Poeticbent ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Eastern European disputes arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

As a result of this case Poeticbent was subjected to this remedy:

Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary

This remedy was supposed to prevent repetition of the violations stated in this FoF Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Poeticbent, namely Poeticbent has treated Wikipedia as a battleground.

So far this remedy was not enforced and as a result we have: WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, not to mention grave MOS violations: Is that an invitation to the usual POVed revert war? It must be... and personal attacks like this [17].

Enforcement of this remedy is urgently required so that content dispute resolution based on dialogue and rational arguments would be possible. Cheers. M0RD00R ( talk) 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've removed the rant in the template, as that's clearly not on, but otherwise this isn't at emergency level. Is Durova mentoring Poeticbent? If so then please forward all future complaints to her. Moreschi ( talk) 23:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

If Durova is an official mentor, when indeed we can consider this issue closed. Could anyone confirm this? M0RD00R ( talk) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I see no problem here, other then MORDOOR trying to use the ArbCom remedy, twisting its intent, in order to prevent his opponent from being able to revert him. I'd like to advise MORDOOR not to revert war.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, Piotrus. Could you mind taking a look at what I've been asking here? All I've asked is that mentor would be assigned to Poeticbent. It is no fancy of mine, it is an official ArbCom decision which for unknown reasons is not implemented yet. When Durova, showed signs of interest in this case, I have clearly stated that, I consider this matter closed, and from now on I will address all my concerns to her. If you would think that my interaction with Durova would "prevent my opponent from being able to revert me", well you have a right to your opinion. Anyway this thread went straight to Drama Alley. Boooooooring.

P.S. What should I do with Poeticbent's evidence, should I respond to that, or what? I think it speaks for itself better, especially all this " this was removed because it painted Poles in a positive light", that was reverted " because is spoke of food shortages" stuff, anyway if anyone will be interested, surely I can present a brief deconstruction of the events that happened lately, but still I think that my position is explained on relevant talk pages, if that's not enough, let's go by WP:IAR and start content dispute here. Cheers. M0RD00R ( talk) 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Response by Poeticbent

Could someone please point out to the user who filed this report without notifying me about it, that frivolous use of WP:AN/AE noticeboard for the purpose of trying to gain an upper hand in an ill-fated edit war, is unacceptable? Beginning January 2nd, User:M0RD00R with User:Malik Shabazz have removed every single one of my many impartial contributions to articles (including all scholarly references linked to Google Books), in order to foster their own highly inflammatory political agenda based on ethnic divisiveness. – Understandably, my stress level has gone through the roof, because no Wikipedian can do anything of value in such toxic environment.

Examples of repeat removal of book references, in order to prove a POV

1. new paragraph with 2 book references removed by M0RD00R because it painted Poles in a positive light
2. same new paragraph and book-links removed by Malik Shabazz
3. same paragraph reverted by Malik Shabazz yet once more
4. another paragraph with book citation reverted by M0RD00R because it spoke of Polish compassion for the Jews
5. same paragraph removed again by User:Jayen466 unknown before
6. another background info and book-link reverted by Malik Shabazz because is spoke of food shortages
7. same new info removed by M0RD00R
8. same info about food shortages removed again by M0RD00R
9. blind, blanket revert by M0RD00R of my three consecutive edits with several new book references
10. more background info reverted by Malik Shabazz for the same reason
11. another background info with new book reference reverted by M0RD00R because it spoke of WWII annihilation of the Polish people

The stalking goes on.... Here's another article I contributed to recently

1. here again M0RD00R reverts my new paragraph about 1945 food shortages in Krakow including 2 separate book citations
2. for the second time, M0RD00R reverts my new paragraph with refs about food shortages and instead, adds a quote from a Stalinist Apparatchik - writting to Moscow - about alleged violent attitudes of Poles

Please note, most of my contributions (restored by 2 different users) were repeatedly reverted by M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz with false edit summaries under WP:SYNTH while in fact, the conclusions drawn in quoted books (written by different scholars) are commonly accepted as facts by the scientific community.
P.S.: Keep in mind also that the ArbCom case, mentioned above, is being used by M0RD00R exclusively for the purpose of discrediting my most recent contributions. Although M0RD00R was not found at fault by the ArbCom, he's bound by the decisions reached at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes because he is an involved party along with Malik Shabazz. Therefore, I suggest that both M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz be presented with some sort of preventive measures for their blanket wheel-warring against 3 Polish Wikipedians including myself, at: Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 and at Kraków pogrom. -- Poeticbent talk 19:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Summary

In just one week, between January 2nd and January 9, 2009, my laborious and scholarly contributions to Wikipedia requiring prolonged book research have been reverted by M0RD00R eight times and by Malik Shabazz four times… only two weeks after the ArbCom case regarding EE disputes was amended. Apparently, neither of them had learned anything from the three-month-long ArbCom proceedings—which is not surprising—because they did not participate in our discussions at all. It should be noted though that no 3RR rules were broken in their most recent revert wars. An illusion of validity of their actions was being maintained with edit summaries quoting various policy guidelines, however, under close inspection none of them were applicable. Personally, I would not have considered filing a report here at WP:AN. – All I did was to make a symbolic gesture of placing a tag with personalized message atop the article expressing my sense of injustice. I knew that that tag would not stay there for long since everything I did was gone within hours, but that was not what I intended.... Everything I did before was reverted, so naturally also the tag would have been gone in no time. Please consider enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions reached at Eastern European disputes in the face of their clear violations by both M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz.
-- Poeticbent talk 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Addendum. Meanwhile, as of this point in time and without my involvement whatsoever, the revert war over the article Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 goes on, with Malik Shabazz at the centre stage, reverting all other editors' contributions including Piotrus. See: article history. -- Poeticbent talk 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

This is all dandy and fine Poeticbent if not one thing. This board is not for discussing content disputes, especially when Your concerns are addressed long time ago at relevant talk page [18], the same talk page you didn't bother to contribute a single time so far despite being urged by uninvolved editors to do so [19]. But now as Durova is showing signs of interest in this case, I do hope that dialogue will be much smoother from now on. Apparently I have failed to express basic WP policies like WP:SYNTH clearly enough - I thought it was entry level knowledge that if you can reference fact X, and you can reference fact Y, it does not mean that by referencing those two separate facts, you've got referenced complex entity XY. Because in order to prove that XY (not just separate X, and separate Y) indeed exists, you need to provide reference stating "X has a relation to Y, and they go together". Why do we need to go through this every single time, time and time again? It is so freaking simple I thought. But well. Where I have failed, maybe Durova, or any other mentor, that ArbCom decided must be assigned to you, will have more luck. So take care, and see You at Durova's talk page as been advised by Moreschi. Cheers. M0RD00R ( talk) 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

One short literary deconstruction of one short drama

This is a quick response to this Addenum by Poeticbent [20]. So I ask - Am I the only one missing something? What revert war? Let's cut on the drama OK? Let's look at what happened step by step. Piotrus makes one bad call arbitrarily changing the victims numbers in the lead section without explaining why from 1000-2000 to 1000-1500. Why it is bad call? It is obvious, the lead should summarize the article, and in the article such numbers are given: Cichopek "more than - 1000", Milyakova "1500-1800", and now the best part, Piotrowski "1500-2000", Yes, it is the same Piotrowski, who is used by certain group of editors in every single article on Polish-Jewish relations, same Piotrowski who's "Poland's Holocaust" Piotrus usually cites in almost every single article concerning controversies of the history of the Jews in Poland. It is obvious to me at least that previous summary - 1000-2000 was mainstream, neutral and objective. Piotrus decided to change it? Good it is his right. It would have been nice from him to explain his motives, but he has chosen not to, it is also his right. Next edit - Malik pointed to obvious weakness of Piotrus edit by inserting reference and explaining his edit in edit summary [21]. Now where do you see a revert war here? Just normal content development, business as usual. Now interesting part begins. Anon from Warsaw jumps in reverts Malik, removes reference inserted by him, without no edit summary whatsoever [22]. And that is pure revert warring. Malik was absolutely right to revert this disruptive edit, and does it explaining his motives in edit summary again. If any of admins watching this board, have any problems with this edit [23], they are free to revert it, and they surely will do it, if they will find Malik's edit totally inapropriate, but I don't think that there will be one. There's no edit warring in this case whatsoever, so please let's make a cut on the drama department. Enough with the drama already. Cheers. P.S. all this has nothing to do with this board, let's start using relevant talk pages for content disputes, drama classes etc. For crying out loud. M0RD00R ( talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Mordoor, please leave your personal opinion of Piotrowski to yourself. And please, his name is Piotrowski, not Piotrkowski. At least learn this. Tymek ( talk) 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

