christmas and New Year's Eve is an example of him trying to get a revert advantage by hoping a user such as myself would be too busy to notice what he was doing. If he was acting in good-faith I believe he would have waited until after New Year's and made sure everyone was around - he didn't even leave a message on the talk page asking if people were there or not.
As can be seen on the talk page Giovanni33 frequently reverts, does the minimum to ensure he doesn't get banned by leaving a comment "explaining" his revert and then disappears for a week before he starts this again - his lack of discussion of the matters prior to reversion can be seen by his recent edit history.
He is disrupting the article by refusing to co-operate with other users. He continues to push his POV, despite the urges of myself and User:Fullstop for him to self-revert and gain consensus for his desired changes first. I gave him more than 24 hours to at least respond to our comments before reporting him here, but he has made no response. John Smith's (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JohnSmiths makes several false claims here. First, though, if I am guilty of gaming the system by reverting shortly after a week, then so is JohnSmiths, as he has done exactly this, as well. Its hypocritical of him to come here to file a complaint about me, describing a behavior, he is currently engaged in. Also, he if he correct about me editing against consensus, then he would not need to revert himself---he would leave it to someone else to revert me. But, instead he is the only one who reverts me. Again, if my edit represents something against consensus, then surely, someone--anyone--would revert me, not JohnSmiths. Lastly, his comments here and on the talk page consistently demonstrate a violation of policy: the failure to assume good faith. Hence, his statement that I must be waiting for holidays, Christmas, New Years, in order to make my edit, "hoping that he would be too busy to notice what I'm doing, etc" Classic bad faith. Of course, it didn't occur to him that just maybe that is when I have some free time, in order to edit? Of course not. Lastly, he says I'm not cooperating. Also untrue as proven by my discussions on the talk page. And consensus is not establised by just two users--himself and Fullstop, esp. when they don't address the problem I've raised about bias.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giovanni, you are misrepresenting the facts. I reverted having tried to discuss the issue with you on the talk page first - you decided not to interact. I also reverted several hours after a week. You reverted 10 minutes after a week. So, quite clearly, you are comparing apples with oranges.
As for someone else reverting, some users never like to revert unless it's vandalism. Whether people revert or not does not reflect consensus.
To accuse me of bad faith because I believe you acted in bad faith is a rather poor attempt to deflect criticism. Unless you wish to claim that the only free time you have over the next couple of weeks is on Christmas and New Year's Eve, there was no need to push the issue right now. As I said quite clearly you could have continued this matter after the holiday period. To not even attempt to see whether people were free on the talk page is not acting in good faith given how busy a lot of Wikipedians are at this time of year.
Finally, I don't see leaving a comment, reverting and repeating once a week as you have done as being a sign of co-operation. I have said this time and time again - if you cannot spare the time to post, say so and highlight when you are free to talk. Yet for some reason you keep refusing to do this. Why do we have to run around you? John Smith's (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You will both stop the foolishness, or you will both be blocked. Revert parole is absolutely not an entitlement, it is a limit. Breaking the spirit while keeping to the letter of a restriction is not acceptable, the intent of the restriction is to get you to stop revert warring not just make the wars slower. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, what am I supposed to do? He won't listen to reason - Fullstop has been on at him too. I've complained to admins here and elsewhere, but no action has been taken. If I don't revert he will keep the article as he likes it and then leave it there. In the past I have also not done anything for days, trying to engage him in conversation. Then when I see no response I make a change and hey-presto he appears like magic, reverts, leaves a single comment and disappears for another week.
Are you implying that if he reverts again and I come here first, he will be banned? Some sort of statement would help - otherwise he won't change his behaviour. John Smith's (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pair of you are pretty much indistinguishable, from a behaviour point of view. What I see there is two competing versions, neither acceptable to the other. The solution is either to achieve consensus for one or other on the discussion page, or to work out a compromise form. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, that doesn't answer my question. If Giovanni reverts again can I leave the page alone safe in the knowledge that he will be blocked if reported here? You made a warning by saying "stop.... or you will be blocked", so that implies action will be taken. Can you make it clearer so that a future admin will definitely do something and Giovanni knows where the line is, so he can't complain he didn't know he was doing anything wrong. Otherwise it's another vague warning that he won't take seriously.
The only reason I have reverted is that each time I come here no action is taken against him. If admins such as yourself did block Giovanni for reverting and not properly engaging in discussion then I wouldn't. The effect of the response so far from the admin community is that it's ok for Giovanni to revert because he's sticking to the letter of the rules, but wrong when I respond because it goes against the spirit. That would essentially give him the right to edit any article I work on as he likes and ignore what others want. I have discussed various issues with him for almost a whole year now. He isn't some casual editor who it is easy to work something else out - he is never happy until he gets his own way. I worked out a compromise version with User:Fullstop and Giovanni - Giovanni then wanted to change that to another version which he insisted on by himself. I'm not saying that is what you think, but it's what the previous comments from admins amounts to.
If you honestly believe I'm no different from Giovanni, read what Fullstop had to say here. He is a completely neutral editor in this whole affair, only becoming involved after I asked a style question on a page he frequents. John Smith's (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the solution os for both of you to stop edit warring ans start discussing. If he refuses to discuss, and if there is consensus on the talk page for your preferred version, and he reverts anyway, then it's an unambiguous case. Joining in the slow-burning (and distinctly lame) edit war only makes it impossible to distinguish between you. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Guy, for seeing through JohnSmiths dishonesty here; the obvious fact is that we were both reverting each other, just after one week (with no other editors reverting)--and this is not what should be done. JohnSmiths should really give admins here more credit; painting a very one sided picture here, in an attempt to bully his way via intimitation, instead of reason, to get his version, will not work. As for myself, I'll seek, through a Rfc, others editors to look over the dispute and see if there can be some consensus that is reached. I hope JohnSmith will stop his weekly revert, and if he continues when its clearly against consensus, I hope that your warning to both of us here suffices as an adequate warning to his ongoing behaviors that violate the spirit of the revert parole, not to mention his throwing rocks while himself living a house of glass.heheGiovanni33 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So does this mean that you will stop your weekly revert, Giovanni? Also you might want to state whether you need to agree to something for it to be consensus. I'm sorry it had to come to this, but I don't think you would have made any commitment to seek outside help if I hadn't reverted you and reported you here. The repeated comments from Fullstop and myself weren't succeeding in encouraging you to seek outside help so something else had to be tried. John Smith's (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
I have reviewed the situation and determined that Termer is incorrect in posting the message below opposing Thatcher's issuance of formal notices. Thatcher is an uninvolved administrator as he has only taken part in Eastern European topics for the purposes of Arbitration Enforcement. His issuing of these notices is therefore valid and all users who were issued a notice are therefore bound by it, despite the below note from Termer. I have determined that Termer's assumption of bad faith on Thatcher's part with regards for this matter and the disruptive behavior that resulted constituted a violation of the general restriction and warranted a 24 hour block. See here for full rationale. Thank you. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly)16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. since Gatoclass should be well aware of the General restriction by now, I don't mind starting all over and I'd suggest, once again. Gatoclass please consider withdrawing the argument based on the 'presumptions about the other editors origins' so that the matter could be put behind us. There is no need to apologize to me personally since I can't be offended with such general remarks unlike many other editors have claimed they have and have asked for an apology from you, something you're are aware of. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Section blanked to start over. Let's be very clear; this page is to request enforcement of Arbitration remedies, not to make rulings on article content. The ruling in this case says that editors of Eastern European topics who "make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith...may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The ruling may be enforced only after the editor has been notified of the restriction. If you believe an editor has made personal attacks, failed to assume good faith, or been uncivil, please add some diffs here as examples, and admins will either warn the editor (if he has not already been warned), or block, or do nothing, depending on the evidence. No one will rule on the content of the article. Please use the dispute resolution process including RFC, third opinion, and mediation. If you believe that the dispute resolution process has already been tried and failed, you need to go back to Arbcom and ask for a review of the case to consider additional editing restrictions. Only the ruling against incivility, bad faith and personal attacks in enforceable. Thatcher20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be joking. "Please add some diffs as examples"? I must have had fifty diffs in my evidence related precisely to incivilities and other shenanigans. NONE of my evidence had a thing to say about content disputes. Gatoclass (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marting, please link to diffs by Gatoclass, not to characterizations of his comments by others. Gatoclass, please list the editors whom you believe have been uncivil and give a few (3-5_ example diffs. Be concise. If the situation is so nuanced that it takes 3400 words to explain, it probably can't be enforced by this board. You may be looking for mediation or a user conduct RFC. The Arbitration case is enforceable against incivility, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks. This should be easy to document in a concise manner. Thatcher21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is forcing you to read every diff, or every word. If you only want to read "3-5 diffs" from those I presented, there's nothing to stop you doing that. I can hardly make my case without presenting evidence, and more importantly, I can't defend myself from the charges that are made against me without doing so.
