Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:27, 20 December 2007

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

Edit this section for new requests

VartanM

User:VartanM is a party to ArbCom [1] He has recently pushed the limit, by attacking a whole ethnicity again: [2]:

"Atabek its clear to me that Azeris have a bazar mentality in negotiations. As in you tart with your own ridiculously high price and wait for the Armenian to come up with its own ridiculously low price, go back and forth until a medium is reached then call it a deal. What has happened so far is that Azeris came up with the high price, but we the naive Armenians ask for the medium price right from the start, Azeris get confused and think that the medium is the low price and push for more."

I am not sure how long and how many times will this Arbitration Committee condone VartanM's attacks and the attack by TigranTheGreat like reported below on other contributors along ethnic lines and allow generalizations such as above. These contributors have been warned already at several instances.

No one likes being insulted or attacked for free contributions to free encyclopedia at own time and leisure. I hope Arbitration Committee will take this into consideration. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps, attacking an ethnicity is only indirectly a violation of Wikipedia policy, but it's annoying and not something we want to see too much more of (Wikipedia ain't a soapbox either).

And, yes, Vartan, please don't do that. Nobody should. It's not much of a policy violation but it really does not help with the atmosphere around here, which is quite toxic enough as it is. There'd be no point browbeating an apology out of you, but please restrain from making such similar statements in the future. You're a classier sort of gentleman than that. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement is getting stupidly clogged up with your battles. At the moment it ain't all really working, I think you'll both agree. Perhaps we need a new approach. Here's an idea. I'll be full-time mediator and admin-enforcer to the Armenia-Azeri fights for a fortnight. If you accept, fine. If so, however, we're going to have work out a system whereby I get told where the latest fights are breaking out, because I haven't got every single Armenia-Azeri article listed. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, I think that would be great if you could dedicate some time to Azeri-Armenian articles. I will be more than glad to cooperate in your efforts. Keep me informed, and I can provide you with a list of all disputed articles.

But for this particular case, I also want to request that VartanM be demanded an apology for insulting an entire ethnicity. It's really inappropriate and every time he makes a violation and is given a green light, just because it's reported by opposite side, he continues similar attacks next time. Atabek (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to report this also, but VartanM engaged in another attack along ethnic and personal lines [3] against User:Ehud Lesar. Perhaps, he needs to be explained to calm down. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TigranTheGreat

User:TigranTheGreat, a party to two ArbCom cases [4], [5], has been placed under supervised editing per most recent ArbCom. He has recently violated the remedy [6] by editing the talk page of Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 in an offensive manner directed:

a) against a nationality - [7] with remarks like: "...Italians and Germans. These two nationalities were well developed ethnic groups..." and "The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh alone presents a very real fear to so called "Azerbaijanis" about losing their own identity"
b) against another contributor - [8].

Thanks. Atabek (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure that saying Azeris weren't a well-developed ethnic group at a certain time is a violation. El_C 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El C, ethnic groups cannot be well or underdeveloped, saying so maybe considered a racist generalization remark. This is especially emphasized by the subsequent reported sentence calling "so called Azerbaijanis". The nations and countries can be well or underdeveloped but not ethnic groups. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how about referring to modern day Azerbaijanis as "so called Azerbaijanis"? Is it Ok to make such comments about other ethnic groups in Wikipedia? Grandmaster (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, it's okay.~~ By which I mean, that would be a problem. El_C 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit impatient about (seemingly) rhetorical questions. I should not have been the one to respond to this. I'll go do something else now. El_C 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any case, I dropped the user a note. El_C 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope this will resolve the problem. Grandmaster (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that "Azerbaijanis" have underdeveloped national identity is well supported in literature and is quite relevant to the topic. It's an artificial term of purely political origin applied to a non-existent nationality. Now, again, if Grandmaster can refer to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as "separatists," "non-existent state," or "illegal entity," we need to be able to state the relevant opinions on "Azerbaijanis."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the admins will pay attention to the above inflammatory and nationalistic comment (and the one below on the thread about Atabek) by TigranTheGreat. This is not the first instance of him making such comments, but so far he received nothing but a warning. Grandmaster (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And any parallels with my statements about NK are out of place, they are not directed against the Armenian people, and are merely the repetition of the position of the international community, which cannot be anti-Armenian, see these: [9] [10] [11] This is just an attempt to distract attention from his unacceptable remarks about other ethnic groups. Grandmaster (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I merely repeat what other scholars, including well-respected ones in the West, have said about the "Azerbaijanis." Here is, for example, Patricia Carley of the United States Institute of Peace:

The knowledge that they essentially lost that war has led the Azeris to be fearful of the possibility that their nation could disintegrate, beginning with the loss of Karabakh. They thus believe the future of their integrity as a people lies in the favorable resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. This feeling is intensified by the Azeris’ relatively underdeveloped sense of nationhood. Armenians very likely do not appreciate the extent to which Azeris believe their very existence to be threatened by the notion of independence for Nagorno-Karabakh. http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks25/keypts25.html

The fact that what we refer to as "Azeris" is a group with underdeveloped identity is well known. In fact, it's been suggested that the only thing holding them together as a coherent group is their defeat in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. These statements are quite relevant to the discussion on the "Armenian-Tatar Massacres" article. The discussion is on whether we should call the culprits of massacres "Azeris" or Tatars." Just because Grandmaster disagrees with this opinion and agrees with his own views on Nagorno-Karabakh is irrelevant here--it's a content dispute.

If on the other hand, we are to exclude opinions (whether we agree or disagree with them) that some may find offensive, then Grandmaster has to stop making his comments about Nagorno-Karabakh. Some Armenians find such comments offensive, and have requested Grandmaster to stop making them (recently, on the Shusha Talk page [12]), which he has ignored. If, on the other hand, he wants to continue expressing such opinions, then he cannot complain about others stating the truth that he finds unpleasant.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said that Azerbaijanis are "non-existent nationality". Is this a scholarly accepted fact or your personal belief? Grandmaster (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you believe that Nagorno-Karabakh is a non-existent state, I believe that "Azerbaijanis" are a non-existent nationality. It's based on scholarly literature. As I have explained before, "Azerbaijani" is a fictional identity concocted by pan-Turkic and later Soviet ideologists for political reasons. The fact that this particular group has a weak sense of identity, as stated by Western analysts, is a further evidence of this. The real Azerbaijanis are those living in Iran--in fact, they are part of the Iranian cultural environment quite unconnected with the so-called "Azerbaijanis" north of Arax (for example, they are quite friendly with the Armenians, helping NKR overcome the effects of the blockade). My belief is that nationalists and ideologists should leave these people alone and let them determine their own identity.

Now, if you want us to be sensitive to your feelings, then you need to stop making comments about Nagorno-Karabakh that some find offensive. You can't have it both ways.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the opinion of Carley is merely a repetition of the opinion of the Armenian scholar Ronald Suny, which she openly admits: A factor involved in this fierce determination to preserve their territorial integrity, suggested Suny, is the weak or underdeveloped sense of nationhood among Azeris. [13] De-jure non-existence of NK as an independent state is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the international community, while your personal perception of Azerbaijani people as non-existent or whatever is purely a racist remark. Grandmaster (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The international community does not say NK is non-existent or illegal, just that it's unrecognized. Your statements on its "non-existence" and "illegality" are your own POV conclusions. Now, whether opinions are supported by international community or individual scholars is irrelevant here--it's a content dispute. If you can state your POV in a discussion, then so can others, even if you find the truth uncomfortable.

I am not saying the people of Azerbijan are individually underdeveloped or genetically inferior. I am just saying they, as a whole, are underdeveloped as a national group--a statement which is supported by Patricia Carley. So, it's not racist, it's just the truth. And I wouldn't bring it up unless you didn't claim that "Azerbaijanis and Tatars are the same people." When you make a false claim, I have to be able to challenge it.

By the way, Patricia Carley does not quote Suny (an American scholar, who merely happens to be ethnically Armenian) when stating her opinions on the "Azerbaijani" identity. She makes perfectly clear when she quotes Suny.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The international community does say that NK authorities are illegitimate and refers to them as separatists, see these statements by EU and PACE. [14] [15] In particular, PACE says: “Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region”. Whether you like that or not, that’s not my personal opinion, and it is not offensive to the Armenian people in general, and I never heard of either organization being ever accused of anti-Armenian sentiment. Your references to Azerbaijani people in general as “so called” and “non-existent”, etc cannot be compared with the references to separatist movements. They are inflammatory and repeated in defiance of the request by the admin. Grandmaster (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"does not recognize the legitimacy of elections" doesn't mean "NK is an illegal and non-existent entity." As for "separatists," when you use the term outside quoted texts, then you adopt it. Armenian users have pointed to you that they find your use of the term offensive. You are free to refer to NKR simply as "Nagorno-Karabakh" or "unrecognized state." You chose to use the terms mentioned earlier, which is in defiance of requests made to you.