One may wonder if such comments about an estabilished scholar don't fall under WP:BLP...? After all, Greg was banned after a series of strongly worded opinions about some other scholars... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Further Discussion

Is anyone other than Poeticbent and M0RD00R actually reading this thread? It is very much to long didn't read for me, and its quickly approaching "block both for a week" status.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Blocking is boring. How about giving me a mentor and not for a week, how about a month? And not just a mentor, a good ol' skool bad-ass mentor with no bullshit approach. A mentor to whom I will have to explain every single edit I make if it is happened to be found dubious, and if I due to make any revert, I will need to report to him beforehand, so he could evaluate if it is justified? Sounds better than block to me. Anyway if is impossible to get a mentor by ArbCom decision, can at least a man get one out of his own free will. M0RD00R ( talk) 00:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I oppose blocking Poeticbent who is a constructive editor and author of over 50 DYKs and several GAs. If he is harassed by certain editors, perhaps because he made a mistake of revealing his real name, should make the solution quite clear. That said, I do think that mentorship for both editors - neither of whom is known for being overly disruptive on their regular days - is highly recommended. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

What on Earth's Poeticbent's real name has to do with this lame drama above? How does his real names explain WP:POINTish article defacements with clearly inappropriate templates like this [24], [25], what on Earth real name has to do with WP:SYN issues, that were pointed not just by M0RD00R and his "tag team members" but by uninvolved editors as well [26]. BTW if real name is your concern, how about Malik's name that is constantly being dragged by Poeticbent [27]. Absolutely vile personal attacks by Poetic were ignored by ArbCom [28], but now I frankly have had it with all this [ "His tag-team members include Jayjg routinely abusing his admin powers for example, by reverting content opponents using Twinkle; and of course, M0RD00R, account created exclusively for the purpose of political smear campaigns", M0RD00R at the center stage with his political tag-team members, M0RD00R and his tag-team member Malik Shabazz crap. I am not a part of Jayjg's tag team, I'm not a part of Malik's tag team, I have never met those people, I have never e-mailed them, I have never asked them for any favours, I don't even recall having any person-to-person conversation with them be it wiki, off-wiki, IRC or whatever. Regarding mentorship - Poeticbent's mentorship is not " highly recommended" as you put it. It is an official ArbCom remedy that, has not been implemented yet. Just a quick reminder:

Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Cheers. M0RD00R ( talk) 10:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Strangely enough, I have a feeling that you are a part of a Malik-Jayjg tag team, no matter if you have talked personally to them, or not. Tymek ( talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Ombudsman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Ombudsman was placed on permanent probation [29] for agenda-driven editing of medical-related articles. There was a prolonged discussion of the Cure Autism Now article that resulted in a decision to merge and redirect. Ombudsman tried to act against consensus and undo this redirect several times during this period, but seem to let it go. Today, he started up again, undoing the redirect [30] [31] and de-archiving the talk page to make new remarks on old threads [32]. Suggest a topic ban and/or a block to remedy the situation. Beeblebrox ( talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I was contacted regarding this situation. I declined to take administrative action given prior content disagreements with Ombudsman and suggested to Beeblebrox that he bring the case here. That said, I completely support a page ban in this instance. Ombudsman's editing has consistently been tendentious and agenda-driven since the ArbCom finding, but he generally hops around from page to page and edits infrequently enough that pursuing individual page bans is generally more trouble than it's worth. In this case, Ombudsman is repeatedly undoing a merge ( [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]) which had a broad talkpage consensus. Check the typical edit summary here. This is the sort of thing that the probation was designed to prevent. MastCell  ^Talk 06:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

As a matter of best practice, please notify a user when they've been brought up on any administrator's noticeboard. (Notification done). I'm reviewing the complaint now.-- Tznkai ( talk) 07:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Heh - I probably should've done, but for some reason I feel unwelcome at User Talk:Ombudsman ( [38], [39], [ [40], [41]). MastCell  ^Talk 07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You or Beeblebrox, or anyone else - not a huge deal.-- Tznkai ( talk) 07:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Evidently, Beeblebrox was not merely leveraging the questionable behavior of a former incarnation of the ArbCom to divert attention from collaborative production of encyclopedic content. It brings into question the assumption of Beeblebrox's good faith, when he heads straight over here crather than discussing the matter on the CAN article talk page, since he has gone beyond merely diverting attention from editing by lunging provocatively into the realm of procedural meddling. In the first place, the previous ArbCom incarnation (several iterations removed) had absolutely no business taking the dubious case of a newbie. The newbie apparently wanted to safeguard his extremely pov evisceration of the biological psychiatry article. Since absolutely no effort was made to resolve the npov 'dispute', the former ArbCom was acting against community consensus by accepting a case that lacked even a hint of discussion, just the newbie's unprovoked -- and thus surprising and quite chilling -- threat of seeking ArbCom intervention. The newbie apparently was overly impressed by involved National Health Service editors, who were attempting to browbeat another editor over an NPOV tag, which the NHS editors provocatively, repeatedly, and quite in error removed. The ArbCom did admit that the tag was appropriate. Beeblebrox's redirecting of the CAN article -- within a mere eight minutes -- indicates little or no attention was given to the renewed attention to CAN's historical significance brought about by media focus upon CAN's sponsorship of the premiere of Joey Travolta's Normal People Scare Me; Beeblebrox's reliance upon the questionable and abusive behavior of a long since passed ArbCom incarnation is reminiscent of the newbie's reliance upon pov-pushing by NHS editors with obvious conflict of interest issues. The attempt here on this page to leverage a previous ArbCom's abuse of both discretion and administrative sanctions is quite an over-reaction, one evidently bereft of the notion of taking time to think over the situation. Beeblebrox suggested discussing the redirect, but after an attempt at renewing the discussion was made on the CAN talk page, he removed the discussion via redirect. Sadly, he has now diverted attention away from editing, an all to common Wiki acculturative experience, as well as closing down discussion of edits on the appropriate CAN talk page. Ombudsman ( talk) 07:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Ombudsman, can you try that again with a little less vitriol, assumption of bad faith, content dispute and a whole lot less tl;dr? Also the edit warring done here is particularly unimpressive. Page is protected for the time being while I sort out this mess.-- Tznkai ( talk) 07:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thus far I am seeing an underdeveloped but extent consensus and excessive stubbornness by Ombudsman on this article - any particular reason you couldn't just work on this in your userspace instead of edit warring? Would it be to much to ask for everyone to stick a fork in this and revisit with cooler heads in a week?-- Tznkai ( talk) 07:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• That would be fine with me, but I would note that Ombudsman, knowing he was making a change that was likely to be controversial, is the one who should have gone to the talk page before making changes, and that the proper procedure for re-opening archived discussions is to start a new thread with a link to the archive, not to undo the archiving of two month old stale threads and just start adding to them. I don't see the point in splitting this article back off, but if it is to be done it should be discussed at Talk:Autism Speaks, not the inactive talk page of the merged article. The reason I brought this here instead of Ombudsman's talk page should be evident. Whatever he thinks of the ArbCom decision, it exists and has not been rescinded, and this is exactly the type of behavior it was intended to curtail. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

BRD would also have been satisfactory in my opinion - but clearly the discussion is lacking - and Ombudsman, the onus is on you to start and continue high quality discussion when your "bold" edit reverted - in this case the Autism Speaks page would have been a much better place for it, and even if that wasn't an issue this comment here doesn't cut it. Wikipedia works by convincing others you're right.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

As an uninvolved admin I saw a comment about this on MastCell's talkpage and looked into the history a little. Both Ombudsman and Beeblebrox were edit warring, but Ombudsman was doing this in defiance of a clear talk-page consensus and in breach of his probation on tendentious editing of medical articles. Unless anybody here objects I will ban him from this article and talk page (now a redirect), and state that any further edit warring on this or other medical articles will bring a lengthy block for disruption. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I do object - I want Ombudsman to have at least one more opportunity to respond before we continue discussing sanctions.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Tim here; the reason folks end up on this page is because they've been given all the warnings and chances in the world. This isn't the forum for handing out additional chances, its for determining whether or not restrictions were broken and if so, giving the appropriate sanction. Clearly, this was a violation of Ombudsman's restrictions - there's no doubt he's aware that this behavior is unacceptable, so further coddling isn't particularly helpful. Shell ^babelfish 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