I don't believe you have any good reason to remove my evidence, and I will not be restoring any of it until I have had time to take advice from others on what steps I can take to see that all of it is presented as appropriate. But all that will now have to wait until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher I'm sorry but I'm not getting it why do you keep ignoring the diff [81] by Gatoclass that has been also listed in Martintg's posting. The only reason the third opinion by ThuranX is there, is to express my own understanding how exactly Gatoclass has been 'uncivil, used personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith . Thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I guess many can't see anything wrong with applying an ethnic epithet "East European" against a whole group of editors from different backgrounds in an assumption of bad faith after an AfD is comprehensively defeated. Had some admin acted promptly to notice Gatoclass in, this whole thing would have cooled down, but what we have here are some admins who appear to be stoking the fire by being seemingly blind to the issue and siding with an individual who clearly has been disruptive, against a community of editors who have been stigmatised by the epithet "East European". With the amount of text generated here, you would think people are asking for a year long ban, not just a simple notice of a requirement for civility in East European articles. Martintg (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marting, if I had a more prickly nature I might decide to notice you in for that "uppity East European" comment. I simply do not want to read 10,000 words about the Holodomor when a few diffs are sufficient. I would prefer to see a couple more diffs from Gatoclass because one remark by itself could be an aberration, or a slip of the tongue. If he has acted as you say then one or two more diffs should not be hard to produce. Thatcher23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the "uppity East Europeans" comment offended you, then ofcourse I apologise and withdraw the remark, the line between robust discussion and offence can be at times narrow. Gatorclass offended many more people, as evidenced in the previous comments of the other parties that were deleted. If it was an aberration or a slip of the tongue, he was given every opportunity to atleast acknowledge that his comment offended many people. Instead of acknowledging that his statement could be construed as bigoted, as pointed out by uninvolved third party ThuranX[82], he started harassing ThuranX [83] with bad faith accusations of incivility. Martintg (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I get it right Thatcher? in case I'd use one remark against about 12 of my opponents in a content dispute, lets say hypothetically: "you're all wrong because I think you might come from Africa" and would never admit there is anything wrong with it. It could be considered that it might be just a slip of the tongue and therefore it would be OK? In any case more diffs would be required to make sure what exactly was I talking about, hypothetically in this case?--Termer (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been considerably upset by the personal attacks and harassment I have been subjected to now for days on end, largely because of dissenting views I expressed at Holodomor denial, culminating in the frivolous report against me here. In that regard, I prepared a case against my opponents - whom I believe that unlike me are clearly in breach of the Digwuren general restriction - which was also intended to serve as my defence against these charges. I posted that here last night but User:Thatcher removed it on the basis that it was too long and asked me to shorten it.
Having had some time to reflect, I feel obliged to make one final offer of reconciliation before pursuing this matter any further.
For my part, I concede that perhaps I behaved a little dickishly on my first arrival at the page. I was angered by the tag-team removal of the disputed tag I placed on the page and by the brush-off and bad faith assumptions I was subjected to on the talk page, and I think I overreacted, first by repeatedly restoring the tag, then by dragging the page to AFD, and finally by bringing the matter of tag removal before AN/I. It was only after I got almost no response to the tag removal complaint at AN/I, that I had cause to examine my prior assumption about the essential inviolability of a disputed tag placed by a user in good standing, and to reflect that my attitude to tag removal was a tad unrealistic and that therefore I may have overreacted. I maintain however, that there is no excuse for the avalanche of bad faith assumptions and at times quite hurtful personal attacks that were directed at me for taking the position I did.
If the other users involved in this dispute - primarily User:Turgidson, PetersV, User:ThuranX and User:Termer will now agree to withdraw this frivolous charge against me here, to withdraw their offensive remarks that I am "racist" and "bigoted" and to commit not to repeat them in future, and above all, to drop this relentless pursuit for an "apology" based on a bad faith assumption about the meaning of a single comment I made, then I in turn will agree to pursue this matter no further. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of being "placed on notice" is to make sure no editors are not blocked for incivility without being aware of the case. Obviously you all are aware having commented extensively here or at the AN/I discussion of the matter. [84] If you want a formal decision, here it is:
Vecrumba (talk·contribs) placed on notice, badgering in response to Gatoclass' comment (asking nicely once or twice is one thing, but you can't force someone to apologize, or coerce them by threat) [87]
Termer (talk·contribs) placed on notice. He was, by in large, responding to Gatoclass' disaparagement of a group of users by national or regional origin. However please be mindful that the proper response to incivility is not to return insults, nor is name calling ever conducive to good editing. "Your remarks were inappropriate because they disparaged a group of editors by national origin" is much more civil and uses neutral terminology, while "your remarks were bigoted" is highly inflammatory and uses language with extremely negative connotations. Thatcher06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE:Thatcher "you're a bigot"? Please point out exactly where have I said things like "you're a bigot". I have never said anything like this! just that perhaps there is a difference saying "you're a racist" and agreeing with someone else's posting that a "racist statement" has been used?--Termer (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a minor factual correction but my original concern is the same. I understand the distinction you are trying to make [88][89][90] but I am not convinced there is any important difference between "you have made bigoted statements" and "you are a bigot". (This kind of logic is common, "I didn't say you were a jerk, I said you were acting like a jerk," but I don't necessarily buy it.) Bigoted was an extremely loaded and unfortunate word to have used. The bottom line is to keep your cool and keep smiling even when the other guy loses his cool. Thatcher07:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And further note, I do not intend to notify ThuranX of the decision; he has not edited the disputed article and only replied to the noticeboard posting. I will remind him, however, that as admins we should be trying to raise the level of discourse, not get dragged down by it. Thatcher07:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher got it! the point you're making is that I should just stay cool and keep smiling to your interpretations of this case? I guess I do feel lucky since in case PetersV is getting notified for asking too many times for an apology for the ethnic epithet, it feels like I should have been straight out banned for agreeing with a senior editor who called it "bigoted statement". Since you do have history with me and PetersV and with EE topics in general [91], I don't think I can accept your opinions here as an "uninvolved administrator". And therefore I'm going to dismiss your notices, also the one given to User:Gatoclass and the ones given here before, since its not coming from an uninvolved administrator who has not been involved with the "EE" controversies before. Thanks! --Termer (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed? Well, the point of the remedy is that editors can be blocked for being uncivil, assuming bad faith, or making personal attacks, but only if they know in advance about the remedy and the possibility of blocking. You obviously know about the remedy regardless of my opinion of your report regarding Gatoclass, therefore future incidents of incivility, failing to assume good faith, or personal attacks may result in blocks. Of course, we all hope there will be no such incidents. Regarding my past "involvement", I had forgotten about that discussion until now, and it seems to me that my only involvement was in responding to an enforcement request and not giving you what you wanted. As I do not edit article related to Eastern European topics, I do not consider myself "involved." Please avoid breaching the Arbitration case's civility restrictions in the future. Thatcher16:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher, your imposition of notices (Vercrumba noticed in for asking for an apology, for heaven sakes!) 20 minutes after Gatoclass made some concilliatory statements: [92] without giving the others a chance to respond is singularly unhelpful in bringing about any meaningful reconciliation. Martintg (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Marting, the only purpose of the notice requirement is to make sure that new editors are not blocked "out of the blue"--to make sure they know about the case in advance. Obviously all these parties know about the case, so even logging a link to this discussion would have served as proof that they are aware of the remedy. I am all in favor of apologies and wikilove and all that good stuff, and I hope no one ever has to actually impose a block for violating the civility restrictions. Thatcher16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
blocked TDC 48 hours
TDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is prohibited from editing any page related in any way to the Winter Soldier Investigation, broadly interpreted. Should he do so, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.[93]
Yes, this is a related page and "any page related in any way to the Winter Soldier Investigation, broadly interpreted." does include talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is he the subject of any arbitration ruling? I can't see that he is. This is for enforcing arbitration decisions only, not dealing with disputes. Contact him via his talk page and if necessary go the administrators' board.