Discussions on talk pages are meant to contain opinions of the parties. Whether an opinion is supported by the "international community" does not make it any less inflammatory. Nor is such support relevant here--this is not a forum to discuss content disputes. The only issue is whether members find some opinions offensive. If you don't want to read opinions offensive to you, then you either agree to refrain from opinions offensive to others, or you avoid bringing the subject matter into discussion.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, referring to separatist authorities as such is not a racial slur, whether someone likes it or not, unlike your comments, which are directed against all people of certain ethnicity. Grandmaster (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in which you're under supervision not to edit in a manner offensive to other contributors (in this case of Azeri nationality) and in good faith. And it does not matter if you cite Armenian Ronald Grigor Suny to justify your offensive claims, because such citations of yours would be similar to citing Vasili Velichko to judge the genetic makeup and claim the underdevelopment of Armenians, or Adolph Hitler in justifying anti-Semitic views in abstract case. Please, assume good faith. Atabek (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Grandmaster are under the same supervision as well. If you express inflammatory opinions about Nagorno-Karabakh, then others are free to express their opinions on the underdeveloped nature of so-called "Azerbaijanis" in a discussion. The discussion is on whether the Tatars can be called Azerbaijanis, and the artificial nature of the Azerbaijani identity is crucial to the debate. It is by no means racist--I am not saying each individual "Azerbaijani" is inferiour--only that the group as a whole is lacking a well-developed identity. This is a well known and quoted fact. The modern descendants of Tatars cannot even decide whether they are Iranian or Turkic, obviously they cannot be assumed to possess a clear national identity. If you find this offensive, then you need to agree not to express opinions offensive to others. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I highly doubt that Patricia Carley, a modern Western analyst working for the United States Institute of Peace, can be compared to Adolf Hitler. Please refrain from making misleading comments, and assume good faith.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, lets to not compare Armenian-American prominent historian with... Hitler. Pls assume good fight and more tolerance to Armenian side! I just want to remind how many times you deleted quotes by foreign scolars and added an Armenian-American historian (Hovhannisian) as a source for Armenian-Azerbaijani topics at Shusha, just cuz it seems to be biased pro-Azeri. Was it ok? Andranikpasha (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point it is better to wait for an admin assessment of Tigran's comments. Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could also wait for assessment of your continued inflammatory comments. And your defiance of requests made to you to stop them.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember any admin asking me about that. Grandmaster (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked by Armenian users. You showed disregard for fellow Wikipedians. And you continue to do so.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Separatists" was not the right term from the beginning. "Irredentists" should have been the one. Anyway, but saying that "there is no Nagorno-Karabakh nation" is not the same as saying "there is no such a nation as Azerbaijanis". Current population of Nagorno-Karabakh are ethnically the same Armenians as those in Glendale or Marselle, Yerevan or Beyrut. "Azerbaijanis" often referred by Armenians as "Turks", are not exactly same as those in Turkey. There is a formed nation from 16th century onwards, which had many names throughout the centuries and got the name "Azerbaijanis" or "Azeris" in 20th century. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe in that or not, this is the reality and you have to accept it. They may be divided, half living in the Caucasus, half in Iran, but ethnically they are the same people. I may understand pro-Kasravis and pro-Pahlavis saying "there is no Azerbaijanis", but I really do not understand the logic of Armenians who say "there is no Azerbaijanis" or refer to them as "so called Azerbaijanis" If you deny the existence of force that fought with your people over Nagorno-Karabakh, then whom did you fight with? I am not asking you to write here what you think about them, but you have to accept how they name themselves. It is your business how you call them among yourselves, in your own language, but this is the name how we're "registered" at the U.N., CoE, libraries and univesities, encyclopedias and textbooks, known in English language. You have to use this name to approach us or call us. If I am asked to identify a nation living next to my borders in the English language, I have to say "Armenian", not "ermeni" as I do in my own language. There are Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. There are no "Nagorno-Karabakhis" in Nagorno-Karabakh. May be in 100 years from now, there will be a new ethnicity formed which will be different from the Armenians living in Yerevan, but until it is accepted by the academic world, I cannot claim or do so - I have to refer to recognised literature for that. --Aynabend (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have no obligation to follow the opinion of the UN, at least not in the discussion pages. We don't require you to use the term Armenian Genocide, as we realize it can be uncomfortable for you. As for the "Azerbaijanis," I hope you know that the so called "Azerbaijani literature," at least prior to 1919, was purely Turkmen in origin. I therefore don't see how we can talk about a "formed nation of Azerbaijanis," especially in the 16th century. The modern remnants of Tatars living in the Republic of Azerbaijan are a conglomerate of Turkic speaking groups with little national identity, and have been so for centuries. Imposing the fictional label "Azerbaijani" doesn't change this fact. And I am not sure what you mean by Nagorno-Karabakh fighting a "force"--NKR merely crushed the Republic of Azerbaijan, so any mention of a "force" here is meaningless and irrelevant. Plus, just because the Baku regime made these unfortunate people go into a disastous war doesn't mean they actually share a single clear national identity.

As for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, you cannot say that your offenses are better and therefore allowed. NK is an Armenian state, it's part of the Armenian homeland, and Armenians hold it dear to heart. Any derogatory comments about that state can be deemed offensive by Armenian users.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "Turkmen", but "Turkman" or "Turkoman" is what you mean. There were other names, such Kizilbash, Qaraqoyunlu, Akkoyunlu. These were the names that this people used to name themselves throughout these centuries. The last name used by this people prior to 19th century was "Moslem". "Tatar" or "Tartar" was the name used by outsiders. It was used simultaneously along with "Azerbaijani Tatars" or just "Azerbaijanis" already in 19th century by the Russian ethnographers, such as M.N. Makarov. There are many nations in the world who have been named differently throughout the centuries and today if you tell a German that the Prussians were not Germans, they will laugh at you. "Armenian Genocide" unlike "Azerbaijanis" is not used or recognized by the U.N. or CoE, OSCE. If it was ever used in their official documents, then we would probably refer to it in this list and recognize it. What I meanby "force" is that the war is not over and there is still a danger that it would start again, according to ICG. NK Army, or Armenian forces, unlike us who had a more promising support from the Russians, was not the winner in the battles. There were times in winter of 1993 and spring of 1994, when NK Army was retreating and leaving behind significant territories. There was a time in 1992, when Azerbaijani Army was standing only 5 kms of Khankendi or Stepanakert. You never know how this situation can change. Therefore, it is always a good tactic in wars to know and respect the enemy, and not use a denial. You perfectly know that in 1905 both sides gave victims and it was a senseless clash, according to the same Armenian sources invoked by the Czarist Russia (See James Henry book from 1905). By saying that the people who fought with Armenians in Baku in 1905 were the descendants of Tatars you are only deceiving yourself. You perfectly know who they were. --Aynabend (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The abundance of names used for the nomadic Turkic tribes in Caucasus is a further indication that these tribes and their modern Tatar descendants in Azerbaijan have lacked a national identity. I understand that this may be difficult to admit by the "Azerbaijanis," given the fictional theories fed to them by the Baku regime, but we need to call things by their names. As for your account of Azerbaijan's defeat, it's a well known fairy tale invented by the Azerbaijani propaganda machine to cover the country's humiliation. It still does not change the fact that Azerbaijan suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia equally helped both Armenians and the Azeris. In fact, it's a well known fact that the only reason Armenians retreated in 1992 is that they were faced with an overwhelming number of Russian merceneries. Western sources describe the Armenian advances as "armed tourism"--they followed the usual pattern of Armenians advancing and the Azeri army escaping the battlefield. The only reason the Azeris lost is that they were forced to fight for a land that was not their own, coupled with their underdeveloped national identity and unity. So, your attempt to prove the existence of a fictional "Azerbaijani" identity by their "fight" against Armenians is incorrect.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aynabend, there's no need to turn this into ethnographic dispute. The problem here is with Tigran's comments, and those comments being a problem was acknowledged by the admin above. They are clearly based on ethnic prejudice and are offensive to the entire Azerbaijani people. Wikipedia is not a place where such behavior is appreciated. I'm still waiting for the admin take on the situation. Grandmaster (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the problem is that you, Atabek, and now Aynaberd continue making comments that you have been told to be problemating, and that you continue to disregard the concerns of your fellow Wikipedians. Certainly that's not a behavior appreciated in Wikipedia. I generally wouldn't bring up the delicate issues surrouding the "Azerbaijani" identity and the NK War, but when you make false claims on talk pages and here regarding Tatars and the war, then I have to point out why they are inaccurate. If you and your fellow Azeri members do not like the subject matter, then you need to stop pursuing them.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, calling another user "ethnically prejudiced," as Grandmaster did above, is a blatant personal attack against another user, which is a grave violation of Wikipedia policies. It seems Grandmaster's behavior has progressed from making comments offensive to Armenians, to downright attacks against the person of another Wikipedia user.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't distort my words. I did not call you ethnically prejudiced. I said that your comments are based on ethnic prejudice. That's a different thing. Grandmaster (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, Tigran, you just said that the Azerbaijani ethnic identity is "fictional". Do you think that it is OK to make such comments about the entire people? Grandmaster (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say nothing that academic sources haven't already said about Azerbaijan's population. Even western sources consider "Azeris" to have an "underdeveloped national identity," which is in a very real danger of disintegration due to loss of Nagorno-Karabakh.[16]. As much as you may find the truth uncomfortable, we can't deny it. And the only reason I have brought it up is to refute your claims about the identity and naming of Tatars in the "Armenian-Tatar conflict" article.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Azerbaijanis being a "fictional identity" supported by academic sources? Even Suny does not say that. Grandmaster (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as identities go, it's a weak and unclear one. Scholars agree. Here are a few more, in addition to Patricia Carley:

"Azerbaijani fear of Armenians was further inflated, ironically, by the relative weakness of Azerbaijani identity as compared to Armenian One" (S.Kaufmann, Modern hatred, Cornell University Press, 2001. See page 58.)

"In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijani’s many varied Russian conquerers"(B. Fowkes, "Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World," Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. See page 68)

"Despite these myths, the historical and cultural elements of which the ex-Soviet Azerbaijanis are most proud, such as being the land of Zoroaster and the poet Nizami, have distinctly Iranian origins and character. Ironically the realization of this fact, rather than bringing the ex-Soviet Azerbaijanis closer to Iran, has had the opposite effect. This is because Azerbaijanis feel that the Iranian connection would hamper the development of an independent Azerbaijani identity – and , as far as some are concerned, a purely Turkic identity."(David Menashri, "Central Asia Meets the Middle East," Routledge, 1998. See page 107)

"In Contrast with the Armenians, the Azerbaijani national identity is very recent. In fact, the very name "Azerbaijani" was not widely used until the 1930s; before that, Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars or something else." (S.Kaufmann, Modern hatred, Cornell University Press, 2001. See page 56.)

--TigranTheGreat (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last quote and the subject we discuss (who were these Tatars who clashed Armenians in 1905?), there is no direct correlation between the changing names of an ethnicity throughout the centuries and existence or non-existence of national identity. National identity in the same time does not have a unique and standard formula. Modern Azerbaijanis' identity started to shape in 13 century with Heterodox Shia Islam, was strengthened in 16th century by a state religion and unified state and started to disappear with the wars of 19th century wars and annexation by Russian Empire. In the Soviet era it changed its form or died for 70 years. Current status I agree is unclear. But this does not change the fact that the Turkoman in 13-15 centuries, Tatars in 1905, Caucasian Turks in 20's, or Azerbaijanis in the 20th century were/are the same people, same ethnicity. I think there is no need for further discussions. I am ready to give my consent to link this article to the articles related to modern Tatars of Kazan and Crimea. Let them solve their “old problems”. --Aynabend (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran, there is a poem of the greatest and perhaps the most renowned Russian poet of XIXth century, Alexander Pushkin, associating in his words the Armenians with thieves and cowards ("Поди ты прочь - ты мне не сын. Ты не чеченец - ты старуха. Ты трус, ты раб, ты армянин."), in fact, here is the link to Roland Grigor Suny's book reciting that same quote [17]. While this is a referenced source, it's still an insult against an ethnicity, and it does not establish basis for any Wikipedia contributor to use these words as evidence in articles about Armenians or even further, like yourself, argue for their justification. So, as you have been explained above, assume good faith and stop insulting people's ethnic identity by spending time to look for such sources. Atabek (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, tell that to Parishan who used a sole source to claim that Azerbaijani is a Langua franca, by an Armenophobe author who calls Armenians parasites in the same article. Don't use double standards and delete the Parishan addition yourself. Beside, are you comparing some deluded poet with a position which holds consensus in the academia? VartanM (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, given your active Wiki involvement recently, have you been removing/editing/disputing the ethnicity insulting edits of TigranTheGreat? Provided not so, I would recommend that you also assume good faith. And I think calling a literary giant like A. S. Pushkin a deluded poet may sound a bit insulting to the history of Russian literature, moreover, comparing him to a far less known R. G. Suny, who was actually citing Pushkin, is also a bit too much. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan, don't make claims of consensus without having proper source to support such a claim. The opinion of some is not equal to the opinion of majority. And I did not see a single source calling Azerbaijani ethnic identity fictional, like Tigran did. Grandmaster (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Ulvi/Aynabend, what you're claiming is for sure wrong; I’d be surprised if you'd believe all that as a professional historian. We don't even need to find any direct correlation when both in this case mean about the same thing. Stephen F. Jones writes: Azerbaijani identity, as distinct from Muslim identity, was weak even among the intelligentsia, which was predominantly secular.' (Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, Harvard University Press (2005) p. 19) When they cover national identity they incorporate ethnicity in this particular case (and I will develop furthermore on why this is obvious.)

You are asking who were these Tatars… this is one of the disagreements and the same author writes: In 1897 'Tatars'-which officially included most Muslim groups... While Persians, Chechens and Kurds (to a lesser extent though) were separately included, Tatars included various Muslim groups. Azerbaijani the modern identity represents the product of homogenisation and assimilation, while Tatars included various tribes, nomads etc.

Do you really believe that the modern Azerbaijani identity started to shape in the 13th century? The origin of the Azerbaijani ethnic identity started in Persia during the 19th century, mostly with the help of the Ottoman Empire which had a certain policy in the region. And my source on the birth of the identity is none other than Touraj Atabaki (Azerbaijan: Ethnicity and Autonomy in Twentieth-Century Iran, British Academia Press, 1993). Prior to that, it was just a region of Persia (South of Arax).

I'm intrigued on something; you do admit that what is called "Azerbaijani literature" was in fact Turkman in origin… what I fail to understand is your persistence in continuing to claim Turkman history as Azerbaijani when it is the other way around even from your indirect admission. Your comparison with the Prussians doesn't make sense either because Prussians are not Germans I don't know where you got all that. Past NAZI propaganda claimed such stuff... even Germans don’t claim such a thing. They were Baltic people speaking a Baltic language prior to the establishment of a German government in Prussia. If you claim they were German then no wonder you think the Azerbaijani identity started forming in the 13th century.

I said that I will cover why national identity and ethnic identity is the same in this case and that it is used alternatively by scholars; so here we go. Since the Turkic tribes living there didn't have any clear and defined identity besides Islam, they formed their ethnicity and their identity with the geographic area they were living in. This was Tigran’s point when he said that if Azerbaijan was to be cut to pieces, they will form various different identities because this modern identity has been built recently and is built on the geographic region that they are living in. Basically this is why Artsakh’s independence is a threat to the Azerbaijani identity; without their defined borders they have no history under that identity. This is why all the myths about everything Armenian is Albanian and that Azerbaijanis are the decedents of the Albanians pop up. The intellectuals needed those myths to fabricate a history on their identity and compete with the clearly defined Armenian identity that has been around for centuries before the current era.

So in brief, nothing Tigran said is wrong. If you find something offending there, it does not make a difference because most academics support his position. - Fedayee (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my above post. Grandmaster (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion does not belong here. I can easily prove you wrong by citing plenty of reliable sources, but this is not a place for that. What is discussed here is how appropriate is by a member of certain ethnic group to call an ethnic identity of another one "so called", "fictional", etc? Even if we assume that this other ethnic group came into being just a few years ago (which is impossible, but let's assume that), is it appropriate to make such comments here and isn't it a violation of WP:Civil and the supervised editing restrictions, imposed on Tigran by the arbcom? I would really be interested in an admin take on this. Grandmaster (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even Aynabend admitted above that the Azeri identity, if there was one prior to 1919 (there wasn't, but let's assume), "died in the Soviet era." So, even he admits that the "Azeri identity" has been nonesixtent. I merely repeat what academic sources, and Aynabend, have been saying about the state of the "Azerbaijani identity." The reason this discussion belongs here is that Grandmaster brought in a context dispute in here, which is inappropriate and against the Wiki rules. It is also relevant here that Grandmaster, Atabek, and Aynabend have continued making ethnicicty insulting comments against Armenians in talk pages (about NKR being "a non-existent, illegal state") despite being warned by Armenian users. Such defiance of other Wikipedia members, as well as calling them "ethnically prejudiced," is a clear violation of WP:Civil, and the supervised editing restrictions of these users.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fedayee, I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Instead of wasting your time here, you better start editing Prussia and Otto von Bismarck articles at wiki and let the entire world know that they were "Baltic speaking" people and nation, had nothing to do with the modern Germans... Tigran, please read my posting more carefully, I said the that during Soviet times the identity of Azerbaijanis either "changed its form or died for 70 years". This is in itself a disputable question. Some Armenian ethnographers would try to prove the opposite that, during last 30 years of the Soviets, especially under H. Aliyev Azerbaijanis have united as a nation... If you need names, I can give you in private.