See below.-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, but I expect a clear statement that he will abide by his ArbCom restrictions and avoid edit-warring, otherwise there is little possibility of avoiding similar situations in the future. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Its pretty much what I was looking for myself - or perhaps an argument that could change my mind. Either way, I think any user deserves the chance to be off wiki for a few days and have a chance to make some sort of statement before sanctions are leveled. The immediate problem has been stopped, so I think patience is a virtue here.-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm OK with this in principle, but please consider that Ombudsman's MO has been to disrupt an article for a little while, then drop out of sight for a few days or weeks and pop up and disrupt another article. It's been an effective way of circumventing his probation, in some senses. It doesn't really bother me - I stopped taking him seriously a long time ago, and I generally don't bother reporting his various breaches of probation since it's easier to ignore him. But I don't think it's fair to continually expose innocent users (in this case, User:Beeblebrox) to Ombudsman's abusive editing, when the ArbCom remedy was meant to curtail it. MastCell  ^Talk 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, if he doesn't give a satisfactory response on this page within a few days I'll go ahead regardless. From your comment, would you recommend a broader remedy than a ban from a single article - such as a permanent 1RR restriction? Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not really a neutral party here, since I've had numerous previous content disagreements with Ombudsman, and I consider that his editing long ago passed the point of being a major net negative to Wikipedia. Simply cleaning up the huge walled garden of abusive POV forks he created on autism and vaccines required an extensive time/effort commitment from User:Eubulides. That said, I think a broad topic ban from articles relating to vaccines and autism would be most appropriate. I would suggest that he be restricted to talk pages in those areas, and subject to further sanctions if he abuses that leeway. I know this sounds relatively harsh, but the track record here more than justifies it. If his editing were slightly more concentrated in time, I think he'd long ago have been banned. Perhaps relevant is the fact that he was banned by Jimbo Wales at one point; he was unbanned because Miltopia ( talk · contribs) vouched for him (!) and out of a "desire to show forgiveness where possible". That's my 2 cents, again as an explicitly involved editor. MastCell  ^Talk 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

After reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism and looking at this editor's previous actions I'm now leaning towards an indefinite block. This editor has no ability to work constructively with other editors, no understanding of the requirements of the NPOV policy and has had a second chance and blew it. Why waste more of everybody's time? Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Maybe he can edit constructively in other areas. I'm imposing a topic ban on all pages relating to vaccinations and autism, broadly speaking. In addition to a 3 week long block.

• God, I'm getting old. Even a few months ago I would have permabanned this guy...ah well. It gives him a chance to edit in areas where WP:TIGERS won't get in the way. If he doesn't take it we can just ban him. Moreschi ( talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

This is an article and talk page ban then? And the 3 week block is a bit over the top if you're going to topic ban him.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, both article and talk page. I'm fed up with talkpage flamers who waste everybody's time with pointless wittering: that detracts from the encyclopedia indirectly just as much as edit-warring does directly. I suppose the block is not strictly necessary, but you never can be too harsh with people like this, otherwise they never get the message that we're not bullshitting and this really is their last chance. Moreschi ( talk) 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Good call, but since I'm getting both old and cynical, I'll be surprised if this is the last we hear from him. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Naturally it won't be, but the next step is obvious. Moreschi ( talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Update

I've received now two e-mails from Ombudsman, which were a little insulting towards me, and a long rant about autism, censorship, authority studies, and the great MastCell/ArbCom/Jimbo cabal. I pushed for Ombudsman to be heard before sanctions, and while that didn't happen, I'm still rather unimpressed that this sort of thing is the only communication that Ombudsman will give. Considering the nature of the e-mail (which I will share with Ombudsman's permission), I'm recommending an indefinite topic ban on any medical article that MastCell has ever edited, both because of the directly preventive nature (Ombusdman has shown his tendency to be disruptive when MastCell is within metaphorical sight) and the indirectly poetic nature of the ban. Maybe now, Ombudsman and others will learn: long rants about how editors are to blame for all your faults will do nothing but bring holy hell on your own head.-- Tznkai ( talk) 04:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Abtract ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alastair Haines arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

I note that Abtract adopts an appropriate method here in a number of significant ways:

1. he uses the talk page before editing
2. he actually attempts to make a case
3. he actually cites a source.

All these three basics are unprecedented in the editing of Abtract (and Ilkali) in their interactions with Alastair, and are a refreshing change for the better. Unfortunately, it will be noted that the edit still includes a personal attack on Alastair, and ignores answers already provided by Alastair—uncivil characteristics of the vast majority of all posts by Abtract (and Ilkali) over a period of close to nine months. Additionally, ArbCom have asked Abtract to edit anywhere he likes at Wikipedia, just not in places that interact with Alastair. Abtract's edit above breaches the standing arrangement. Alastair Haines ( talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

And some more. There's no rush to deal with this, soon I'll just start reverting as required. Cheers. Alastair Haines ( talk) 08:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Background: Alastair's first (of 344) edits (and 64 talk page posts) at this article was at 19:04, 25 October 2007.

Abtract's first (of 11) edits (and 15 talk page posts) at this article appears at 05:07, 23 November 2008. Alastair Haines ( talk) 09:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Alastair, you hadn't edited the article since the 18th - both you and Abtract had been involved in editing the article before that. This doesn't seem at all like the earlier problems, especially given Abtract's use of the talk page. You're also really reaching to call that a personal attack or claim that its any kind of interaction with you. Since you're also under restriction from the same case not to make assumptions of bad faith, you're skirting dangerously close to a block of your own. Go edit productively; stop worrying so much about Abtract. Shell ^babelfish 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

This appears to be a pretty obvious violation of Abtract's restrictions. Looie496 ( talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Yep, that's over the line. Since the last two week long blocks don't appear to have made the point, I'm going to make this block two weeks in length. Shell ^babelfish 02:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks to both Looie and Shell for looking into this, and ArbCom for providing a simple system to deal with things.

You're quite right too Shell, actually, other than interacting with Abtract, I've hardly touched that article for a year. I don't even maintain it much because there are quite a lot of others who watch the page and revert obvious vandalism.

However, what is less obvious to casual passers by is that I'm very deliberate in my contributions at Wiki. I keep them mainly to supporting the work of friends, new additions, or maintenance where there is steady erosion (rather than obvious vandalism), for predictable emotional rather than source-driven reasons.

The last is the kind of work that Abtract, Ilkali and others have been seeking to undermine by lobbying to poison the well. Unless one is willing to become familiar enough with the content issues, some of which are abstract, and occasionally counter-intuitive, all that it looks like is a petty squabble or personality clash. Indeed, that is all comes down to in regard to objections raised to screen the erosive edits that still continue.

There are still several issues associated with this case needing attention. The discussion and actions above are an appreciated donation of time that should hopefully play a part in resolving that unfinished business, when I have time myself to give it priority again. Once again, thanks. Alastair Haines ( talk) 05:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Need some other opinions - Abtract appears to be indicating that he has no intention of abiding by the ArbCom restrictions that prohibit him from any contact with Alastair. [42] At this point, there doesn't appear to be much left but to indef block Abtract's account until such time as he's willing to play ball. Any thoughts? Shell ^babelfish 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't like that idea, but I do appreciate others being involved in this. Abtract normally makes quality contributions. I think keeping things low key is good, but I've never looked into the Collectonian thing. I'd rather Abtract was approached by calm, neutral people using reason (and some good humour) than by demonstrations of "force". But such things are time consuming. I'll stay out of the Abtract question, I'll have other matters to raise later. Best regards, Alastair Haines ( talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Quite frankly, if Abtract is intent on playing the martyr, there is nothing we can do to stop him. The ball is firmly within his court - there is no administration intervention that will fix this situation. He will either decide to attempt something productive, or he can continue to violate restrictions, leaving administrators with the unpleasant choices of blocking him, or essentially throwing out the relevant arbitration. There is nothing from Abtract's behavior that leads me to believe that any sort of reasonable compromise is available - all compromises require Abtract to accept his own agency, fault, and the validity of the authority (or at least viewpoint) of the larger community funneled through ArbCom and editors acting as administrators. I have no reason to believe that Abtract is worth the effort of bending and breaking the community will around to keep - rest assured I think no one deserves that. So, in summary: we're just going to keep blocking him unless someone thinks of a better idea or otherwise "gets through" to him.-- Tznkai ( talk) 06:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC) (I used the male pronoun out of habit - feel free to correct if needed) reply

While I think you present the practical reality accurately and concisely here, I feel the need to defend Abtract.