No, leaving this for now. I've left a warning against making future mass reverts. He's not an ultra-regular participant in the Armenia-Azeri conflicts and edits regularly in other areas, nor is he subject to any of the AA2 restrictions: moreoever, his recent block for edit-warring was related to another topic altogether. MoreschiIf you've written a quality article...22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well shouldn't User:Parishan be placed under AA2 restrictions then? Since he mass reverted and is an ultra-regular participant in the Armenia-Azeri conflicts and all his blocks are related to the conflict.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!23:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted them before the warning was issued. I've only been blocked three times and my most recent block was not related to the conflict, and was carried out almost 10 months ago. Parishan (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I want to state that I wasn't aware of any of this drama when I reverted back in the wikiproject template to the articles and I apologize if it's caused grief to anyone. The reason for the revert was summarized in the edit summary of my first revert.[117] I felt (and still feel) that adding this wikiproject would facilitate greater collaboration and participation to the articles and hence facilitate the improvement of the articles and the project. One of the areas that I edit are unrecognized countries and hence I joined this wikiproject and I find it useful to collaborate with other editors interested in Nagorno-Karabakh. I am neither a participant in WikiProject Armenia or WikiProject Azeri (although they are probably both interesting topics). My understanding is that Atabek's (and other peoples) concerns are with the image in the template. Could we lift the moratorium on this project if we change the template to a neutral template? Please see the template in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only. Provided that this POV project is currently forwarded to Wikiproject Armenia, it's sufficient to add Wikiproject Armenia along with Wikiproject Azeri on disputed topics. Atabek (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is that this is an ethnic POV project about a region which has diverse ethnic and historical identity. Nagorno-Karabakh is a conflict between Azeris and Armenians, between Azerbaijan and Armenia, not between Azeris and some non-existent ethnic group Karabakhis. History of Karabakh does not exist outside and independent of Azeri or Armenian domain. Atabek (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Wikiproject Azerbaijan is an ethnic POV project about a region which has diverse ethnic identity. There are group of members who are feeling there is a need to collaborate in a common project and no real life conflict or dispute can not stand on their way. We are here to build an encyclopedia and no one has the right to stop us from doing that. Moreschi censored the project simply because it was hurting some users feelings. Expect to see those project tags to go back up once the project is re-opened. Maybe then you'll come to terms that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic exists. VartanM (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only said the opposite of what Atabek said, where is the warning to Atabek for calling Nagorno-Karabak people non-existent? Or was that non inflammatory? It was the direct cause of my suicidal comment. VartanM (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is the source of almost all the conflict between Armenian and Azeri editors. This conflict has reached fever pitch over the past few weeks, as anybody can tell from looking at this very Arbitration Enforcement page. We should be looking to cool things down not inflame them. Promoting Project:Karabakh right now is definitely not going to help matters. The only reason we have projects in the first place is to help build Wikipedia. They are not there to demonstrate editors' allegiance to a particular stance, although inevitably this is a big temptation with "national" projects. Nobody needs a project to edit a topic area anyway and people have worked on NK articles long before the existence of Project:Karabakh, which was virtually dormant until a couple of days ago. As I've said, we should be looking to turn the heat down on the current Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute on Wikipedia, otherwise I can see another ArbCom coming round the corner - and that will benefit nobody. --Folantin (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right to me. I think somebody needs to patiently explain that, while we appreciate and understand their national pride and historic grievances, Wikipedia is not the place to refight old battles, but to document them in terms on which both sides can agree. I'm guessing most of them don't have English as a first language, which often makes nuance conversation more difficult. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joining the project would go against their belief of Nagarno-Karabakh being non-existent[118], [119]. Other then that, they are welcome to join, the same way some of them joined project Armenia and versa. VartanM (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with this: none of you should want to go down the route of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. The arbitrators will lose their patience and ban the lot of you, which would be sad, really. The conflicts over Nagorno-Karabakh have got to stop, or at the least slow down, because I know this could so easily be the blue touchpaper that gets everyone kicked out. Trust me: I spend a lot of time hanging around ArbCom-related stuff and know quite well the limits of the arbitrator's patience.
Another point is this: nobody needs a WikiProject to edit, and if it's collaboration needed or some such concept, use the talk page or existing projects - Wikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaorWP:AZERI. Don't use this ghastly creation that's only going to aggravate one side of the conflict, is only ever going to push a POV, and as Vartan's "Maybe then you'll come to terms that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic exists" gives away, is only ever going to a statement of intent along the lines of "We believe in the NKR. Amen.".
That's pointless. It's got nothing to do with the encyclopaedia. You don't need to this WikiProject to do this. At the moment, both sides here are potentially staring at the abyss over the edge of the proverbial cliff edge - I urge you all to step back before you pull each other over. ArbCom is the whirlpool waiting at the bottom. MoreschiIf you've written a quality article...19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing anything deliberately, if you're gonna enforce any policies, then you have to assume good faith on me the same way you seem to always assume good faith for the other side, who just recently created and mass voted against the deletion of a FORK of 4 or even 5 articles. I haven't seen you say anything about it. Or their opposition to the renaming of a category which claims Azerbaijani Khanates, when most of the results on google book call them Persian or Iranian Khanates (how is this not provocation, and how is this not a deliberate attempt to fan the flame war against Iranian users?). The category on Artsakh, call it what you want should exist, and only the fact that various articles can be included in it is strong evidence. Other similar categories about other non de jure republics exist, I haven't seen you say anything about for instance this category. Also, I'd like Thatcher to clarify on what he means by welcomed? Why should they not, is Thatcher insinuating that they won't? When anything prevented Grandmaster or Atabek contributing before? I am surprised that Administrators are still consistent and systematic on taking one sided position on this issue.
If you wanted to help, you would have brought the two side to discussion to know what to do to satisfy both, but instead, you removed the category and excused a user who again massively reverted (Parishan). And for your information, the reason why I have chosen Artsakh and not Karabakh, is because both are not the same, Artsakh encompassed a larger territory and has a history in the BCs. But that could have been debated. It is sad that Golbez got pushed out from mediation, when he was known to revert both sides, he was replaced by administrators, who under the guise of arbitration enforcement systematically make one sided decisions. It is also fishy that I am included in the probation for something as ridiculous as an edit summary which has everything to do with the content of the article, but that Parishan who has a much longer edit warring history than me and who can make such remarks: ...you deleted it just because you personally disagreed with it.[120] systematically gets away from such a probation.
And Thatcher, before claiming that Eupator action of renaming an article could have warranted a block, you should have understood the rational behind it. The talkpage was full of justification and Eupator had to deal with users who claimed Turkmen (aka Turkoman) as Azeri (eg. [121], and ironically seen in this diff., he's only recently accepted Turkic in the article, but it's still inaccurate) to dump all Turks or Turkic people as Azeris (from Moreschi's logic, should this not be to fan a flame war, after all Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have some problems in terms of their relations these days). This was all I had to say. VartanM (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why User:VartanM decided to include issues regarding the Azeris in Armenia discussion here, and I could not help but notice that he has presented facts one-sidedly which is why I thought I should leave a quick comment. I apologize if I am going offtopic. Eupator's rationale (which participants of the discussion had no chance to review, since the user renamed the article from the very moment he presented his arguments) was challenged by me presenting a number of neutral sources equating the terms for Turkic-speakers of pre-Soviet Armenia to Azeris [122]. All Eupator said in responce could be classified as original research, i.e. inventing terms ("proto-Azeris") and facts ("Turkic population living there were not identified by one group", "Turkic population there could have been identified as Turkmen, Turkish, Tatars"), restating his disproved rationale and ultimately failing to prove that the subject of the discussion had anything to do with Turkey, or Tatarstan, or Turkmenistan, similar to VartanM's claims above. Original research is also defined by Wikipedia as unsourced information obtained from personal experience, so I don't believe there was anything incivil in saying "you personally disagreed".