Anyway, coming to the subject. Here is what the witness of those days in 1905, James D. Henry says about the Tatars:

"The census returns of Baku town, Bailov Promontory, White Town, the villages of Kishli and Akhmedli, the oil field region of Bibi-Eibat, the Balakhani-Saboonchi-Ramani fields and Balakhani, Saboonchi Ramani and Zabrat villages put the population at 206,757*. Forty-four nationalities are registered. These include representatives of nearly all European nations, Central Asia, Asia Minor, Persia, Arabia, and even Abyssinia. The chief nationalities number thirteen, and each of these has more than 500 representatives. The first place is occupied by Russians, who number 74,254; then follow 53,827 local Tartars, 34,259 Armenians, 18,572 Persians, 5,859 Jews, 5,025 Germans, 4,157 Tartars from south-eastern Russia (known as Kazan Tartars), 3,857 Lezghins, 2,614 Georgians, 1,548 Poles, 617 Greeks, and 679 Mordovtzis. The other inhabitants - to the number of 1,646 - represent thirty-one nationalities. Eight of these Swedes, Ossetins, Letts, Bohemians, Slovaks, Frenchmen, Lithuanians, Englishmen, and Turks - have each over one hundred representatives. The remaining twenty-three nationalities account for less than 100 each, while seventeen are represented by less than 25 persons"

Twenty years ago the population of Baku was between 70,000 and 80,000. Source: Henry, J.D. Baku An Eventful History. With Many Illustrations And a Map. London 1905. pages 11-12

Now as you see, even a British engineer who wrote the world-known book about Baku in those days put a distinction between the local Tartars (or Tatars) and the ones who came from south-eastern Russia and identified them as Kazan Tartars. If in you opinion the Tatars who fought with the Armenians in 1905 were of the mixed ethnic origin of various Turkic people, then why there was a distinction emphasized in the book, two chapters of which refers to 1905 Armenian-Azeri clashes? Please don't tell me that you do not like all the Britts in the world. --Aynabend (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulvi/Aynabend, the Prussians were NOT German. Before it was taken by the Teuronic Knights and the German assimilation of the group, the real Prussians were speaking a distinct language. You see you referred to the Prussians and now are referring to the assimilated German Prussia.

The comparison is actually more similar to the Armenian Patriarchate of Artsakh with the Albanians, the same way that the Germans declared lordship of Prussia. The Germans already had a distinct identity, just like if you compare the Patriarchate with when he was referring to himself as Albanian. The Armenians had a distinct identity. The German identity was prevailing and clearly defined much before the Ottonian dynasty. The Prussians were not the ancestors of the Germans, neither were they of old Prussia and its inhabitants, Germans. They have been assimilated by a group which already had a clearly defined identity, the Duchy. So again, you failed to explain any similarities between Tatars-Azerbaijanis and Prussian-Germans; both are unrelated in terms of ancestries. While Old Prussian might have had some influence on the Germans living in the area, the Germans were identified already centuries before the Teuronic Knights took over Prussia.

You see the NAZI abolished Prussia, even though it was symbolic at the time, of the Germanic Prussia, and dismissed its old history and claimed it exclusively as German including the original inhabitants of Prussia, Baltic speaking people. You are using double standards… aren't you also basically overemphasising on the Caucasian Albanians on every Eastern region, including a large area recognized as being in the older Armenian lands? Why don't you use the same standard and consider the Caucasian Albanians as Armenians? Your comparison is not inaccurate, but even if it had been accurate, it does not support your thesis… at worst it contradicts it.

As for your quote, they were called Tartars, most of the Muslims living there were called Tartars, and I don't see how this supports your argument in any way. - Fedayee (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek

Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.[18] After reverting Shusha article[19], he leaves the following comment in the talkpage:

"Andranikpasha, back at removing referenced material after the lifting of his parole. Please, stop doing that, follow WP:NPOV and achieve consensus. On a side note, why the article does not mention the fact that Shusha was founded as a capital of Karabakh khanate?" [20]

The above comment is a clear violation of his parole, instead of discussing the content of his revert, he is commenting on another user. Also, his call for Andranikpasha to reach consensus makes no sense. Andranikpasha has and is actively discussing all of his edits, while the last time Atabek participated in any discussion was on November 16th and before that September 7th. VartanM 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, actually the same ArbCom requested you and all others involved in editing Turkey-Iran-Azerbaijan-Armenia related pages to do so in a constructive manner and in good faith. So please, assume one. I merely indicated a fact that lifting of Andranikpasha's parole only raised the number of his reverts per day per page. And he does continue to remove sourced material from pages without completely discussing them or achieving consensus. Thanks. Atabek 06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Shusha we had a whole bunch of socks reverting the article in favor of a certain POV, i.e. Bassenius, Verjakette and Hnarakert, which was established by a checkuser here: [21] And Andranikpasha clearly took an advantage of being relieved of his parole, he made at least 3 rvs on Shusha within the last week: [22] [23] [24] The latest arbcom ruling specifically mentioned among its principles that edit warring was harmful. Now that the article is protected and the socks are blocked the involved editors can discuss the problems and reach a consensus. Grandmaster 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is irrelevant to this page and doesn't require discussion here. This is to point that Atabek violated the Arbcom restrictions.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? He left a comment. Whether someone likes it or not is a different issue. Grandmaster (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was supposed to explain the rational of a revert not commenting on a contributor. He clearly violated the terms. Andranik was discussion and explaining his changes in the talkpage, while Atabek came and meatpuppeted with his revert. He commented on the editor not the edit, same applies to the edit summary. VartanM (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek provided rationale for his rv. He explained Andranikpasha that he should not remove referenced material from the article. It is not a comment on the contributor, but rather on how the article should not be edited. Grandmaster (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, you know Atabek removed references and justified it by accusing Andranikpasha of doing just that. Where did Atabek justify his revert to that version? Where has he justified the deletion of the material? Show me where? On the other hand, Andranik has discussed every bit of his changes in the talkpage. I am expecting that Atabek will get away, again. Fedayee was blocked for a revert for an article which had nothing to do with Armenian-Azerbaijan subject a revert which was even if obvious with a summary enough even for ignorants, and Atabek not only commented the contributor by removing materials rather than justify his edit but did it in one of the main articles having to do with Armenian-Azerbaijan.

The next time I am not going to report here but elsewhere, no administrator even bothered to read or comment. Some members don't even need to be reported to be blocked(e.g. Fedayee), while others are given a green light. VartanM (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you can refer to Fedayee’s block as a precedent here. He was blocked for not leaving any comment, while Atabek commented. Whether you agree with his comment or not, Atabek did not violate the arbcom ruling. Grandmaster (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second Grandmaster's take on the situation. He left a comment; disagreeing with the content of the comment or thinking its not a good enough explanation does not make the action blockable. Please assume good faith and work with other editors. Shell ^babelfish 08:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Shell. No block, please move along. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also concur. Nothing doing here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!!! Ignored for 6 days and then boom! 3 comments in a row, must be a record. So you are saying that it doesn't matter what you write in the talkpage, as long as we type words in there, we will be ok. We can comment on the weather outside, sing our favorite song(not all of it, we don't want to break the WP:C). Hell, why not even comment on another editor. Revert the article for not reaching CONSENSUS, but the last time you posted anything in the talkpage was a month ago and you didn't reach consensus either. We can just say something completely unrelated to what we did on the main article,

If AA1 wasn't enough lets take a look at the AA2 principles (remember those?)

Negotiation: Willingness to negotiate in a more or less civil way with the other editors of an article is a condition of editing the article.

Removing references material without reaching consensus and accusing another editor of doing the same is not a good way to negotiate.

Edit warring considered harmful: Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Reverting to the version you prefer and accusing another user of not reaching consensus while the last time you posted anything in the talkpage was month ago

Consensus: Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Accusing another user of not reaching consensus while he didn't reach one either.

Wikipedia is not a battleground: Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.

Commenting on another user while you just reverted the article turns Wikipedia into a battleground. Andranikpasha was wise enough to ignore his comments.

Disruptive editing: Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Reverting the article and not discussing the revert is disruptive and this report here is a testament to that disruption.

Courtesy: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Words that are spelled out in CAPS letters and targeted toward another user are not intimidating and create hostile enviorment.

Assume good faith: Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they had conflicts with in the past.

No comment.

Diplomacy: It is when there are serious disagreements that courteous negotiation is most necessary.