The ball is not in his court, it is in the court of those who have accepted accountability to the community (which includes Abtract), to think, and document that thinking, in the course of acting on its behalf for the improvement and maintenance of the encyclopedia.

Abtract is utilizing whatever means available to him to voice a criticism. Instead of his criticism being answered, he is being silenced. As regards his implicit criticism of the process that seeks to silence him without engaging with the substance of his explicit criticisms and without involving the whole community, I think he has a point. As regards his explicit criticisms of me, I believe it is trivially obvious that those can be seen to be completely without substance by reasonable members of the community. But this is precisely what has not been done.

Currently, Wikpedia is publishing slanderous posts about Alastair Haines of Bankstown, Sydney, Australia. Abtract firmly endorses this. However, naturally he is surprised that when he posts additional material in the same vein, he is being blocked for doing so, because those who are being trusted by the community to prevent this sort of thing are continuing to publish this very material themselves.

Abtract is indeed a martyr. He is doing everything possible to alert people to an inconsistency that indeed needs resolution. Yet instead of dealing with this, people are trying to hide the issue by silencing it. It is completely normal and human and the best professional organisations do it from time to time. How much more would we expect it to happen in a community constrained in its avenues of communication and comprised of generous untrained volunteers with little authoritative mandate?

But, on the other hand, Abtract is no matyr. Anonymous users blocked from contributing lose nothing, they gain time for their real lives, untroubled by anything that may have been said about them, which is completely divorced from their real life identity. Wikipedia can lose if people who would otherwise be contributing what donors support the Foundation to produce cease that contribution. That seems to need serious consideration. If we are willing to accept donations, we need to accept there is an accountability to donors to be acting consistently with what we promise to them. Abtract is a valuable contributor, not merely an anonymous username. We want to retain his quality and voluntary contributions. Alastair Haines ( talk) 03:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The Arbitration Committee has opened a Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions. All editors are encouraged to comment and contribute. The Committee will close the RfC one month from its opening. After the closing, the Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.

For the Committee,
Vassyana ( talk) 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Alastair is under the effect of a 1RR restriction, as stated here. He has violated said restriction on Gender of God, reviving the dispute that led to the Arbcom case after weeks of dormancy:

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th
• 5th

Ilkali ( talk) 03:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Addition: It seems Alastair is also edit-warring on Gender and religion. Ilkali ( talk) 12:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It will be noted that the motion against Ilkali reverting me is still awaiting confirmation.

Had it already been passed, Ilkali's persistant removal of stable, sourced text without talk page discussion, without any prior consensus and contrary to the explicit statements of three editors, could have been actioned as it ought to be.

Despite the flagrant prior actions of Ilkali in removing the Oxford Dictionary, despite protests, including several by uninvolved editors to both ArbCom and administrators, have not been actioned by others after being given ample time to do so, it's fairly obvious that responsibility is being left to me.

It is also the case that another editor has been following Ilkali's bad example of wilfully removing sourced text without discussion at Gender and religion; however she seems to have desisted, so I don't see any need to consume other people's time to handle her misbehaviour when she is sensibly willing to self-correct.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the Foundation is continuing to publish slander posted by Abtract and Ilkali in a number of places accessible to people with professional relationships to my real life identity, despite repeated requests by myself to have this matter attended to. I am still awaiting email contact for it to be addressed in a convenient amicable fashion. Alastair Haines ( talk) 14:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

There is no outstanding motion against me, the article's talk page contains pages of discussion, and your accusations of slander have no relevance to this report (and have already been dismissed at Arbcom, with an urging that you stop using legal-sounding language). We're here because you violated your restriction, something that almost lead to you being banned recently. Are you again declaring that you will wilfully ignore your 1RR?

Lastly, I will point out that you are also under civility parole and ask you to AGF. Ilkali ( talk) 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Alastair Haines blocked for 48h for edit warring. I'll look into the rest of the (more complicated) allegations later today.-- Tznkai ( talk) 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

MarshallBagramyan ( talk · contribs) is edit warring and making incivil comments about other users. On the article Nakhichevan khanate he made 3 rvs within the last 2 days, replacing the source that he does not like with the Armenian source that he likes more. [44] [45] [46] In the last revert he calls the edit by another user "vandalism", which of course it was not. And comments like this are nothing unusual for this user: [47] Here are some other examples of the language he uses in discussion with other editors. [48] [49] This user has been officially warned for edit warring before: [50] [51] According to the ruling of arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. I suggest that MarshallBagramyan is placed on supervised editing for repeatedly failing to adhere to expected standards of behavior. Grand master 06:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

My arguments can be found on the talk page of said article. I tried reasoning, in vain, with all three editors who consistently and blindly reverted my edits as well as the content and reliable, secondary source they were based on. Grandmaster, Atabek, who has already banned from editing on certain Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, as well as the sudden appearance Dacy69 essentially engaged in an edit war where they argued in giving extra weight to a primary source, which itself is unacceptable as stated on Wikipedia's own page "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources [52]." The primary source fails in all contexts to meet these guidelines.

Note that users such as Atabek have had an extensive history in distorting, manipulating and falsifying source material (see the talk pages of Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan, Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Sahl Smbatean, etc.) to the point where he was banned from editing those articles entirely. My warnings went unheeded, and I naturally reverted all edits that, in effect, vandalized and suppressed the information on that article. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to discuss the content issues here. Whether Griboyedov, a prominent Russian writer and politician, is primary or secondary source, there's no reason to replace his opinion with the opinion of the Armenian scholar Bournatian. Wikipedia must provide not just the opinion of the Armenian side, but all existing points of view, and inclusion of Griboyedov is certainly not vandalism and does not excuse incivil language and edit warring by you. You know that the admins recommended editors in AA related articles to voluntarily stick to 1RR: [53], yet you repeatedly chose to edit war much in excess of 1RR limit, unlike all others. I believe it is time that arbitration ruling is imposed, as you took no notice of prior official warnings. Grand master 06:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The edits by Marshal Bagramyan seem to be intended to remove material from the article that enjoys widespread circulation amongst anti-Armenian propaganda deriving from Azerbaijan. The claim by Azerbaijan is, basically, that every Armenian came from somewhere else, and thus they have no rights to any territory whatsoever (even the territory of the republic of Armenia). It's an odious and deeply racist theory that is genocidal in nature and which has no basis in historical fact. However, sources are distorted and selectively quoted to support it. Similar distortion and selective quoting was going on in that article. Marshal Bagramyan has not exceeded the three revert rule, and, considering the unpleasant ideological material that he has been trying to remove from the article, his three reverts and his talk page comments were fully justified. But for future additions or changes to the article's content, it would be best if they are worked out in the article's talk page. Meowy 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

George Bournoutian is an excellent and unique expert on the subject and a good third-party source. Marshal Bagramyan is entirely right by including him. Grandmaster is trolling and avoiding consensus-building here and in on Nagorno Karabakh. Capasitor ( talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

This is not about inclusion or deletion of Bournoutian. No one ever removed him. This is about edit warring by Marshall, who made 3 rvs within the last 2 days. I hope the admins will finally review this report. Grand master 05:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You should go shop around more, looks like Moreschi has better things to do. VartanM ( talk) 06:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, no one disputes the inclusion of Bournoutian, it's about exclusion of Griboyedov. If MarshallBagramyan is truly dedicated to spirit of neutral editing, he should not be removing one reference for another, but keep one and add another, which Grandmaster and myself did in our edits. Those are my two cents relevant to the topic. Thanks. Atabəy ( talk) 08:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

And there was no need to make 3rvs to remove Griboyedov and replace him with Bournatian. All the views must be presented, and edit warring is not helpful at all. Grand master 08:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