As for my reverts, I removed a link to a non-existing project, one time per page, before the discussion over WP:Karabakh was in progess. I was not edit-warring, nor proving a point, nor making incivil comments. Parishan (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, the discussion was started here on the arbitration enforcement, most users implicated did engage. Eupator continued the discussion on that article, you knew that Eupators claim was sourced and you accused him of original research even though couple of sources were already provided. Several of the administrators were witness of the discussion which was if I remember correctly closed by Thatcher. Also, I don't see why you bring proto-Azeris, where did anyone requested this to be added in the article? Also, it's funny, now recently you just agreed with Eupator rational in your reply to Ulvi just here, if you knew this and agreed with this why did you continue the flame the war then? But this is still not accurate, because those people were as Turkish, Turkmen etc., and if you are going to cover them you can not restrict them in an article about Azerbaijani's, when that section was taking a very significant portion of the article.
As for the removal of the WPNK project tag, you actually removed it when you knew I was going to appeal for the removal of the project itself. It is not the first time you mass reverted, we brought this during the last arbitration, and you did it again afterwards when you retaliated and made a POINT by adding Azerbaijani terms in 21 articles about Armenia. Anyway, we're off topic and I agree that I have my share of responsibility. VartanM (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreschi, the problems with collaborating with regard to Karabakh stuff within the two wikiprojects you mentioned is that could take up a lot of space within WP:Armenia or WP:Azeri and this might not be ideal. Please have a look at these articles that were to be created. I was planning to add a whole bunch more related to companies operating and based in Karabakh. I think this could potentially swamp WP:Armenia or Azeri. Perhaps some Armenian and Azeri wikipedians are not all that interested in Karabakh (I believe user:Aramgutang was one of them) and they join there respective wikiprojects in order to collaborate on Armenian or Azeri culture. Another option would be to create a sub-project within the respective wikiprojects similar to how WP:MILITARY has many task forces we could set up a task force within one of the wikiprojects. This would be the worst option IMHO because setting up a Karabakh task force within one wikiproject would make it tempting for the editors of the other wikiproject to also set up a Karabakh task force within their wikiproject. Hence editors that aren't of either ethnic background (such as myself) would be left having to pick a side and offending the other side and it would further cause strife between the two groups of wikipedians. Hence I feel a Wikiproject Karabakh that is inclusive to all editors regardless of ethnic background and is independent of the two wikiprojects is the best option. I fully understand if the consensus is to wait a little while to let things cool off so I will take your sugestion and put the relevant pieces in my user space as I feel this project was gaining momentum and I would like that to continue. Please see User:Pocopocopocopoco/Karabakh_collaboration and let me know if this is OK for a temporary collaboration until the moratorium is lifted on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Karabakh. Once it is lifted, I will update the project from this my user space. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's imagine that I and other Azerbaijani users signed up for Karabakh wikiproject, will you be for instance willing to remove all the "NKR" emblems from wikiproject userboxes and tags? Since the region is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, I believe that Azerbaijani colors should be included there. From what I see, this wikiproject is intended for Armenian users only, and participation of people not sharing pro-separatist POV will lead to conflicts over every minor detail. That's why I said that this wikiproject is divisive, which wikiprojects should not be, as they are intended to help editors to actually collaborate on creating a good encyclopedia. I don't see how this wikiproject is any useful and if there's anything this wikiproject could do that cannot be done in Wikiproject Armenia. Btw, Vartan's claim that "Wikiproject Azerbaijan is an ethnic POV project" is clearly bad faith. See how many people of various ethnic and national affiliations signed up for it and how good we cooperate on creating articles covering various Azerbaijan related topics. This wikiproject could be an example for others. I always welcomed Armenian users singing up for Azerbaijani wikiproject, see the talk of Azeri Wikiproject. If anyone needs more than one wikiproject to cover the NK issue, you are welcome to sign up to more than one well-established wikiproject. Grandmaster (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I envision that WikiProject Karabakh will be run similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine in terms of emblems and tags. If you notice that WP:PALESTINE has both Israeli and Palestine participants and they have two user boxes. One userbox has the palestinian flag and the other is a non-political userbox. WP:KARABAKH can also have two sets of user boxes, one with the flag and the other say with image of the region. For participants that don't want a userbox with the flag they can use the one with the region. For participants who don't like userboxes they don't need to use userboxes. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I AGF, I'd say that you don't get it. NKR has a government, has schools, has libraries, has many other municipal infrastructures, has elections, has TV stations, newspapers etc., where, oh god where do those go? Project about Armenia?, project about Azerbaijan? Of course not. The Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus has its category, and has its flag on it, has all those emblems and logos which doesn't seem to bother the Greeks. And unlike what you claim, NK is not de-jure part of Azerbaijan, it is only officially part of Azerbaijan, NK used the Soviet law (legal) to separate itself, and declared its independence according to the law at about the same time as Azerbaijan. NK has a legal ground as a republic to exist, it is just that since Azerbaijan has oil, that NK is not recognized.
Are you telling me that you are willing to work for example in an article about the Armenian schools in NK? Armenian libraries, Armenian presidents in NK, ministers in NK etc.? Where have you ever contributed in those articles? You're making this as if you are prevented to contribute as if anything has ever prevented you to contribute before.
And we all know what happened when the Azerbaijan category was incorporated, users started removing Armenia and replace it with Caucasian Albania, removing Armenian and replacing it with Caucasian Albanians, adding Azerbaijani terms, for historic places, which were never called that way. By having one Wiki project about NK and replacing both Armenia and Azerbaijan is the only reasonable thing to do, all the other disputed territories have them, why shouldn't NK have one? VartanM (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If NK had had any right to secession by the Soviet laws, it would have been recognized as a state long ago, no matter if Azerbaijan had oil or not. It does not happen and is not gonna happen, because it is not so. There's not a single authoritative source that supports such legal claims, and obscure law schools are definitely not such. I am not aware of any other similar wikiproject. You just acknowledged that this wikiproejct is intended for Armenian users only, which is not the way Wikipedia works. I don't understand why you need this particular wikiproject to contribute to all the topics you have just mentioned, if all the Armenian users are already members of another wikiproject (Armenia), which helps them to coordinate their activities? And yes, you can use Azerbaijan wikiproject to cover this particular topic, I see no real problem with that. Wikiproject Azerbaijan is not intended for Azerbaijani users only, and considering that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan, why not? Alternatively you can use the Armenian wikiproject, which aims to cover the Armenian people all over the world, as you do now. And your claims about Caucasian Albania is another bad faith accusation, I never added it to any topic not related to this ancient state. And the place names issue is another long standing dispute, that has not been resolved by now. I don't think divisive wikiprojects is something that we need now, considering that we have plenty of other unresolved disputes. Grandmaster (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption is original research, Artsakh declared independence before the Red Army invaded it, de jure is a legal concept, legally NK was never part of Azerbaijan, Nariman Narimanov who was the head the Soviet Azerbaijan threatened the Soviet Union to block its oil if NK was incorporated into Armenia. Since then, oil was an issue which passed before any laws (they already declared independence then), it is your original research to assume that oil which runs the politics on the region is not a factor. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore, and NK has used legal means to declare its independence. And the New England Center for International Law and Policy is not an obscure law school, the research here clearly say that NK has used legal means to declare its independence according to the Soviet Law, if we are not going to respect Soviet Law, then the pre-Soviet NK also declared its independence.
NK is only officially part of Azerbaijan, not De Jure, according to law NK should be independent, Azerbaijan is aware of this, thats why they boycotted every conflict resolution where NK is represented, because NK unlike Armenia has bases to apply to Hague according to the specific article on territorial claims which requires the two party to be present, Armenia is not considered to be a party according to Hague article on disputed territories while NK is. Various other articles also claim that the legal process was followed under which NK declared independence, like this. [ Here from a history course, it doesn't even say de facto or officially.