He wasn't negotiating nor was he courteous.

Provocation When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

Hostile comments toward another user are provocative and escalate the already heated argument.

When was the last time anyone minded those? When was the last time anyone read or enforced those? Was the AA2 a big waste of time? Thank you for your time, I'll be moving along now. VartanM (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, why don't you assume good faith, stop targeting me, and please, check the disruptions of User:Andranikpasha instead, whom you're supposed to actually mentor.

On Shusha pogrom (1920) - 3 reverts within 2 days removing POV tag without consensus achieved on talk page - [25], [26], [27]
On Shusha - 3 reverts within a week - [28], [29], [30] joined by his assigned mentor, that is yourself - [31] in between.

So VartanM, it's clear that the lifting of User:Andranikpasha's parole did not serve the lessening of edit warring, just the opposite, it fueled it further by increasing the number of his reverts without complete discussion and consensus across several pages. And I hope arbitrators and administrators will pay attention to such disruptive editing as well as mentorship. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith? Did you assume good faith? Was the above comment an assumption of good faith? Were you assuming good faith when for two days(Nov 20-22) your only stalked and harassed me. When was the last time you assumed good faith with me or any other Armenian user. Not a single diff exist where you assume good faith with another Armenia and lets not even mention Iranians.

Is this your defense? You didn't even bother explaining or justifying your revert. You point fingers at others and try to shift the attention away from you and blame others. Please be advised that your comment above constitutes to WP:SOAP. I am very proud of Anranikpasha, he hasn't been blocked, he discusses each and every of his edits and ignores the negative personal comments, thus avoids creating hostile environment. He knows all the rules and isn't afraid to point out the mistakes in the articles. Again I will kindly ask you to stop soapboxing about Andranikpasha's mentorship. VartanM (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Atabek’s diffs, I need to also mention a page move war in which Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) has recently been engaged and which was discussed here: [32] I also mentioned above a strange coordination of reverting activity of Andranikpasha with banned User:Verjakette and his socks. Now there’s another strange contributor, User:Hakob, who rvd Shusha pogrom (1920) (to which he never ever contributed) in support of Andranikpasha [33] and who turns up only to rv controversial articles, to which he never actually contributes, such as Paytakaran: [34] [35] [36], Movses Kaghankatvatsi: [37] and others. It is enough to take a look at his contribs. This has to stop, otherwise I see no end to edit wars. And I don’t see the mentorship of Andranikpasha yielding any positive results so far. Grandmaster (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster how is this relevant to Atabek? VartanM (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan, Atabek is not going to get blocked. You might as well not waste more of your (valuable) time here. I am also concerned about Andranikpasha's edits - there's stuff there that needs looking into. The edit-warring is a valid concern. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already established that. I was going to move along, just as I noted, if it wasn't for Atabek and Grandmaster soapboxing about Andranikpasha. Atabek presents 3 diffs of "reverts" where only one is a revert. What happened to assume good faith that Atabek was preaching minutes ago? How can an administrator tolerate such misinformation? And you were so quick to jump into the conclusion that Andranik was edit warring. I guess its easy for you to just ignore the problems and hope that they go away, I would go away if you did something to stop the disruption that Atabek is causing. This actually proves my point about the AA2 being big waste of time and arbitrators not reading the evidence presented or enforcing the sanctions they passed. I really hope that you get elected into this arbcom for the simple reason that you comment, even if its 6 days late. I'll take your advise and not waste your time anymore. VartanM (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is more evidence of User:Andranikpasha's edit warring:

At Tzitzernavank Monastery - 3 reverts within 3 days, pushing the same unsourced and absolutely non-neutral information - [38], [39], [40].

Also, User:TigranTheGreat just moved the article Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 - [41] without any comment on talk page. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Atabek's arbcom restrictions violation was conveniantly ignored by several admins and in addition turned into a discussion of Andranikpasha's edits might as well point out that it's becoming more and more clear that the edits of Grandmaster and Atabek as well as several other users are becoming more and more in unison ergo Andranikpasha's reverts on one article as so generously provided by user Grandmaster on a topic regarding user Atabek. I wonder if there is some behind the scenes coordination going on? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one revert there, and Tigran left a rather lengthy comment in the talkpage and he actually explained why he was doing it. So now its Tigrans fault that you didn't explain your revert? Whos next? MarshallBagramyan? Euprator? Fedayee? VartanM (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, I did explain my revert on the relevant talk page, this has been repeated to you a few times already by administrators responding to the thread. Please, assume good faith, and be concerned about the disruptive edit warring of the contributor whom you were mentoring as well as those you deliberately listed in your comment above. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you falsely accuse users of not commenting on the talk page, you can't ask others to assume good faith before you do so yourself. Being a generous contributor, though, I am still going to assume good faith on your part, and give you a friendly warning not to lie again on this page. False statements are violation of the ArbCom decision itself.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is about the time admins pay attention to the offensive comments Tigran leaves on talk pages. This is the recent example: [42] Referring to Azerbaijani people as "so called "Azerbaijanis" does not help building consensus and may result in baiting other contributors and further escalation of the dispute. Tigran's attempt to move the page without any consensus on talk was not helpful either. This has to stop. Grandmaster (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the fourth rv by User:Andranikpasha on Shusha pogrom (1920) within the last week, ironically marked as "compromise": [43] This user was just relieved of his parole (along with a few others), and I don't see that he changed his behavior in the least. Grandmaster (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmasters here attempts to make out-of-context accusations. The correctness of the term "Azerbaijani" is crucial to the discussion, going on on the Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 article. The discussion is on whether we should use the term Tatar or Azerbaijani. As demonstrated by several contributors, the term "Azerbaijani" has been applied to a group with little or no national identity. This is a content dispute and it's not appropriate to bring it in here.

Now, if Grandmaster finds content-based opinions offensive, then he needs to reconsider using statements such as "Nagorno-Karabakh is a non-existent state" or "Nagorno-Karabakh is an illegal entity," which he has made on the Shusha talk page and elsewhere. Such terms could be construed as offensive by Armenians. If Grandmaster can express such potentially offensive opinions on the talk page, then he is in no position to complain about "offensiveness" of relevant opinions with which he disagrees.

As for renaming the article, AndranikPasha correctly renamed the article before me, only to be reverted by Grandmaster. I don't see why Grandmaster can revert the article with no consensus and still complain that others revert as well.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I never made any offensive comments about Armenian or any other people. I’m sure no one would like to be referred as “so called”, considering that Tigran was talking about Azerbaijani people in the modern context (His exact words: The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh alone presents a very real fear to so called "Azerbaijanis" about losing their own identity). Second, independence of NK is not recognized by any state, therefore it does not exist de-jure, and any elections there are considered illegitimate until the conflict is resolved, see the article on the region. I don’t think mentioning this fact could be offensive to the Armenian people. And third, there’s an ongoing discussion on talk of the article, which so far have not resulted in consensus. Moving the page in support of Andranikpasha is not helpful at all in current situation. Grandmaster (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and "Azerbaijanis" is an artificial term refering to a group of people with underdeveloped national identity and little ethnic unity. This is supported in literature. If you see no problem in stating your opinions on Nagorno-Karabakh, I see no problem in stating the obvious about the "Azerbaijanis."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran's comment is addressed above, and here's 5th rv by Andranikpasha on Shusha pogrom (1920): [44] I see that the arbcom failed to address the problems with disruptive edit warriors, giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want as long as they don't make incivil comments. Grandmaster (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Parishan has been reverting quite frequently on that article as well ([45], [46], [47]). Unfortunately, he is still not placed under supervised editing. If he can do that, I don't see why can't AndranikPasha, especially that Andranik always goes the extra mile to discuss disputes.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, what else can I do at Shusha pogrom (1920) while you, Atabek and Parishan never answered to my suggestion at talk to start a discussion but all of you just reverting to a POV and undiscussed version without any explanations. I hadnt any other way than to ask for an admin mediation to know why you're putting the same dubious text directly to the article's lead. Anyway I prefer to discuss article's content not here but at the talk! Andranikpasha (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Shusha pogrom you persistently delete the info from Thomas de Waal, a critically acclaimed British author, who wrote the best book on the history of NK conflict. This is clearly a POV push, and you were explained many times that you cannot do that. Still you do that in defiance of wiki rules and go as far as reverting the Wikipedia admin, who tried to stop your disruption: [48] 5 reverts within a week is clearly edit warring and needs urgent admin intervention, otherwise this article will get protected the same way as the other articles on which you edit warred. Grandmaster (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the same article User:Parishan has reverted 3 times in a week. There is no rule that says 3 reverts are not disruptive while 5 is. If the page gets protected, it could very well be due to Parishan's reverts. You and Atabek have recently reverted an admin (User:Golbez) on the Shusha page--so you have engaged in disruptive editing as well. Whether Thomas de Waal's quote should be in the article or not is a content dispute and irrelevant here.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert # 6 by Andranikpasha on Shusha pogrom (1920): [49] It was admitted here that edit warring by this user is a valid concern, but sadly nothing is done so far to stop it. Keeps on removing de Waal from the article, despite it is being a reliable source. Grandmaster (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, pls stop to Wikistalking me everywhere- you're using my name here, in the section "TigranTheGreat" and in the "ArbCom" board at the same time! Pls read what is about this notice! Its not only me who reverted your unexplained editwarrings at Shusha pogrom (1920). You were asked many times to discuss your adding and deletions at talk, you never done it! Lets to not support the political propagand on massacres denial and be more tolerant to each other. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that Grandmaster reverts only to report that someone else reverted him. At this point, his latest revert seems like an attempt to bait Andranikpasha, which of course is a violation of Wiki rules.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first rv on that article in months, and I just restored my edit that was removed from the article by Andranik without any consensus on talk. Andranik made 6 rvs on this article alone after his parole was lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardian

I think User: Asgardian violated his restriction on the Vision (Marvel Comics) article (making two reverts in four days) and on the Quicksilver (comics) article. --DrBat (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The user above, however, did make several blind reverts. I have not responded with still another revert, as this will only cause an edit war. Rather, I will explain the changes on his Talk Page and the relevant character Talk page. Thank you.

Asgardian (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response In the future please provide diffs of the alleged reversions so we don't have to hunt them down. On Vision (Marvel Comics), this and this are both reversions in the broad sense of the term, since they discard the majority of changes introduced by other editors and revert to a version that is substantially identical to the previous version in the diff. I'm not finding any reversions (as distinguished from normal collaborative editing) in the Quicksilver article. Many people assume that editors on restriction are allowed to edit an article only once a week, this is not true. A reversion is distinguished from an edit by discarding most or all of the intervening contributions without making an attempt to edit collaboratively. The edits I cite on the Vision article are reversions and this is a violation. Since this is the first reported violation I will issue a warning only, but it will be logged. Thatcher131 03:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet and Starwood related articles

User:Rosencomet has been violating the terms of the Starwood Arbitration. The Starwood Arbitration had this proposed remedy: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages."

This has actually been an ongoing problem since the end of the arbitration in March 2007. The central articles affected are:

Starwood Festival
Association for Consciousness Exploration
Winterstar Symposium
Jeff Rosenbaum Autobiography concerns, see here.

Rosencomet has used the phrase "as executive director of ACE" so he has a conflict of interest in editing all three of the non-autobio articles.

Winterstar Symposium: A section is marked with a laundry list tag [50]. Rosencomet reverts without addressing the issue.[51] On the talk page, Rosencomet is combatative and aggressively argumentative in his approach to the discussion. [52] (This diff covers several consecutive edits by Rosencomet)

Starwood Festival: When asked for inline citations and integration of references into the body of the article [53], Rosencomet responds by adding a link to the Starwood website [54] and removes the citation needed tag.[55] Rosencomet's response on the talk page is again aggressively combatative [56] I'd also like to note that Rosencomet has apparently been using Google's book search to add references to the article. In other words, if a book mentions Starwood in passing, he will put it in the references section. Many of these are clearly trivial mentions and add nothing of substance to the references beyond increasing the numbers. I believe this kind of empty bloating of references should be avoided in favour of refs primarily about the subject of the article.

Jeff Rosenbaum: WP:COI issues are blatantly apparent here since, as noted above, Rosencomet is undoubtedly Mr. Rosenbaum. A look at the history will show he has extensively edited this page. Most recently is this series of edits [57]. Note, among other problems, his insertion of the Starwood website as a reference for information. On the talk page, Rosencomet refers to himself as "the subject" in an attempt to deflect the COI issues. [58]

All of this shows that, despite Arbcom admonitions, he still behaves as if WP core policies are only a matter of opinion and the normal Wikipedia rules don't apply to him. Over a year after these issues were brought to his attention in the strongest possible way and he still responds with hostility when policies are pointed out to him. (I also believe he is still creating articles that astroturf for his festivals and group but this was not specifically ruled on in the Arbcom case.)

I tried to be brief with this but have obviously failed. Because I was the person who brought the arbitration against Rosencomet, I feel my judgment and ability to enforce the arbcom decision is limited. Even bringing the issue here caused me some hesitation but I think my concerns stand independent of my involvement in the Arbcom case. Pigman☿ 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he's getting aggressive. I checked in on some of the articles that were mentioned in the Arb, and his contribs, and attempted to address some of the problems. This is some of what Rosencomet (talk · contribs) did in response: Reversions, insertions of more rosencomet.com links, insertions in his autobio of links to forum posts he's made (calling them "articles") and reverting when they are removed, screaming edit summaries, accusations of stalking and attempts to find another contributor to edit on his behalf: [59] [60] [61] Looking further back, we also see that since the Arbitration he has continued to add mentions of himself and his products (usually tapes he sells) to articles: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]. I think it is clear that, even after having it explained to him by Arbcom and numerous editors, Rosencomet does not seem to think that WP guidelines apply to him, or to the articles he works on (and he still seems to have trouble telling the difference between the two). After all this time on WP, he still responds to the efforts of other editors to apply basic standards to these articles as some sort of personal attack. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to look into Pigman (talk · contribs)'s mention of Rosencomet (talk · contribs), continuing to create "articles that astroturf for his festivals and group." On his user page, Rosencomet has recently added a list of articles he's created, and which he appears to still be editing. Looking through them I found that Matthew Abelson, Armor & Sturtevant, John Bassette, Steve Blamires, Brushwood Folklore Center, Baba Raul Canizares, Miriam Chamani, Ian Corrigan, Phyllis Curott, Jim Donovan (musician), Sally Eaton, Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison, Philip H. Farber, LaSara FireFox, Laurence Galian, Victoria Ganger, Jesse Wolf Hardin, George R. Harker, Richard Kaczynski, Lehto and Wright, List of Neo-Pagan festivals and events, Louis Martinie', Patricia Monaghan, Christopher Moore (author), M. Macha Nightmare, Owain Phyfe, Lauren Raine, Nicki Scully, Chas Smith, Patricia Telesco, Trance Mission, and Harvey Wasserman all include links to Starwood or Winterstar (the festivals Rosencomet runs), sometimes to his autobio, and usually also to rosencomet.com (which is often the only source cited in these generally unsourced articles). While ArbCom did not rule on the appropriateness of the links, those familiar with the festival, the artists, and the Neopagan milieu did, in this RfC: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles. Of the editors weighing in, the consensus was clearly that the internal and external links to Starwood, Winterstar, and other projects run by Jeff Rosenbaum were "a clear case of linkspam to a commercial site, and that the internal linkspam is as inappropriate as the external linkspam." Looking back over it, it looks like while a couple people were somewhat neutral, the only voice of clear support for Rosencomet's extensive linking to his projects belonged to the Ekajati/999/Hanuman Das/etc sock drawer, now indef-blocked by Arbcom. I think we have a definite problem here. And note, I did not go through his complete contribs, which, skimming the list, I know also includes articles with Starwood links. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was precisely the problem that got him to arbitration in the first place, I don't see how we can overlook it. Perhaps we need to go back to ArbCom and ask for a restriction, since his entire purpose for being on Wikipedia appears to be boosting his own interests. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case was really about disruption and sockpuppetry on the part of a supporter and an opponent of Rosencomet. Rosencomet's own behavior (at the time) was mostly reasonable. Of course, his editing often involves conflicts of interest, but COI editing is not prohibited; editors are warned that COI editing can lead to bad behavior and are advised to listen to the advice of more experienced wikipedians on things like notability, linkspam, and the like. The question I have is, how has Rosencomet behaved when confronted with these points (and hopefully by editors other than Kathryn and Pigman, who have past issues with him)? Does he react abusively to removal of links or deletion nominations? has he attacked other editors who have pointed out problems with his edits? If this is largely a content dispute over the notability of topics he edits that he has an interest in, it seems that the normal content processes should be followed (Third opinion, request for comment, mediation) and only approach arbitration if his behavior in defense of his edits crosses the usual boundaries (incivility, edit warring, etc). Thatcher131 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I take your point about the central issues of the arb case. However I note that, except for three very minor edits by others, Rosencomet has been the sole maintainer of the Starwood Festival article since the end of the Arbcom case. I think this is in no small part because people are adverse to enter the situation. The article has a number of obvious problems, from OR to "references" that merely mention Starwood briefly to rather blatant POV/puffery. It irks me to see obvious problems and feel I can't edit the article without being accused of attacking Rosencomet and/or Starwood. Similarly, the Jeff Rosenbaum article is almost entirely maintained by Rosencomet, the subject of the article. I believe much of the reason he has not had conflicts is because he is mostly editing in Wikipedia backwaters, where his COI editing passes without notice. If you think that the situation warrants only normal editing and talk page exchanges unless or until a dispute comes up, I'm willing to do that.