And distortions and selective quoting of Griboyedov should not be presented. The article has a number of issues, issues which will be best resolved in its talk page. Given that the 3RR was not broken, the reverts took place in a relatively quiet article, and the reverting has stopped, this complaint is starting to sideline discussions which could lead to the article's improvement. Meowy 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, the article issues are being resolved on its talk page, the one who removes existing reference replacing it with Bournoutian only is MarshallBagramyan. So reverting page 3 times in 2 days indicates the unwillingness of the editor to abide by discussion on the talk page. Atabəy ( talk) 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Another rv by Marshall, this time removing 2 third party sources contradicting the claims of Armenian historian Bournatian: [54] This is his 4th rv within one week. As I understand, the request to stick to voluntarily 1 rv per week on AA topics is no longer valid. Then everyone else can feel free to make as many rvs as Marshal. Grand master 07:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Grandmaster and Atabek: Blind reverting or Abusing AE board with frivolous report

Grandmaster and Atabek apparently didn't learn that reading what they were reverting is a serious requirement. Last time around they were banned from Shusha pogrom article and its talkpage for 4 weeks for not reading what they were reverting [55] [56]. This time, the two repeatedly accused MarshallBagramyan of removing the Griboyedov source (Grandmaster [57] [58] [59] [60]), (Atabek [61] [62] [63]), but if one looks at the "evidence" they provided, its clear that the source was never removed. This can mean only two things, either they never looked at what they were reverting or they intentionally lied and made a false report to get MarshalBagramyan sanctioned. Both are a serious matter and unacceptable in wikipedia. I hope this matter is dealt accordingly. VartanM ( talk) 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I never said that Marshal removed Griboyedov, I said he replaced his opinion with the opinion of Bournoutian, an Armenian scholar. No need to distort my words. Griboyedov never uses the word "repatriation", but when reading the present version of the article one gets the impression that he does, because of distortion of the sources by Marshal. In addition, Marshal completely deleted 2 secondary sources by his latest, 4th revert in that article. Of course, an attempt to present position of Bournoutian as a fact and suppress any other points of view is not in line with WP:NPOV. Grand master 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Also note that in his latest post Marshal calls my edits vandalism and threatens me that he and his friends will be edit warring to suppress any alternative points of view, if I try to include them. These are his words: You vandalize the article, and I and other users will revert you; we're well within our limits and it's as simple as that. Is this sort of battleground approach acceptable? Grand master 05:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You're going to deny it? I'll quote you. You seem to prefer the word replace as appose to remove. The definition of replace is "substitute a person or thing for another".

• And there was no need to make 3rvs to remove Griboyedov and replace him with Bournatian [64]
• replacing the source that he does not like with the Armenian source that he likes more [65]
• Marshall, you cannot replace the source you do not like with the one that you like more. [66]
• Do not replace Griboyedov, an eye witness of the process, with Bournatian. [67]
• In sum, please keep all the sources there, and do not replace one with another. [68]

And I don't want Atabek to feel left out.

• Edit summary: rv no sufficient justification for removal of Griboyedov reference, why should you remove a contemporary reference to justify your point any way? [69]
• I think both opinions should be equally cited instead of removing one for another. [70]
• it's about exclusion of Griboyedov [71]
• he should not be removing one reference for another, but keep one and add another [72]
• the one who removes existing reference replacing it with Bournoutian only is MarshallBagramyan. [73]

-- VartanM ( talk) 07:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't really get your point. As I explained above, Marshal removed the opinion of Griboyedov and replaced it with the opinion of Bournoutian. So yes, there's no need to replace Griboyedov's words with words of the Armenian source, even if you keep the reference to Griboyedov. The above does not excuse 4 rvs by Marshal, and especially the last one, where he removed 2 third party sources: [74] In any case, I hope you are not going to deny that Marshal made 4 rvs within the last week, and threatens that he will continue to do so, if I try to make edits that he does not like? Grand master 07:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

See here for example, this rv by Marshal with incivil edit summary, where he calls edit by Atabek "vandalism": [75] One can see that the words of the Russian envoy are replaced with the words of the Bournoutian, while the previous edit provided both points of view. And this is the last rv by Marshal, when he removed the references to 2 third party sources, Thomas De Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. NYU Press, 2004. ISBN  0814719457, 9780814719459, p. 151, and Charles King. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Oxford University Press US, 2008. ISBN  0195177754, 9780195177756, p. 159: [76] And he says that if I continue to "vandalize" the article by using the sources that he does not like, he will continue reverting and get the others to help him. Grand master 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The point is, you and Atabek repeatedly accused Marshall of removing Griboyedov, when in fact Griboyedov was never removed. As I said on Moreschi's talkpage this is the lowest you have ever gotten. I didn't expect this from you. I'm very disappointed. VartanM ( talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It would be good if you stopped twisting my words. I said that Marshall replaced the words of Griboyedov with the words of another source, and made 4 rvs to keep it like that. In his last rv, Marshall removed 2 third party sources. I don't think that you can deny that he indeed made all those rvs. If you think that such edit warring is acceptable, I beg to differ. Grand master 08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You repeatedly implied that Marshall replaced Griboyedov with Armenian source (we'll get to that letter). I'll quote you again, You can not ran away from your own words.

• there was no need to make 3rvs to remove Griboyedov and replace him with Bournatian [77]

-- VartanM ( talk) 08:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

So? Yes, he was replacing the words of one source with the words of another. How does this make my report frivolous? Do you deny all the reverts by this user? You are trying to divert attention from edit warring by Marshall. Please stop it. Grand master 09:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Argh. I'm looking at this now. Moreschi ( talk) 12:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It's clear as a day that MarshallBagramyan's reverting history is more extensive on the page in dispute, it's also the fact that he deliberately removes legitimate sources that don't fit his POV, and that VartanM's aim in opening this part of the thread is to divert attention from those facts. Atabəy ( talk) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You can't blame me for "changing" Griboyedov's words because there are no quotations to tell the reader which ones were his! If you don't place quotations, that's called plagiarism. Frivolous indeed.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Formal 1RR per week for Marshal. Dacy69 is permabanned, as he's been wasting everyone's time for way too long. Back to the talkpage, stick to 1RR and try to work out some form of compromise, people... Moreschi ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Resolved Information

In 2007, I was subjected to a restriction by Arbcom. [78] How does one move beyond such things? Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You request an appeal, contact an Arbitration Committee Clerk for assistance if you would like, but not me, I'm an "involved" editor on abortion.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC) reply

So you are. Okay, I'll go chase down an arbcom clerk. Thx. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC) reply

While these are under general sanctions and a general source of WP:DRAMA etc, some of which I have been active in, this particular case is so multi-layered and apparently covered by multiple decisions that I am bringing it straight here.

On Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, User:John Hyams said among other things:

"You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with." [79]

• Soapboxing - *yawn*

• Using wikipedia as a battlefield - pretty much that is his post. Not a single encyclopedic fact, just aggresive opinion. Pretty much everyone is guity of this at one time or the other, but this was particulary bad faith and unproductive - and needs to be mentioned as part of what is wrong.

• This is a personal attack - not the worse in the wikipedia sense, but pretty awful even by such lax criteria.

• This is wanton uncivility that I have never seen on these articles or for that matter rarely in Wikipedia. And I have seen a lot. This is Godwin's Law elevated by orders of magnitude.

But much more seriously:

• This is a legal threat - Hamas is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US Department of State. Being its operative is a federal crime. Acussing someone of being its operative is accusing someone of a federal crime. Saying that this has to be dealt with is a threat to follow up on this acussation - althought he sustains that it was meant to mean taking it up with Admins or Arbs - he only did so when confronted. This meets the duck test with straight As.

• This is libel, in a legal, BLP sense, precisely because of the legal implications.

When confonted by one user in his talk page, he said:

"As I already said on the talk page, "has to be dealt with" is by the Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators. All the rest, regarding his endorsement of Hamas, stands. Stop harassing me." [80]

The user is clearly confrontational and unrepentant.

If this is not the forum, I apologize but I do feel rather strongly that this particular incident is very serious and requires ArbCom's attention, and since one single line create so many issues I was not sure where to go. I would have raised a new ArbCom straight up if it weren't for the fact that there are already discretionary sanctions and plenty of material on these articles.