For decades NK has used legal Soviet means to gain independence from Azerbaijan, which were almost always granted and then reversed because Soviet Azerbaijan used its oil resources to threaten and have what it wanted even if the requests were made according to law. If Azerbaijan didn't have oil, NK would have never been granted to it in the first place. CIA declassified files show that US government underground is very well aware that NK has for centuries been semi-autonomous under the rule of Armenian princes and was as an Armenia's cultural and religious center[123], [124]. Even during the Soviet era, the CIA recognized the legitimacy of NK requests when it was again brought to the table (in 1978): the inhabitants of another turbulent area in the Caucasus, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, are able to make a better argument that their oblast should be transferred from one republic to another. The Karabakh Oblast is part of Azerbaydzhan, yet over 80 percent of its population is Armenian and it lies close to the border of the Armenian Republic. In 1975, according to the Azerbaydzhan Republic newspaper, virtually the entire leadership of the Karabakh Oblast was ousted for supporting a movement to detach the oblast from Azerbaydzhan and join it to Armenia.[125]
Given that Artsakh has a history of over 2 thousand years, which had kingdoms, principalities etc., and which is now currently an unrecognized republic, which has a VERY OLD history OLDER than Azerbaijan, it is legitimate to have such a wikiproject. It is not part of Azerbaijani history, nor the article is about Azerbaijan, and it's not part of current Armenia and not its Wikiproject, you can do this as the way you want, but it is obvious that a wikiproject of this entity should exist. As for your request to assume good faith, I wasn't specifically refering to you, but the general thrend to turn Armenian churchs as Albanian, the Armenian scholars as Albanians, the Armenian population as Albanian, Armenian princes as Albanian, Armenian principalities as Albanian and to make matter worst dump them as part of Azerbaijani history. The only legitimate move would be that Artsakh has its category with its own separate wikiproject. VartanM (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to turn this page into the dispute about the legal side of "NKR", this one is for different issues. It is enough to refer you to the International Status section of the article about "NKR", it is pretty obvious that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan and “NKR” is considered illegitimate by the international community. This is the position of UNO, PACE, EU, USA, etc. Since NK is de-jure, i.e. in accordance with the international laws part of Azerbaijan, I don't see why it should be considered a separate entity. And since the region was in ancient times part of Armenia and Caucasian Albania, it could be pretty well covered by the Azerbaijan and Armenia wikiprojects, which cover those ancient states. You still have not answered my question if you would be willing to remove “NKR” symbols from Karabakh Wikiproject tags if I signed up for it. And as the admins notified you, [126] the category and stub for NK were deleted as result of voting, obviously there’s no need to recreate them due to reasons cited by the admin. Grandmaster (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats wrong, NK is not de-jure part of Azerbaijan, it is only officially part of Azerbaijan. I have already explained above that NK has used existing Soviet laws to acquire its independence, during the independence movement it was shortly accepted before being denied illegally by the Soviet because of Azerbaijan SSR threats. De Jure means according to law, according to law NK is independent, but is not recognized as such, for the obvious reason of oil.
It's a Separate entity, because before the 20's, back from BC, that region was Artsakh, and for centuries at different times it was autonomous. It was the Armenian Cultural and Religious center on various occasions as the declassified CIA files say. Artsakh existed way before Azerbaijan, its population was and still is not Azeri Turks but Armenians, and plus it is an unrecognized republic. We have three legitimate arguments to have a wikiproject.
And it is not Karabakh Wikiproject, Karabakh and Artsakh have different delimitations, the current republic while in English is considered to represent the Soviet NK, it does not, it is not the same as Artsakh the republic, one contains Lachin for exemple, but the geographic NK excludes it. Many regions while not part of NK are included in historic Artsakh or the current NKR.
And it is also not exactly true that Artsakh is not recognized by Armenia, since Armenia officially calls it the Artsakh province, which means while not public it recognizes it as a province of Armenia. Both Armenia and Georgia have border disputes with Azerbaijan and according to international law, since neighbors dispute the borders its borders are not internationally recognized. So by citing names of organizations which consider NKR as illegitimate, you are not showing that the republic is illegal under international law, until Azerbaijan accepts NKR as a party and NKR bring this to international court, any claim that it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan as a statement of fact would be POV.
In short, the Wikiproject should exist, and I don't see why I should answer your question when you don't recognize the legitimity of such a Wikiproject. When other break away republics have such Wikiprojects. VartanM (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, we have WikiProject: Kurdistan, which is not separated from Iraq or Turkey. Do you think all the Iraqi and Turkish users are welcoming it? Andranikpasha (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I explained you that Soviet laws did not allow autonomies to secede, contrary to what some law schools may think. Officially = de-jure. International community does not recognize "NKR" and considers its government and president illegitimate. See declarations of CoE, EU and others about this: [127][128][129] A state that does not have international recognition does not exist as a subject of international law, i.e. de-jure. I think this issue has been discussed enough, I see no point in existence of another regional wikiproject of a clearly divisive nature, while we have the ones on Armenia and Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject:Kurdistan supports another practics! And no need to explain Soviet laws, USSR wasnt even a democratic state, and not Stalin's decision over Karabakh/Artsakh, nor tragic events as Sumgait PogromorBlack January give any chances to Soviet laws. We have also a de-facto side: hundred thousands of peoples who dont want to live under the Azerbaijani rule and according to all the int'l reccomendations for people's self-determination formed a republic in 1991. De-jure recognitions is not the all, I can say we even cant compare it with the existed fact, the factual truth.Andranikpasha (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not going to happen; there is no possible comparison between Kosovo and NK. Artsakh had formed principalities, Kingdoms, was at least named from Urartu period. Kosovo's Albanian heritage didn’t appear until the middle or late 19nth century, when the Albanian population moved northward as a result of the Ottoman expansionist policies.
Artsakh's Armenian heritage extends to BC, and for millennium was culturally exclusively Armenian, Shushi being an exception which was already dealt with. We have categories such as Sumer [130] and Urartu [131], you guys have created a category on so-called Azerbaijani Khanates which was only recently renamed. An Artsakh category has more reason to exist than most others. It has existed since BC, at different periods it formed kingdoms, principalities, and now is a self declared republic. I don’t see how The Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus gets a category, when not only it is not recognized, but also a modern creation. An Artsakh category would have been justified had there been no self declared republic. VartanM (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not possible VartanM? I can find you more than a dozen Albanians who will claim that Kosovo was their ancient land too. And unlike all of the voters during renaming of Khanates category, I did provide at least two neutral book references naming khanates as Azerbaijani/Azeri. And I don't see why you even cite TRNC for me, did I ever say that TRNC is different than NK or Kosovo? Atabek (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Atabek, what exactly is your point with regard to the fact that WikiProject Kosovo is redirected to WikiProject Serbia? The members of that WikiProject decided that the scope of WikiProject Kosovo was the same as WikiProject Serbia so they redirected it. See here. It's not a protected redirect and if they change there mind they can recreate WikiProject Kosovo. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison to WP:Kosovo seems to be biased. Surely in any other situation youre not going to compare these problems, Atabek. And what about WP:Kurdistan? Noone can deny that we have commonly accepted incidents. More: Karabakh is a significant region/country, which have its independent predecessors like Khachen. Kosovo never was an independent unit. Andranikpasha (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
ruling not enforceable, see requests for clarifiation
The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
The article is about a conservative Internet forum. User:Eschoir is a former member of that forum who was permanently banned in 1998 for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts for purposes of disruption. Despite the obvious WP:COI issue, there was AGF with User:Fred Bauder (as evidenced on Eschoir's Talk page). Since that time, Eschoir was effectively left to edit the article by himself and he gradually brought it more and more out of compliance with WP:NPOV.
At one point, he added an edit containing the word "penis" describing an alleged event involving two real people: Kristinn Taylor, a prominent participant at Free Republic, and another participant using the alias "Dr. Raoul." Since the article isn't about a topic dealing with sexuality or medicine, this immediately attracted my attention regarding a possible BLP violation. (Since then, Eschoir has admitted that the alleged event never occurred.)
I placed a final warning for vandalism on Eschoir's Talk page and started actively editing the article to bring it into NPOV compliance, and ever since that moment, he has been making false WP:SOCK accusations, and occupied territory that's best described as a continuous violation of WP:NPOV, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:AGF and WP:DBAD. This is a perfect example of why COI editors need to be watched closely. Please take the necessary action. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The probation is not enforceable at this time. It states that upon application for review, Arbcom will review the situation and consider further sanctions at that time. Please post in the Requests for clarification section of WP:RFAR. Thatcher22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Obviously, Rlevse's warning (Jan 11) did not attain its desired goal as Anyeverybody continues on, eleswhere, with questionable "questions"[132] (questionable since discussion remain ongoing here). Twenty four hour block. The next block will be significantly longer. El_C02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS
Since I don't want it to appear as though I've been seeking this editor out, I just want to get it noted that I'm not. Bearing in mind that the committee ruled that this editor and myself should limit our interactions, he has begun editing pages I have been active on and posting on my talk page, I'll include these in roughly chronological order;
I don't mind dealing with this person, however I'm concerned that it could be interpreted that I'm flouting the ruling. Moreover since it was found that I had harassed him without actually seeking him out, I don't want that to happen again. Anynobody01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN, I apologize if I have been making you uncomfortable as regards the arb ruling, that was not my intent. You are right that I have originated or joined ongoing discussion with you on some issues of mutual interest. I thought we were being collegial about it and I, for one, certainly do not feel harassed, and I felt that our exchanges were within the boundaries of the ruling (and unlikely to exceed those boundaries), but if you prefer that I not communicate directly with you at all then just say the word and I will honor your request. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your apology, but it's not that you're making me uncomfortable so much as this is exactly the way we came to the previous disagreement. You may or may not remember that I was editing Barbara Schwarz when BabyDweezil asked for your assistance. From there my attempt at coming to a mutual understanding with you over a minor issue as well as concerns you expressed about my understanding of guidelines was rebuffed. So another user, also experiencing difficulty with you, and I attempted to seek dispute resolution, long story made short it ended with you saying I was harassing you in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS case.