On his civility, if you look at one of the diffs Kathryn provided above, Rosencomet said Kathryn was "stalking" him. [67] Near the end he says "...nor have I EVER touched anything you have written..." which shows he still has not progressed beyond an attitude of ownership of one's contributions to Wikipedia. At the end, he says "Please AGF, and find something better to do than to stalk my work and place unconstructive tags." I may be wrong but I don't think Kathryn has been editing any of "his" articles since the arbitration until these very recent few edits. Hardly "stalking" behaviour. Still, perhaps it was premature to bring this here. Anyway, thank you for your input. It does help to gain some perspective. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am virtually the sole editor of Coal Torpedo and Thomas Edgeworth Courtenay but that does not mean I am abusive toward other people who try to edit, it means no one else cares much. The scenario that I am concerned with is that (a) you or Kathryn or some other editor has concerns about the article and edits it to address those concerns, (b) Rosencomet disputes the edits, (c) discussion on the talk page, (d) request for comment or third opinion, (e) Rosencomet edit wars to maintain his version despite consensus of multiple outside editors and/or become uncivil and abusive in defending his preferred version. If you and Kathryn seem to be the only other people interested in Starwood and Rosenbaum, try to engage Rosencomet in discussion on the talk page about your concerns and proposed changes, and use the third opinion or request for comment processes to bring in outside views, and see how it goes from there. Thatcher131 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sole editorship: precisely. Good faith editing of articles should always be welcomed. Many Wikipedians shepherd and watch articles we are personally interested in but that doesn't mean we attack or are abusive to others who attempt to improve the articles in some way. I think part of the reason I brought this issue here was I envisioned exactly the scenario you outlined above. My frustration is that these articles have all been through this exact process already leading up to the arbitration. I find it rather a pain to think it needs to be repeated since I see little change in Rosencomet's attitude toward "his" articles. It's clear (to me at least) he sees any substantive change or tags to improve certain sections or aspects of the articles as attacks rather than a desire to improve them. I also believe other editors observe how pugnaciously he responds and they back away slowly from the situation as more trouble than it's worth. As I've said in the past, these are only event and organization articles, not issues around Israel-Palestine or abortion; it shouldn't be a massive struggle simply to shape them into good articles with solid sources. Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the diffs above there do appear to be problems with reference padding, self-sourcing, and adding links to lecture taps published by his own organization, as well as a failure to assume good faith on the part of his fellow editors (although he has not really been uncivil as such things go; I've seen much worse). As the prior decision was a non-binding "caution", you will need to bring this to the committee again. I suggest beginning with a user conduct RFC, discussing the issues of reference padding, self-sourcing, and adding links to tapes that he may profit from, as the most pressing of the current issues. Let it run for a couple of weeks and try to get more outside input, then once the new members of the Arbitration committee have been installed, you can try bringing a case if the RFC has not been satisfactory. (With the elections over but the new members not appointed, and no prior RFC in place, I do not think a case would be accepted at this time.) Thatcher131 04:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen worse, too, but I don't think calling another editor a "stalker" for daring to edit "his" articles is particularly civil. As for RfCs, the issues are essentially the same (or worse) as when these two were done. I referred to the second one above (Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles) The first one, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse#Outside view) showed even stronger consensus that he is astroturfing and spamming for his projects. The outside statement in particular, endorsed by fourteen established editors, seven of whom are admins, stated: "2. All the articles in question have links to Starwood Festival and its website. Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM. The links have all been added by User:Rosencomet who is connect to the event so WP:VAIN also applies." ^{RfC outside view, point #2} I don't think it gets much clearer than that.

I'd also note that, while there is no evidence to support sockpuppetry on the part of Rosencomet himself, suddenly today after Rosencomet reverted Guy's removal of uncited lists,[68] and I reinstated Guy's edit, another Ekajati sock showed up to start reverting. [69] Rosencomet has never stopped defending the sockdrawer's actions, and I find it interesting that shortly after he started posting on talk pages calling me a stalker for editing an article in a normal manner, and suggesting Guy was "just looking for fights" and should also stay a away from the articles,[70] the sockpuppets returned. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence.

In this diff, Rosencomet states his understanding of the ArbCom decision: "This is obviously not about the data, but a problem she has with me about such issues as POV and COI, issues that were put to bed long ago (I thought) with the assurance that I was free to edit as long as I did not do so "aggressivly" or edit war".[71] So, it looks to me like he truly believes the COI issues do not apply to him as long as he doesn't violate 3RR. Or something. I have to wonder if he's ever read any of the policies we have repeatedly pointed out to him. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. The caution from the previous case is unenforceable. Thatcher131 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well. I see your point. The caution is relatively nonspecific and doesn't provide penalties. However, I admit disappointment that you're essentially saying the Arbitration was pointless in the end. Sadly, Pigman☿ 06:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find any User conduct requests for comment. The difference between an article RFC and a user RFC is that an article RFC is used to attract wider attention to a contentious issue, while a User conduct RFC is used to attract wider attention to a users' behavior. Giving several examples of problematic behavior as noted here, and asking for comments from uninvolved editors, may be able to demonstrate to Rosencomet how his editing is sometimes not acceptable; alternatively it may demonstrate to Arbcom that his conduct as a use falls outside Wikipedia norms. Thatcher131 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article RfCs all focused on Rosencomet's self-promotion toa large extent; it may be moot since he's admitted allowing others to use his account. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very specific COI violations

I filed a slightly different version of the paragraph below over on WP:COI/N here when it seemed unlikely that this discussion would bear fruit. User:MER-C suggested keeping discussion together here so I'm reposting it. Please look at the links, particularly the two showing identical pictures of Jeff Rosenbaum, who personally sells items from the Starwood Store over the phone. This is a succinct and clear statement on the COI issues. There are several new links but I apologize in advance for any redundancies to the discussion here.

Jeff Rosenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Association for Consciousness Exploration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Starwood Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WinterStar Symposium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is reasonably certain that Rosencomet (talk · contribs) is Jeff Rosenbaum (see Arbcom finding here), the Executive Director of the Association for Consciousness Exploration, LLC (ACE). Despite an Arbcom caution (here), he has extensively edited these articles (please see the histories of the articles.) I interpret these extensive revisions as "aggressive" editing as well as an autobio violation on the Jeff Rosenbaum article. Additionally, his editing and lack of posting of a COI notice on his user page mean that many more articles besides these four are affected. See this version of his userpage for a sizable (but possibly incomplete) listing. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying Mr. Rosenbaum sells the items personally. (As an aside, I found the Rosencomet Classic Thong offered on Starwood's Cafe Press store to be very attractive. And comfortable too.) As to why this hasn't been brought here before: This noticeboard (WP:COI/N) didn't exist when I first brought the Arbcom case against Rosencomet in Dec. 2006 and I was burned out in the aftermath of the relatively toothless "caution" of Rosencomet by Arbcom in March, 2007. These issues have been discussed with Rosencomet extensively over the last 16 months. Read his talk page for a sampling of efforts by a large number of Wikipedians. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (Addendum: I've just noticed Rosencomet's talk page has been archived so that is a better example of discussions with him. Pigman☿ 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ferrylodge

The applicable case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge and R2.1. The exact ruling is a little confusing, which resulted in a request for clarification. The ruling says that Ferrylodge is "restricted", but the clarification said that FL "is not under any general ban". This has caused FL to start editing at the topics mentioned in the ArbCom remedies (abortion and pregnancy). I'm still a little confused on the nature of the ArbCom ruling, but from what I gather, they basically said "FL is unblocked, and unrestricted in his editing, but if he is disruptive on two specific topics (interpreted broadly) uninvolved admins have the added ability to impose an article ban on FL, on an article by article, case by case level."

Moving on, since FL has been back, he has, to my knowledge, been warned twice about civility. Once by User:The Evil Spartan 23:28, 1 December 2007, and once by User:Cool Hand Luke 01:33, 17 December 2007. Needless to say, someone coming out of a community ban should not need to be warned about civility. Not once, and definitely not twice.

Next, FL has begun editing topics related to abortion, specifically Roe v. Wade and Abortion. I am currently in a content dispute with FL, and I am here to ask an uninvolved admin to ban him from the article, per the ArbCom ruling. I urge you to please read the talk page starting from Talk:Roe v. Wade#Context for poll results. I do not believe FL can discuss content, not editors. He has made this discussion personal multiple times. In fact, he posted a personal message to me on the page (see the "Editorializing" heading), which I kindly asked him to move to my talk page (which he refused). I was trying hard to work with FL, really hard. But it is incredibly hard to stay on topic and stick to content, when the other party is making things personal, on an uncivil level. I've reached the point where I do not feel I can discuss this further with FL, and I realized I shouldn't even be in this situation. FL has been uncivil in this talk page discussion. He has been warned twice for civility issues since he has come back. The article in question is on a topic covered by the ArbCom enforcement. So I ask an uninvolved admin to review this case and possibly ban him from Roe v. Wade.