I think a strong block from editing to show the community's reproach at such wanton behavior, along with oversight of the offending phrase is needed. This has to be punished. People shouldn't be allowed to casually put the security, safety and personal reputation of people at risk in Wikipedia. An in particular, you shouldn't put Wikipedia at risk of legal action, be it by force of copy-vio or legal threat.-- Cerejota ( talk) 08:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

As I wrote this, some admin blocked him for one week, after he apparently self-reported [81]. I think this is reasonable, but leaves the oversight issue open. Please do not think I was forum shopping, I simply became aware of the issue after leaving a message for this user because of a tagging thing, and started to write the message, I was not aware of the ongoing discussion at WP:DRAMA -- Cerejota ( talk) 09:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Myself, I don't think oversight needs to get involved (or that the comment should be interpreted as a legal threat). If you want an oversighter to evaluate the edit, send an e-mail with the diff to oversight-l at lists.wikimedia.org.
• Separately, it would be nice to get one or two regular AE admins to take a look at the talkpage and article mentioned above. I've reproduced the IP sanctions notice on the talkpage because it seems like most editors were unaware that they applied (notice has been archived by now), but perhaps some individual logged notices are in order? Avruch ^T 14:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Why don't you consider it a legal threat?
  • As to Oversight, I knew how to request it - however, oversighting is also an arbcom issue and I am explicitly requesting via ArbCom enforcement, because this is a complex case. -- Cerejota ( talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • BTW, the sanctions notice was posted multiple times before you last posted it (including by me), and there is an info box on the top of the talkpage with a link to the discretionary sanctions. If editors were not aware (and I do not know how you come to that conclusion) it is not for lack of telling them.-- Cerejota ( talk) 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree the 1-week block was a good call, and I've logged the notification of sanctions. Admins, including those who deal with ArbCom enforcement, don't make decisions regarding oversight - have a look at WP:OVERSIGHT. That said, I gather oversight is mostly used for telephone numbers or addresses, instead of insults or threats. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what to do. The combativeness is back, and Dicklyon is simply not letting up.

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive33#Pseudoscience for background.

Dicklyon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned for a week from the article and upon returning immediately went back to his old ways. He is combative, seems to refuse to discuss, and is now engaging in a white-washing campaign to remove sources and context from Eric Lerner that explain to the reader the current and past issues with Lerner's ideas. Despite exhortations from other editors to stop [82] and praise for the way the article was rewritten before he began systematically attacking it again: [83], it seems that Dicklyon has reasserted his ownership of what is and is not appropriate content. I'll note that he has added absolutely zero to the article since returning from being banned for a week.

• [84] --> makes a personal accusation that I'm "mistreating" the subject.
• [85] --> accuses sources written by PhD scientists of being "poor sources", misapplies and wikilawyers BLP concerns, and poisons the well with respect to me AGAIN.
• [86] --> despite admitting that a mention later "might be okay", he unilaterally removes this mention no matter where it is placed in the article: [87]
• [88] --> accuses me of "not helping with the problem" and then has the audacity to claim that his edit warring was in response to this! He claims I'm trying to "teach cosmology" and that I'm "debunking".

Then he goes on an edit-warring rampage that I've been trying to deal with:

• [89] --> First removal of a sourced section of criticism claiming that it is "UNDUE WEIGHT" which orphans a reference: [90]. I revert with the edit summary "I'm sorry, but we need to let the reader know what the current state is. Reorganize, don't delete."
• [91] --> Dicklyon replies with a high-handed edit summary that claims he is reverting per WP:BRD when in fact he's simply removing content that is not flattering to Lerner's ideas: "When I reverted a bit of your bold re-org, you should have worked to find a way around he objection, not just put it back."
• [92] --> I try to reintroduce the text with sourcing to other physicists and astronomers who make the same critiques.
• [93] --> He begins removing sources claiming they aren't "reliable" despite the people writing them having credentials, affiliations, and reputations that far exceed Lerner's in the relevant academic communities.
• [94] --> Removing another source claiming it isn't "reliable".
• [95] --> Removed a sourced statement claiming it was "unsupportable". I revert this pointing out that it is supported by the sources: [96]
• [97] --> Removes a well-sourced contextual critique of Lerner's book that he had moved to a different location earlier [98].

In short, what's essentially happening is that Dicklyon has been systematically removing sourced critique and context and directly applicable, sourced text that deals with the exposition of Lerner's book while at the same time actively attacking me on the talk page and continuing his campaign to make the editing environment as hostile as possible. I thought he would settle down after a week-long Wikibreak, but he hasn't.

I can't even get a third opinion without having him come in and make vague accusations about the sources being a "pile-on": Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_source_for_a_critique_of_Eric_Lerner.27s_book.3F

Help.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The paragraph that got moved and removed is this one:

These critiques have been repudiated by mainstream cosmologists who have also directly criticized Lerner for making errors of fact and interpretation.(ref name=Wright) Wright, Edward L. " Errors in "The Big Bang Never Happened" For example, the size of superclusters is a feature that has been limited by subsequent observations to the end of greatness and explained in the astronomical journals as arising from a power spectrum of density fluctuations growing from the quantum fluctuations predicted in inflationary models. Additionally, the anisotropies were discovered in subsequent analysis of the both COBE and BOOMERanG experiments and were more fully characterized by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.(ref name=Wright)

SA likes to have his "debunking" in there with the description of Lerner's book, to try to teach the reader some cosmology to help them understand what's wrong with Lerner's assertions about the state of cosmology in 1991. Wright and a bunch of other cosmologists are already cited for their negative reactions to the book in the next paragraph. This heavy-duty debunking paragraph is essentially off topic, being not about the book or reactions to it. He insisted on having it between Lerner's premises and the description of the new cosmology that the book argues for.

As usual, SA's single-minded SPOV approach to editing "fringe" or "pseudo" science ideas leads to bad articles. The edits that he complains about above by me were all very moderated reactions to his unbalanced approach. If I have come close to being "disruptive", I would appreciate some feedback from anyone who thinks so, besides him. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

One more thing: the sentence I removed as "unsupportable" was Professional cosmologists and physicists who have commented on Lerner's Big Bang critique have universally repudiated it. This kind of thing is inherently hard to support; I did check the two cited sources, and neither made a claim for the universality of their cricisms. There has been some discussions, even by Lerner himself, about how conventional cosmologists reject his work, but it's more a classifation tautology: anyone who doesn't reject his work can't be considered a conventional cosmologist. Putting this way is just a ruse for saying that only the conventional cosmologists have the right to an opinion; this is the SA's "mainstream" or scientific POV at work. It does damage to articles on non-mainstream topic to have them presented this way. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Please oh please, do not continue your content dispute here. We do not care. SA, since you filed this complaint, could you please link the appropriate Arbitration remedy? I would prefer another admin do the deciding here (I've made workshop proposals in the fringe science case) but I will help do some leg work.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

See this remedy, specifically the log where Dick was warned by PhilKnight and subsequently banned for a week from Eric Lerner by Shell Kinney for continued disruption. Skinwalker ( talk) 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The appropriate arbitration remedy to me looks like banning Dicklyon from the page for a period longer than one week, since that didn't seem to do the trick the last time. I leave it to an administrator to decide what the appropriate length would be. How do you get a person who refuses to collaborate to collaborate? ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Again, I request that if I have come close to being "disruptive", I would appreciate some feedback from anyone who thinks so, besides SA. I could have come here and complained about his side of the problem, but I didn't; and I didn't let it spill over into other articles; if this is disruptive, tell me. I'm trying to work toward a better article, but he doesn't let it budge much from the version he created. I'm open to suggestions. In the mean time, I will hold off editing anything to do with Eric Lerner (I did already add one more commment to the RS/N though, to note that SA had reported me here for my comment there). Dicklyon ( talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Ahem. I believe I stated that your poisoning the well against SA was uncalled for. Yes, yes I did. After you wrote "As for rewriting without quotes, I don't disagree that the approach could work. But it would have to be done by someone with a balanced view. If you attempt it yourself, it seems unlikely that it could come out as acceptable," I responded "Do you mind not poisoning the well? It's in incredibly bad taste. Weren't you just banned from this article for behavior exactly like that?" No comment or opinion on the current action/sanction/whatever. Just correcting the record. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Given the lack of feedback, I'm going to presume that I'm not close to crossing any line; so I'll go back to editing -- carefully. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