Here we are disagreeing again, if it continues we'll have to seek WP:DR again as well. We're essentially going down the same road, and you're driving. (That's all I want to make sure is noted to address any concerns of harassment on my part.) Anynobody21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, without getting into your self-serving abridged version of our history, I do not think it likely that I will not take an interest in Schwarz. You are right about one thing, since BabyDweezil turned me on to that article I have maintained an interest in it and in her presentation in this project by those that may or may not have an ax to grind and/or those that may or may not know when to let things go. How that relates to you and I seems to be that some interaction between us is unavoidable so long as you continue your interest in the subject, also. I think that so long as you do not go from disagreeing with me to trying to have me sanctioned then things should be alright. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Anynobody is prohibited from harassing JustaHulk, enforceable by blocks, while JustaHulk is urged to avoid Anynobody. It would be wise for JustaHulk to heed the urging of Arbcom but there is no enforceable means to prevent JustaHulk from editing the same articles as Anynobody. This does create the potential for an inequitable situation, but that can avoided as long as Anynobody keeps a cool head and does not resume harassing JustaHulk. If it appears to Anynobody that JustaHulk is harassing him, or baiting him into resuming the previous behavior, Anynobody can report here (*if the article is under probation JustaHulk could be blocked or topic-banned for baiting), or at WP:ANI (*if the baiting is so outrageous that it is sanctionable under the general harassment and NPA rules). If neither of those two conditions is met, then Anynobody will have to go back to Arbcom for a modification of the original ruling placing them on more equal footing. Obviously, pleasant, productive and collaborative interactions between editors are always encouraged, especially if those editors can put past disputes behind them. Thatcher16:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the whole reason for the unequal treatment in the arb is that I was deemed the "victim" (or perhaps "harassee" is a better term). It is entirely fair that I edit any article I care to. I am not interested in baiting AN and I am not a "crybaby" - I don't mind a bit (or more than a bit) of spirited debate. The warning that User:Rlevse gave me was not in keeping with the arb. It was inappropriate for Rlevse to give an equal warning in an inherently unequal situation. I will write more later but I have a meeting at this hour. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To continue, I am not intentionally baiting AN to start harassing me so that I can then complain. I don't do "bait and bitch", a term I coined to describe the on-Wiki activities of one of our Scientology-critics toward Scientologists that attempt to edit here. So no, so long as AN does not engage in the type of activity that got him in trouble before then we should not have any problems. And the key is for AN to realize that people can disagree. It ain't the end of the world if AN and I disagree. This line is problematic "Here we are disagreeing again, if it continues we'll have to seek WP:DR again as well." What do you mean? What is the big deal for you that we disagree. We are two small fish in a very huge sea of small fish. If by WP:DR you mean that we get a WP:3O or a regular RfC on our issue, then fine and that is what I urged you to do all along before the arbitration. What got you in trouble is making it about ME as an editor with your claims of WP:COI and User RfCs and the like. AN, you can use any WP:DR you like so long as it is about the article and not about me. That's easy to understand and follow, isn't it? --JustaHulk (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding mainly to Anynobody. He seems to be concerned that you are editing the same articles. For the reasons you point out, the remedy is one-sided. In order for him to edit successfully and not trigger any harassment blocks, he needs to not harass you. That means finding more appropriate ways to deal with disagreements. The top of this page points out that it is not acceptable to game the system or try and bait editors who are under restriction, and I was simply pointing that out, not that I think you would do that. And regarding Rlevse, I would tend to agree with you that the remedies in the case were one-sided for a reason, and that a "warning" was not the best language to use. Thatcher23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not presenting any assumptions about Justanother, however since
the ruling was pretty emphatic about keeping distance
this is how things started
and
I still have no clue what I did before to be found a harasser,
I just want to get it on record that as before contact was initiated by him, so at least it could be questioned why one would go back for "more punishment" should the subject come up again. Anynobody02:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN,I am sorry that you are having difficulty understanding what exactly got you in trouble. That is an uncomfortable situation, I am sure. Please reread my previous post as I pretty well sum it up there. Here it is again in a nutshell. It is entirely appropriate for you to ask for community input on any issues of disagreement - on the issues. The issues. It is not appropriate for you to target the editor that you disagree with and repeatedly hold that editor up to community scrutiny. The issues not the editor. Can it be made any clearer than that? --JustaHulk (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I did indeed read your post, and I guess it's difficult reconciling that with what actually happened. You'll find that any time I held you up to community scrutiny it was done citing a concern for a policy/guideline and was much less, shall we say "public" than how you held me or others up to the same scrutiny (These are all threads started by you on WP:ANI, minus templates like {{userlinks}} etc.):
Another weird oneUser:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me (Honestly I still can't think of a better way to get an outside opinion of what I did right/wrong in our conflict than by asking someone to review it. Your name was bound to come up, but as I've always said the focus was on what I did. Maybe I should have set up a RfC on myself vis a vis the situation. )
And this constitutes exactly the behavior that got you in trouble and here you are doing it on the Arbitration Enforcement page itself!!!
Seriously, you did this crap in the arb also and you were cautioned there. One thing I have noticed about you, AN, is that you refuse to "get it" and you will prove that you refuse to "get it" every chance you get. --JustaHulk (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide a diff from the arbcom where I pulled "this crap" and was told why what I did was like/unlike this? (Seriously, I'm not holding a grudge I just can't remember doing anything like what I've identified as harassment. Would you please just show where/when I did the same thing?) Anynobody06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anynobody is violating the "no harassment ruling" right here, right now. See above. I was trying in good faith to explain to him the difference between acceptable behavior and prohibited behavior as he continually says that he doesn't know what he is supposed to do under the arb ruling and he grossly breaks it right here. Please someone help him! --JustaHulk (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in this case. Anynobody has a long history of trolling and goading. He is now bringing up pre-arbitration grievances. There is no reason to open old disputes. This is harassment and baiting by Anynobody. JehochmanTalk06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if one has never really done anything wrong, it seems like one shouldn't mind their actions being discussed. I don't mind any mistakes I've made being talked about. I view what I cited as behavior consistent with what the arbcom meant by harassment, is it and if not what was the difference? (Bear in mind I'm not asking for any punishment if it is, given the amount of time that has passed. However a simple answer to guide future efforts would be helpful.)Anynobody06:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, you do realize these are things about me and others that you identified as cause for concern. Don't you still stand by the validity of those concerns? Anynobody07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, am I really the only person who thinks it's unfair for me to be called a "harasser" for pursuing WP:DR which put the actions of another editor up for scrutiny when that same editor has not only done more or less the same thing before and has started doing so again, User:Anyeverybody (AKA User:Anynobody) and Barbara Schwarz. If you look at the tone of the examples I cited from before and of this recent one, nothing has changed, so why isn't it harassment for him to hold my actions up to scrutiny? Anynobody07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You had your chance for a hearing at arbitration. The findings speak for themselves. If you cannot understand how to act properly, maybe you should just take a wikibreak until you feel like you can edit without placing unwanted attention on Justanother. JehochmanTalk14:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me. Regarding AN's request that I prove my statement, sure I will waste some more time showing him what he likely already knows - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#Disclosure of report to WP:3RR regarding Justanother. AN's activity during the arb itself garnered these responses from an arbitrator and an experienced admin:
FYI, this is exactly the sort of thing that will get you blocked if the remedies regarding your behavior toward Justanother pass. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Unbefuckinglievable. "I'm just using [Justanother] as an example." Again and again and again: Justanother the eternal example. Jpgordon, the proposed harassment remedy and its enforcement by blocks are clearly going to pass. May we have a temporary harassment injunction right now to cover the time up to when they formally pass? Bishonen | talk 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC).