Severa has shown similar concerns that an uninvolved admin may want to considered as well, see this. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informational: Applicable text of the remedy reads "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Question: Is the editing Ferrylodge has done on these topics "inappropriate"? I feel this needs to be shown before any block/article ban takes place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was not informed about this request by Andrew c (or about Severa's comment to which he links), I hope it won't be inappropriate to respond here briefly.

I hope that people reviewing this matter will keep in mind the following recent comment by SandyGeorgia:

"Considering how extremely helpful, patient and civil I found Ferrylodge to be on restoring Roe v. Wade to featured status, and that I couldn't decipher his POV during that FAR, I hope post-ArbCom hounding of Ferrylodge doesn't become an issue."

Andrew c is correct that we are having a disagreement at a talk page. However, the ArbCom decision involves edits to articles rather than talk pages: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." Nor does it does not involve the articles where Evil Spartan and Luke interacted with me.

I hope admins and others will feel free to visit the Roe v. Wade talk page that Andrew c mentions, ~~not to decide whether I should be banned (the ArbCom decision does not authorize banning for talk page comments), but merely~~ to see whether I was uncivil as Andrew c contends. I did not accuse him of "bias," or of "editorializing," or of trying to "jab" me, or of trying to insert "personal opinion" into the article. Those were things he said to me. All I did was deny it.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "interpreted broadly" clause might mean that talk pages are indeed included. But the fact remains that it needs to be shown that you are editing inappropriately. --Ali'i 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's possible, though that isn't how I read the decision. If the decision does include talk pages as well as articles, then I'd like some clarification on that point. In any event, I was not disruptively editing the talk page in question. Incidentally, although I don't think the article where Luke and I interacted is at all relevant here, he also commended me for my work there.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Not going to comment on Ferrylodge's recent conduct on the two articles in question, but just noting that part of the reason why Ferrylodge was brought to CSN was because of his conduct on talk pages and it seems that is what is in question here, not his actual article editing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Bobblehead. The CSN has been abolished, and the complete ban on me that the CSN imposed has been overturned. So, why is the CSN relevant here? Also, KillerChihuahua brought her complaint at the CSN for alleged edit-warring in articles, not in talk pages.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Sorry, should have been clearer and expanded my wording to include the evidence in arbcom. I mentioned CSN because that was the initial place that your conduct was brought up in a manner that requested some sort of "punishment". It should also be pointed out that the evidence that the arbcom chose to use in their Finding of Fact about you having a history of disruptive editing in pregnancy and abortion articles, but productive editing in other areas[72] includes your conduct on the talk pages.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the findings of fact nor the decision mentioned anything about talk pages.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez... I've gone ahead and sought more clarification from the arbitration committee. Drop this until we hear back? --Ali'i 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question posed by Ali'i: Yes. On the article Roe v. Wade, Ferrylodge inserted commentary on a particular opinion poll,[73] which he had previously done on several abortion-related articles beginning in January 2007.[74][75][76][77][78] The recent pursuit of a fetal illustration at Talk:Abortion,[79] while not an example of an edit made to an article itself, shows further that Ferrylodge has not let old matters drop with regard to articles on abortion. Ferrylodge added just such an image to the article Abortion in September,[80] resulting in a lot of complication, as documented here. The point is that there are a 2 million articles to edit on Wikipedia and just as many edits which could be pursued on those articles related to pregnancy and abortion. But, even after the ArbCom decision, Ferrylodge is still opting to concentrate on the same narrow range of things as before (the Harris poll on Roe and fetus pictures). It's this fact which I consider worthy of examination. -Severa (!!!) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Severa is citing only two recent diffs, and all the others are from before the ArbCom proceedings. This is the first of those two recent diffs, in which I updated poll results at the Roe v. Wade article (presumably Severa does not object to that updating), and in which I mentioned that "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision." That statement is factually correct, and is fully supported by the text of the poll question itself. Nevertheless, Andrew c objected to that factual statement, and the matter is currently under discussion at the Roe v. Wade talk page. I did not reinsert that factual statement after Andrew c removed it. Severa's second diff is here. This is what I said at the abortion talk page, that Severa finds so offensive:

"I hope that some thought will be given to including a non-shock image of a typical fetus before it is aborted, so that the image is not a shock image. Susan Faludi, in her book 'The Undeclared War Against American Women' (1991) said: 'The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother.' In contrast, the present article now features iconography of the mother but not of the fetus, and I think this situation needs some balancing."

Frankly, I do not understand how there is anything inappropriate about what I said at the abortion talk page. Am I to understand that it is forbidden for me to even mention that pictures of a fetus exist?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I found anything "offensive" about the particularities of what you had said so please refrain from reading that into my comment. What I do find questionable is that you seem to have returned to abortion-related articles just to pick up on old battles instead of letting sleeping dogs lie. And, while we're on the topic, was it really necessary to give this reply to Y? Sometimes the best response is none. -Severa (!!!) 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severa, if you did not find my edits to be offensive or disruptive, then please let's discuss them elsewhere. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my request that you not present my words out of context is to do so to an even greater degree. Above, you stated, "This is what I said at the abortion talk page, that Severa finds so offensive," and then provided a quotation. I responded to clarify that I found nothing "offensive" about what you'd said specifically — I don't agree with the fetus picture suggestion, but that doesn't mean I'm offended by it. What I do object to is the apparent effort to reopen disputes over the Harris poll and fetus pictures months after they've closed. I believe that I was quite clear about the nature my objection in the post above so I am not sure from where you have inferred that I "d[o] not find [your] edits to be...disruptive." -Severa (!!!) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severa, if you found my comment to be disruptive but not offensive, then that's fine. I'm not sure I understand the distinction, but let's not quibble. All I did was mention the issue of photos to some new editors at the abortion article who have never even thought about it before. I didn't argue back and forth, and I didn't edit the abortion article. If you think it's disruptive for me to not let sleeping dogs lie, do you also think it might possibly be disruptive for you to not relent in your criticism of me?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification has been provided that article talk pages are covered by the ArbCom decision in my case, although I may be given "more freedom on talk pages." In any event, as explained above, I was not being disruptive at the talk page in question.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has now become clear that Ferrylodge is editing the Roe v. Wade article in an attitude that is having a derogatory and negative effect on the article, and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. In my capacity as a neutral, uninvolved administrator, and in accordance with the remedy outlined here, I instigate a ban on Ferrylodge from that article for disruptive editing: he simply is harming this article. Anthøny 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, your notice says:

"The user specified is on probation and has edited this article inappropriately. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. This ban must be registered on the administrators noticeboard. If you disagree with this ban, please discuss it with the administrator who imposed it or on the noticeboard. At the end of the ban, anyone may remove this notice."

May I ask what article edit I made that you deem inappropriate? Was it an article edit or a talk page edit? This information would certainly help me to improve. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main motivation was the entire atmosphere around your editing, over both a recent and long period of time. Despite an Arbitration Committee ruling against you, you seem to have proceeded in pretty much the same manner. This edit was in some ways the final straw: you are editing in a negative manner, and I cannot stand by and allow it to happen any more. Ferrylodge, please edit constructively: further patience is unlikely to be sent your way, if this poor standard of editing continues. Anthøny 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

Revision as of 22:01, 20 December 2007 edit Anythingyouwant (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors 90,364 edits m →‎Ferrylodge: unindent ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:27, 20 December 2007 edit undo Arcticocean (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users 45,817 edits →‎Ferrylodge: reply Next edit →
Line 427:		Line 427:

	May I ask what article edit I made that you deem inappropriate? Was it an article edit or a talk page edit? This information would certainly help me to improve. Thanks.[[User:Ferrylodge\|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge\|talk]]) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)		May I ask what article edit I made that you deem inappropriate? Was it an article edit or a talk page edit? This information would certainly help me to improve. Thanks.[[User:Ferrylodge\|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge\|talk]]) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
			::My main motivation was the entire atmosphere around your editing, over both a recent and long period of time. Despite an Arbitration Committee ruling against you, you seem to have proceeded in pretty much the same manner. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roe_v._Wade&diff=177853299&oldid=177700317 This] edit was in some ways the final straw: you are editing in a negative manner, and I cannot stand by and allow it to happen any more. Ferrylodge, please edit constructively: further patience is unlikely to be sent your way, if this poor standard of editing continues. [[User:AGK\|<font color="#2A8B31">'''Anthøny'''</font>]] 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)