This comment was overly personal. I guess another 1 week ban could possibly be justified. PhilKnight ( talk) 08:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, if that's too personal, I'll calibrate on that. Thanks. Dicklyon ( talk) 08:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Bit of feedback here since Dicklyon indicated that he thinks a lack of response indicates that he's acting properly. So to state it clearly: Dicklyon, SA's evidence above is a serious concern and you are crossing several lines. You appear to be, yet again, attempting to whitewash the article with a healthy dose of attacking other editors thrown in for spice. If you cannot put aside your personal feelings about the subject and abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you'll likely be asked to refrain from any editing on the article. Personal attacks are right out - try to remain cool even when disagreements arise. Shell ^babelfish 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Shell, thanks; but it would really help to know more precisely what I've done wrong. Which of SA's linked complaints above indicate something of a sort that I should avoid? PhilKnight linked where I said "It is not really appropriate to just call it pseudoscience as an excuse to mistreat it, as ScienceApologist does, and as in the policies he proposes." I was referring to his well-known methods and his WP:MAINSTREAM proposal and proposed changes to WP:FRINGE (e.g this one) and such. Should I avoid referring to his POV when trying to prevent him pushing it? Or just let him push it? Or what? Did you even look at what he did there? Should I be reporting him here, too, like he's doing to me? And can you show me a diff that illustrates what you mean by "whitewash"? Or, never mind, as we seem to have converged peacefully, and it may be stable. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

If someone could take a lot at the last day or two of edits and give me some feedback or advice, that would be appreciated. Do we really need to just let SA own the article and have it his way? Or is there a way to move it to be less of his dubunking/SPOV style without being "disruptive"? Dicklyon ( talk) 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, you could stop personalizing the dispute. Attributing a "dubunking/SPOV style" (sic) and assuming bad faith towards another editor isn't going to get you very far. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Skinwalker ( talk) 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm not sure how I became aware of this issue, but I can tell you a couple of thing about Dicklyon: He might seem to have a way that honors his nickname (small joke, haha)... but don't be fooled by either. I, myself, have been in the position of arguing him, and he might be kind of cold, and might seem antagonistic, but once you meet his terms, you realize that a) you have been mentored by the best there is b) the article ended up with great quality.

Dicklyon is an expert on academic writing. When he erases something, the guy knows what he is doing and what is best for the article. He never censors anything, he just erases whatever doesn't work in an academic way. Actually, because it is verifiable and well sourced, I've seen him a lot of times respect a great deal of information I know he personally disagrees with. And that's because he is a very objective editor, as we should all be.

To me, it is also very shameful to have all this ranting about him in this page. I once wrote pretty mean stuff about him in a talk page, and he could have gotten me blocked for a while, but instead, he just erased it and reminded me to keep it cool. That’s what I call good faith.

In conclusion, let me give you my best advise: Don't waste any time confronting and ranting against him (it's just self-defeating), instead, follow his advises and ask him to teach and review you. After a while of doing so, you have my guarantee that you'll become a very skilled writer and editor. -- 20-dude ( talk) 08:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Resolved Information

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Temporary_injunction

Arbcom ruled that dates may not be mass linked or delinked during the case. Davidwr ( talk · contribs) edited this template Oldprodfull to mass-delink dates in all uses of it with the express purpose of mass-delinking dates per Template_talk:Oldprodfull#Dates_dewikilinked. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I acted in good faith. I wish I could say I was unaware of the injunction but it does look vaguely familiar. It just didn't register when I made the edit. Looking at the wording of the injunction, I'm not sure it's even applicable. From what little I know of the case, it concerns using tools that make many edits, not making a single edit to a widely-used template. Because I am not convinced the injunction applies, I won't revert myself. I will however not make similar edits until this matter is clarified. I have no objection to any editor doing arbcom enforcement reverting this edit, but I would ask that if they do, they put a note on the template talk page referring back to the case, so 1) future well-meaning editors don't make the same edit and 2) when the case is over, it will be obvious that such an edit can or cannot be made.

MBisanz, thank you for bringing this to my attention. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Additional comments: If this temporary injunction does apply to templates, and it is in place for very long, it could cause more problems than it solves. If the injunction will be in place for more than a week or two, I recommend that ARBCOM make it clear that making a single edit to a template does not constitute a "program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles." If the injunction does apply to templates, be prepared for more incidents such as this one. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I imagine the purpose of the injunction is to prevent masses of edits that would be difficult to undo. In this case we are talking about 1 edit which could have been much more easily reverted than bringing it here. I'm struggling to see any express purpose of mass-delinking dates here either. Kevin ( talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

To be fair to MBisanz, the injunction could be read to enjoin editing templates, particularly if the editor's purpose is to "fix" many articles in one fell swoop. It's just not the reading I have. My reading is that this applies to mass runs of edits that are a pain to undo if the wrong thing gets changed, not single, quick-to-undo edits which happen to affect large numbers of articles. Clarification from ARBCOM or the community may be needed. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Okey, we can disagree on the exact purpose, hopefully the case wraps up soon enough to make these sort of things moot. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Re: make moot: On that we have WP:CONSENSUS! davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with Kevin, that while the effect was "mass," the intention of the injunction does not cover this case. I further believe that asking for clarification on this is not required. - brenneman 01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Before this is closed, I have a few questions:

I promised I would not make similar edits until the matter is clarified. Is it safe to assume the matter is clarified in my favor, that is, that the edit and similar manual edits to templates that happen to have mass effects are not violations of this injuction?

If not, what guidance should be given to template editors in general, and how should that guidance be communicated so they don't wind up in the same position I am in now?

davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• I would not consider the number of participantes here sufficent to claim any consensus.
• I would consider continued similar editing to be a very bad idea: It's clear that ArbCom (and everyone else) wants the parties involved to find other things to do.
• If someone felt they simply must make these type of edits, link in the edit summary both the injuction and this discussion.
• I would consider no additional guidance to template editors be required: The system worked, you're not in any "situation" but that you've been gently guided to find something else to do.

brenneman 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Luka Jačov ( talk · contribs) was blocked and WP:ARBMAC-warned for longterm slow sterile revert-warring at Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia in November. Today, after an absence of several weeks, he returned and resumed the exact same sterile reverts again. It's a to and fro between two completely different versions of the article; I readily agree the opposing version of the article is about as problematic as his, so I would have hoped to enter in some halfway fruitful discussion, but he doesn't seem to be willing or capable of that; all we get from him is perennial reverting to the exact same text. I ask for sanctions under ARBMAC; too involved myself to enact them in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you think a restriction against reverting the article (except for vandalism) would be most appropriate? Since it usually takes two to tango, is there another party that might need that as well? Shell ^babelfish 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Back in November, the reverting was between him and a consensus of three (myself, User:ΚΕΚΡὩΨ, and User:NikoSilver. I'm not sure a classic revert parole will help all that much - he's the kind of guy who will just slow down the revert-warring to whatever the parole nominally says, but keep revert-warring all the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

A block was unsuccessful last time, so this time I think something else is more appropriate.

• Luka Jačov ( talk · contribs) is restricted to WP:0RR on Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia (except for obvious vandalism). This restriction is to remain in place until lifted by myself or another uninvolved admin. Should the problematic behaviour spread to other articles, then the restriction will be similarly spread.

• Notified here, logged here. Kevin ( talk) 00:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

As noted here By Hex: [105] " Ohconfucius has continued to make mass edits delinking dates using his alternate account, Date delinker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (see contribution history; a random example is provided in the evidence section of this arbitration), in direct contravention of the temporary injunction issued against such activities by the arbitrators."

Regards, AKAF ( talk) 14:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

My thanks to AKAF for this and MBisanz for leaving a note on my talk page - I wasn't aware of this page before. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Notification of injunction dated 2009-01-13T11:56:50, delivered by one of the clerks for the case to Ohconfucius' talk page. — Locke Cole • t • c 14:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I have blocked Date delinker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely pending review and conclusion of the Arbitration case, and it has been noted at User talk:Date delinker. seicer | talk | contribs 14:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I am very annoyed at the behavior of user Parishan ( talk · contribs). The point is this, I have been for a long time involved in the extremely heated discussions about the ancient population of Artsakh. User Parishan, who had not participated in the ongoing discussion, suddenly adds in the article a very dubious merit which was still discussed in the talkpage and certainly there was more time needed to reach a consensus. The way that Parishan "quoted" the historian Robert Hewsen, the place where he did that, the fact that he left no edit summary, and his post in the talkpage show that he whether simply neglected the ongoing discussion or did not even read it.

A similar behaviour he showed some time ago when he wrote in the same article that Sisak was not a real person [106], while I had 3 times highlighted in the talkpage that this person is note even mentioned in the article ( [107] [108] [109]).