Well, the remedies did pass and AN's egregious violation above calls for their application. I, for one, am kinda out of WP:AGF as regards this cat. The above was the last straw for me. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of how Anynobody masterfully uses the trolling tactics of pestering and misuse of process to create disruption. Its the same "I am not complaining about you, just using you as an example" ploy that Bishonen found "unbefuckinglievable". Anynobody had no issues with me until I came to the defense of Justanother. (Since Bishonen is away, I feel obligated, and Anynobody's timing in filing this complaint is not lost on me.) The COFS dispute has lingered for a very long time. I think it's time for strict enforcement of the remedies against Anynobody. JehochmanTalk18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
As this report was filed by Skyelark as an IP against Tenebrae and no enforceable behavior was found, closed. Some issues have been raised about Skyelark's conduct, but there is not much in the way of specifics and the thread is getting tangled. To report concern's with Skyelark's behavior please make a new report showing what part of the ruling he breached and include some appropriate diffs. Thatcher02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the article's talk page by this party involved in the dispute contain several uncivil remarks that could be considered inflammatory to the situation and would contravene Principles 1 (Editorial Process) and 3 (Assume Good Faith) and would go against Remedy No. 3 - Disruptive Editing (which extends to any related article or page).
First ruling:The arb enforcement ruling allows talk entries and the remedy specifically applies to violating the page ban. I don't see this as an arb enforcement case, but a case of generic incivility and disruption, so I'm warning him in this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was reopened at Tenebrae's request. He states he was not notified. I apologize for missing that when I first handled this. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC
Comments on the article's talk page by this party involved in the dispute contain several uncivil assumption of bad faith remarks that could be considered inflammatory to the situation and would contravene Principles 1 (Editorial Process) and 3 (Assume Good Faith) and would go against Remedy No. 3 - Disruptive Editing (which extends to any related article or page).
The offending remark, all referring to the other party of the ArbCom ruling :
' ... I made corrections to such things as an unfounded claim you attributed to that book. '
'Please, I ask you again, as I have numerous times: Do not say things you know are untrue. It's neither reasonable nor fair to make another editor frequently have to point out untruths.'
Comment At this point both editors need to be warned off. It's looking more and more like a case of intentional goading between this complain and the previous one. And if, if mind you, there is any truth in the assertion that an editor subject to the ArbCom ruling is deliberately twisting comments or miss-representing facts, that editor should back off and re-think his attachment to the article. - J Greb (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the corrections that I'm suggesting are basic and necessary and, I thought, uncontentious - I don't enjoy making these enforcement notices - but am doing them diligently early on so as to ensure a future civil discussion atmosphere - If you feel that I've been disruptive, you're welcome to report it, no hard feelings - if it improves the level of civility on the page, then all the better.
The problem is both of you have been biting each other for months. On the talk, with the RfCs, with the abortive mediation, and with the ArbCom. It escalated to the point where it looks like knee jerk reactions.
Was there a bad reaction from Tenebrae which got you to post the first call for enforcement? Yes. But, you trimmed the material and left out that 1) he was called on lack of civility on the talk page itself and that portions of the material were from him explaining himself, why he went off and how he perceives things.
This situation is close to the same. He's calling what he sees as dishonest claims as such. And this is where it's getting annoying watching.
You are coming here complaining about Tenebrae, at worst, not changing or, at best, holding you to account, but you aren't changing your tone or attitude. You need to be as aware that the ArbCom sanctions are against you and your actions as much as his. Re-think how you are presenting things on the article talk and be aware of the ill feeling that do exist between you two. That means presenting the information you have for verification, not as universal truth. For example, the source material you two are arguing over, a neutral start would have been:
"The edition I've been using as a source is John Buscema Sketchbook by Spurlock and Buscema. It lists a pub date of 2001 by Vanguard Productions in New Jersey. Is this the same book you're using?"
Asking, not dictating. And then allowing others to check and confirm, not goad. Tenebrae commented that he needs time to physically check the edition he has. That didn't need your defensive, and slightly possessive response. That didn't need any response beyond "Fair enough, we can compare when you've been able to get to the book." Simple and neutral.
Cool, but at this point I just feel that if Tenebrae, yourself, or anyone has the concerns about my conduct that both of you are expressing, it's probably better to just go with the ArbCom remedy process and make an enforcement notice - that way objective proof is provided and a qualified administrator will look into it and it will get properly handled and documented. A friendly suggestion - look, I'm even smiling :)
--Skyelarke (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Skyelark and Tenebrae, the Wikipedia editing process is very simple. If you can not resolve a dispute by amicable discussion, you involved additional outside editors. In this case, for example, that may mean asking someone neutral at Wikiproject:Comics to get a copy of the same book and double-check your interpretations. If you can not learn to resolve your disputes amicably and through discussion and consensus, the ban on editing the article will be extended. Thatcher12:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is, I did ask for additional editors, and when the RfC didn't go Skyelarke's way, he went ahead and made the non-consensus changes and made baseless accusations about canvassing that are demonstrably untrue. See, among other places, this posting by an outside editor.
One of the balder examples of Skyelarke's misstatements, to use a polite term, is his false statement here that "he [Tenebrae] doesn't seem to be contesting the inherent correctness of the [biographical article] information." Not only did I, but so did several other editorsatTalk:John Buscema#Request for Comment: NPOV and images.
Lastly, and thank you for noticing, Skyelarke has until now not been called to task for a pattern of deliberate goading — for which I can find no more concrete an example than his insistence, during part of the mediation, on writing everything in hard-to-read italics despite my and the mediator's repeated requests for him not to do so. His continued goading eventually got me so frustrated I finally wrote three sentences in boldface capital letters to try to get him to empathize with how unnecessarily more difficult it is to try reading non-standard fonts, as one can judge for oneself.
All I can add at this point is to ask you go to User:Tenebrae, see my contributions, my long and generally non-controversial experience, and the compliments, at bottom of page, from some of my peers. I'm not sure Skyelarke's single-article hero-worshipping has contributed similarly. And I will be glad to have the ban extended indefinitely so long as Skyelarke and any sock-puppets or surrogates do the same — that's how strongly I feel about the sheer impropriety of his hagiographic content. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Thatcher - At this point the situation is all but intractable. The posts by both Skyelarke and Tenebrae on the Buscema talk page started out exactly the same way they had been before the ArbCom closed. Tenebrae has started to change his tone since Hiding called him on it on the Buscema talk. Skyelarke has not, and things like this only add to the problem since it comes across as defensive and goading. (Note: Skye seems to be having trouble remembering to log in before posting.) I pointed this out to him above and got back what reads to me as "Make it a formal complaint and if an admin warns me I'll change, but not until then."
And you may want to note that neither has made a run at the article itself. And that there has been little chance given for any attempt at dialogue since the ArbCom. The kick-off post from Skyelarke was brusk, propriatory, and self-promoting, not a post of "I see a problem with this or that. Shouldn't it be this way?" When Tenebrae reacted in a predictable manner, Skyelark's response was not to try to modify the discussion or remind Tenebrae about the ArbCom sanction on the talk page, but to immediately report him here. Frankly, I find that worse than Tenebrae's not stopping and double-thinking before hitting the "Save page" button. We haven't started with a clean slate, we haven't started a process of getting better, we've started a game that is going to turn this page into a tit-for-tat harangue that will just make things worse.
Tenebrae - Even with as much history as there is between you and Skyelarke on the Buscema article, this isn't the place to dredge up an overly detailed re-hash. The ArbCom itself was the place for that, and the net result was both of you were told to clean up your acts. This is supposed to be the place where serious breaches of the ArbCom sanctions made by either of you are to be noted for further remedy.
Further note to my closing statement above, Skyelark's contribution history is indeed illuminating. It is difficult in cases like this to determine with clarity that one editor has been baiting or goading another who is completely (or mostly) innocent, but we will do our best with any new reports. Thatcher02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
No violation
User:ScienceApologist appears to have violated WP:CANVASS by leaving non-neutral notices on user talk pages, a Wikiproject page and a noticeboard, as well as violating his ArbCom editing restrictions by making uncivil comments and assumptions of bad faith.
"Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion " "Always keep the message neutral"
The non-neutral and bad faith statements made by ScienceApologist:
Wikiproject:Physics statement: "We meed people willing to push back against New Age psuedoscience pushers at Talk:Consciousness causes collapse. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)"
Posted on several user talkpages: "Consciousness causes collapse has a number of pseudoscience promoters trying to argue that general consensus is not seen for the fact that this idea is pseudoscientific. ScienceApologist 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)" [135][136][137][138]
ScienceApologist also posted a bad-faith, uncivil personal comment on another editor's talk page, saying "I'm sorry that you are ignorant of physics and haven't been able to understand the sources I cited."
[139].
ScienceApologist has also assumed bad faith and made uncivil accusations in edit summaries,
In response to this edit, ScienceApologist accused the editor in his edit summary of “(rv BLATANT pseudoscientific POV-pushing.)" [140]
This accusation was made after ScienceApologist made a previous, similar accusation: “(rv -- those edits look like POV-pushing...)" [141]
Also, opinions are welcome on ScienceApologist's use of WP:SPADE regarding the contents of an article: [142].
I recognize that my comment to User:Wndl42 regarding the person's so-called "ignorance of physics" can easily be misconstrued as uncivil. I have struckthrough that comment. However, my analysis that there is some serious POV-pushing going on by a group of editors committed to New Age pseudoscience promotion stands. Also, I'll point out that the so-called "canvassing" was done as a direct consequence of my last block where User:FT2 counseled me to get outside help when conflicts arise. That's why I have a section on my talkpage called User:ScienceApologist#Administrative helpmates. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the "strike-through" and consider that a good first step. Perhaps even erasing the stricken comment with a nice, friendly note in the Edit Summary would be a good follow-up. That would clear up the "personal remarks" aspect of this.
It's difficult to separate personalities from principles, especially when it comes to pseudoscience. Let's assume good faith, give S.A. the benefit of the doubt, and try to consider objectively whether anyone is POV-pushing here. The goal is to create a neutral article, right? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that everyone, including ScienceApologist should AGF in this situation. Pseudoscience is a delicate matter, and we should tread carefully to achieve our end—a fair, unbiased encyclopedia. Just my 2 cents. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall)00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm sorry that you are ignorant of physics" can not be construed as anything but a personal attack. Any native speaker of English engaging in civil discourse would most certainly not use the word "ignorant" to describe the person to whom they are speaking. Moreover, this appears to be a generalization from an alleged inability to understand a few sources to ignorance of an entire topic, which is unfounded. If this is a problem so severe that ArbCom has had to place restrictions, I don't see how a strikeout is going to help. MigFP (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, it is perfectly acceptable to apply the term to oneself. Are you being facetious, or do you really think that calling someone else ignorant is not an insult? MigFP (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mischaracterize this as something other than what was said. Not "ignorant," but "ignorant of physics." Many intelligent people are quite ignorant of physics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting that someone has pushed a POV is not an assumption of bad faith. Every day, with completely innocent intent, thousands of editors add POV statements to articles. There is no judgment about intent inherent in saying that someone has pushed a POV, only a judgment about outcome. If SA's rv -- those edits look like POV pushing is an assumption of bad faith, Dreadstar, what are we to make of an edit summary you left yesterday (rvt pov and non-consensus changes[143])? It strikes me as a mild case of "the pot calling the kettle black." Personally, I don't think your or SA's edit summaries fail to AGF. Antelantalk01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antelan, there is an enormous difference between accusing someone of Wikipedia:POV-PUSH#POV_pushing and "innocent intent" edits that add a pov, or an edit summary that says 'rvt pov'. The accusations of POV-pushing can clearly be viewed as uncivil. Accusing someone of pushing a POV, without having convincing evidence of such intent, is clearly a bad faith, uncivl accusation. Dreadstar†01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how stating that someone is "ignorant of physics" is a personal attack. Most of my family members and friends would agree that they can be fairly characterized as such. This looks like yet another "let's poke SA with a stick and see if we can get him to blow up" thread. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That this "ignorant" comments comes from a post which SA entitled "Take some physics classes" seems to support the idea that this was indeed a personal attack. At the very least, one could describe these kinds of posts as "snide". I also don't think it is helpful or all that civil of SA to characterize editors as "New Age pseudoscience pushers" as he does so above or even as "pseudoscience promoters" as he had done during his canvassing efforts. What he deems to be pseudoscience is his POV and by calling others pushers or promoters constitutes incivility. -- Levine2112discuss01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly a comment on the contributor, not the content. It is also a derogatory comment. How would you feel if someone said you were ignorant of the norms of civil discourse? Your comments here lead me to suspect that might be true. A better way to have but it might be "I am sorry that your statments reflect a lack of understanding of (specific topic, not physics as a whole)." As it stands, it is clearly a personal attack per WP:NPA. MigFP (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack, it's not particularly civil but neither is it particularly problematic. The option always exists of working with SA rather than simply removing statements people don't like. New age pseudoscientific concepts can be documented, but we should be very clear what their status is in the scientific mainstream. So, rather than shooting the messenger, why not help out with the process of persuading those who resist including the well-documented mainstream interpretation? That would be more productive, since it is a better result for the encyclopaedia than badgering the editor working for NPOV. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that ScienceApologist's last block came as the result of calling other editors POV pushers, regardless of how astute that observation may really have been, he's toeing the line in a few of the diffs Dreadstar provided. However, many of those diffs aren't particularly relevant to his ArbCom restrictions in the first place. I don't see anything wrong with the WP:SPADE edit. And while calling someone "ignorant of physics" might be worded a little sharply (even though the person in question may very well be ignorant of physics), I don't see how we can simply assume it was done out of bad faith. And as far as WP:CANVASS goes, it's merely a behavioral guideline. Correct me if I missed something, but it was four edits, and you could've just left him a note on his talk page about it. I don't see any blatant attacks on other editors, so I see no clear and pressing need for arbitration enforcement. ScienceApologist should be more careful about calling out others for POV pushing, given the way civility guidelines are enforced, but a block would be overkill. -- RG211:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RG2. A block would be overkill, and he certainly wasn't canvassing. The administrative helpers (of whom I am one) is an informal arrangement meant to help avoid this sort of thing. We're supposed to be neutral outsiders who SA can ask to wade in and evaluate a situation - if he's right, and there's POV-pushing, we can correct it; if he's wrong and being hasty or rude, we can correct that too. It's not meant to be a canvass for support. ♠PMC♠ 17:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have to remember that pseudoscience is not science. We should try to make Wikipedia an unbiased encyclopedia. However, we cannot afford to be 'nice' to pseudoscientific theories. That's just not acceptable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree. But consensus at the moment is to be nice to pseudoscientific garbage, and unfortunately, we have to learn to work within that framework to get things done. We're getting off topic, though, as this discussion should solely be focused on the merits of Dreadstar's accusation that ScienceApologist has violated ArbCom restrictions. -- RG203:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be much consensus that he did to a degree that anything other than has been said is necessary, reviewing the comments of 4 different admins above. There's nothing left to do here, case is closed. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
warned by Thatcher, next is 1RR
This relates again to the COFS arb. I am sorry to have multiple issues going here but I need some help with Olberon(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). I made a much-needed edit to the WP:ELatScientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). On 9 Jan, I announced my intention to make these edits on the talk page [144] and received only a little discussion but agreement that some work was needed on the links. Two days later, on 11 Jan, I made the edit [145]. The edit stood and for the next two days a number of regular editors had a bit of discussion on the talk page about one link or another but no major objections to what I had did. Now comes Olberon and edit-wars with me over the inclusion. He has gone 2RR and I went 1RR so now my edit stands undone. I will not go 2RR on a page under article probation so I am at a disadvantage. Will someone please ask Olberon to self-revert and warn him about edit-warring under article probation. He ignored my warning. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the above comments, it seems that JustaHulk was justified in his actions, while Olberon's "disapproval" is entirely his own opinion. Note Olberon has not indicated he has subsequently himself reverted those deletions without specific justification for their inclusion. On that basis, I have requested on the talk page that the specific reasons for the inclusion of each individual link be presented. If they are not presented, or if they prove to be unconvincing, then I believe I may be justified to remove them again myself, as their inclusion has been more than questioned and, at that point, no reason for their specific inclusion given. I believe the burden of proof, as always, lies with the person seeking to include information, including external links. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![[123]](https://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000499607/0000499607_0004.gif){kind=link}
![[124]](https://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000499607/0000499607_0009.gif){kind=link}
![[125]](https://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000518375/0000518375_0001.gif){kind=link}