Recently Parishan endless moved the title of Aghstev River to Aghstafa River without even adding a letter to the talk page ( [110] [111] [112]), the result being a long move-war and that the title of that article is till now disputed. And something that is really concerning me: all the time that there was a discussion going in Talk:Aghstafa River, and I showed that there was no justification for his renaming, givien that Aghstev appears to be more common in English language sources, Parishan not even a single time reacted there.

I have perceived that user Parishan has been edit-warring at articles as Lingua franca ( [113] [114] [115] [116]), Church of Caucasian Albania ( [117] [118]) and Amaras Monastery ( [119] [120] [121] [122]). According to WP rules we should work together and use talkpages to settle differences, something I tried to do in talk:Artsakh. So I experience this kind of edits disruptive and I expect the admins will take measures to ensure that this user will stop his unfair treatment. -- Vacio ( talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

First, Parishan was involved in the discussions in Artsakh article from the very beginning, just check the talk of the article and you'll see that he is a long time contributor to that article. And he explained in much detail why he restored the quotes that Vacio deleted from the article. [123] Vacio removed the following quote from the article about Artsakh many times:

Robert H. Hewsen believes that these tribes were "certainly not of Armenian origin", and "although certain Iranian peoples must have settled here during the long period of Persian and Median rule, most of the natives were not even Indo-Europeans". Hewsen, Robert H., Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians, in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico: 1982, 27-40.

Note how it disappears every time after Vacio's edits: [124] [125] [126] while no consensus on its deletion has ever been reached at the talk of the article. So why does Vacio think that it is Ok for him to delete sourced info from the article without any consensus with other involved parties, and not Ok for others to restore it? It should also be noted that Vacio has been twice placed on editing restrictions, but both times the sanctions were lifted, first time because the admin was given incorrect information that Vacio had no prior warning, [127] [128] [129] and second time after Vacio promised not to edit war. [130] [131] Yet Vacio continues edit warring on Artsakh and other pages. -- Grand master 09:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

As for Aghstafa River, one can check the talk of the article and see that there's a consensus on renaming the article to Akstafa River, and the only one stonewalling and blocking the consensus is Vacio. There are another 4 users involved in discussion on talk of that article, and while no one else agreed to the name proposed by Vacio, he attached a tag claiming that the name is disputed, despite the fact that most of the editors reached a consensus on the appropriate title for the article: [132] -- Grand master 10:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe the way I acted in Aghstafa River is in accordence with WP rules: I used the talkpage to settle a difference rather than move-warring, you can not resent me for agreeing or disagreeing with one or another version, after all admin Parsecboy said, it seems that "...Agstev is the preferred spelling in English" [133] and that "Aghstafa is the least preferred]" [134]. So why do you rebuke me for placing the "Title Disputed" tag in the article, when the current title is the least preferred and by the way the result of move-warring rather than discussion?

Then, I think accusing me for edit-warring in the Artsakh article is not fair here. I belive we should first reach a consensus before adding an information which is disputed in the talkpage. I believe this way to settle differences is what we learned from Khoikhoi, Francis Tyers and other madiators (cf. [135] [136] [137]), and this is the way we recently (although partially) reached a consensus for the intro of Nagorno-Karabakh. I hope admins will carefully read the ongoing discussion ( Talk:Artsakh#Population) and see that I indeed have the purpose to reach a consensus rather that deleting or readding an infornation by means of edit-warring. I have each time the bad experience that after the dubious infrnation is added in the article there is no interest anymore for consensus, in particular some time ago user Grandmaster added the same dubious passage in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, unlike my complaints that there was no consensus for that and that his treatment was unfaur, however he was not anymore interested in a discussion for consensus and did not even respond to my posts in the talkpage there [138]. I also ask the attention of admins to the behavior of Grandmaster in the current discussion: almost each time he neglects to react on my arguments which I think are sufficient to leave off the quote of Hewsen in question (I even get the impression that he is not noticing them), repeating each time that the "does not justify a removal of the quote". and now he is again adding the dubious quote in the article [139]. The quote that he added in the article differs even from the original text of Hewsen, something I noticed in the talkpage yesterday [140], but apparently once again neglected. Is this the way we should work together? And how we should reach a consensus when we don't listen each other? -- Vacio ( talk) 11:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You should first reach a consensus, and then remove information from the article. And how can you explain removal of another quote, from the Russian scholar Shinerelman, from the same article? You removed it many times without any explanation at all. It was one of the quotes restored by Parishan. I explained many times that all existing scholarly opinions should be fairly represented in the article. If you indeed want to reach a consensus, you should not remove anything unless there's a consensus to do so, and you should seek mediation, if no consensus has been reached. The way you act is nothing but edit warring, which was a reason you were placed on parole twice before. -- Grand master 12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It is not true Grandmaster: first time I rewrote ( [141]) the article based on "Armenia: A Historical Atlas", the last work of the western scholar Robert Hewsen, I indeed left many passages out which did not fit with this work (including some passages written by myself earlier), second time you reverted some of my edits ( [142] [143] [144] [145]), I asked you for explanation, which you had not, therefore I resored them ( [146]), finally third time I indeed reverted the last edits of Parishan for which I came here ( [147]), if the latter was a violation of WP rules (frankly I had loosed my hair), I honestly appologize. As for Shnirelman, as far I can remember, I have but once left him out by my last rewrite of the article, but I believe we don't have differences at that point, so it couldn't have been edit warring. -- Vacio ( talk) 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Vacio, familiarising myself with the discussion at Talk:Artsakh was the very reason why I decided to restore information you deleted without any reasonable explanation; particularly the deletion of a clarifying quote from Shnirelman (without deleting the actual reference) which you never accounted for on talkpage.

With regard to the other articles, I did make use of the talkpage on Amaras Monastery, and I had provided straightforward rationale in my edit summaries earlier, unlike MarshallBagramyan who made very unacademic statements while reverting my edits and insulted me on talkpage. As for Lingua franca, the heated discussion on talkpage and a whole lot of uncommented and unrebutted excerpts from third-party sources dating back to November indicate quite clearly that my reverts were more than justified. Parishan ( talk) 09:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Without reasonable explanation!? Did you read for example that: "...the author himself makes some changes in his recent work about the populaion of Artsakh, e.g. he says it is doubtful that Artsakh has been under Median rule before 2nd c. BC" [148]. The problem here is not whether you are right or not, Parishan, the problem is how you try to settle differences. Labeling the argumanations of an other user as "not reasonable", is not sufficient to "decide" it. You know how long the discussions has been going about the ancient population of Artsakh? Do you know how controversial the topic among the scholars themselves is? You have but rarely edited the Artsakh article (three, as far as I remember, including the aforementioned two ones) and its talkpage. I hope you admit that your recent behaviour was not proper. If yes, I am even willing to close the discussion here, after all I don't think restrictions are always the best manner to incite us to assume good faith. And as a matter of fact, if you indeed decide to work together to reach a consensus, I would only be happy for. -- Vacio ( talk) 15:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Vacio's words do indeed carry weight. For that matter, GM's arguments are groundless, as he himself is guilty of removing sources and shamefully changing the wording (one of countless examples) of the text when they don't correspond to the sources. Their manipulation also carries double standards, as they use sources such as Viktor Shnirelman's Memory Wars to discredit Armenian history when the same author reserves a good chunk of his book to criticize Azeri "historians" for committing the same blatant acts of falsification that we see on Wikipedia. Was it not Parishan who removed from an article the notion that Turkic tribes invaded the region in the 12th century? Someone has to come and put the brakes on this silly game of removing mention of Armenians prior to the 19th century and the equally ridiculous notion that Turkic tribes never invaded the region.

Parishan defense for his edits on the Lingua Franca page is abysmal and unconvincing, since he misused the sources to sustain a fringe theory only supported by the pseudo-scholars in Baku. The time is ripe for someone to do something about his disruptions. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

If a source criticizes Azerbaijani historians, why cannot it be used as a source of criticism of the Armenian scholars? I see no logic here. Both sides were involved in manipulation of historical facts, and Shnirelman is not the only source on that. And of course any accusations of me changing sources are baseless, and are off-topic here. The problem is that suppression of info from a reliable source is not acceptable, if there are different views on the subject in the scholarly community, we should present all notable ones. I don't see Parishan making any reverts in the article about Artsakh in excess of 1rv per week, even though he is not under any revert restriction, so what's the point in placing him on parole? If anything, Vacio was the one who reverted the article more than once a week, so if anyone is to be placed on parole, it should be Vacio. Grand master 06:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply