:'''Reply''' I think Marshall's behavior is within acceptable limits at [[Khachkar_destruction_in_Nakhichevan]], however I question why there are two articles [[Khachkar_destruction_in_Nakhichevan]] and [[Khachkar_destruction]] which deal with exactly the same cemetery. If the various editors here can't work on one version together I will be happy to ban all of you for a month and turn the article over to someone else to integrate the two. If the point is that there was mass destruction of khachkars at a particular cemetery allegedly with the collusion of the Azerbaijan government '''and also''' allegations that Armenians are also destroying khachkars for economic purposes, these two things can both be accomodated in one article and having two just so you don't bump into each other is pointless. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Reply''' I think Marshall's behavior is within acceptable limits at [[Khachkar_destruction_in_Nakhichevan]], however I question why there are two articles [[Khachkar_destruction_in_Nakhichevan]] and [[Khachkar_destruction]] which deal with exactly the same cemetery. If the various editors here can't work on one version together I will be happy to ban all of you for a month and turn the article over to someone else to integrate the two. If the point is that there was mass destruction of khachkars at a particular cemetery allegedly with the collusion of the Azerbaijan government '''and also''' allegations that Armenians are also destroying khachkars for economic purposes, these two things can both be accomodated in one article and having two just so you don't bump into each other is pointless. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:: There are two similar articles because Marshall created [[Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan]] as a POV fork to the existing article [[Khachkar destruction]]. The article Khachkar destruction was nominated for deletion twice, and both time the result of RfCs was to keep. See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khachkar_destruction] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khachkar_destruction_%28second_nomination%29] After that Marshall created [[Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan]] to avoid mentioning any destruction in Armenia. The admins warned not to move or delete or renominate the article until June. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khachkar_destruction#This_article] So the opinions of other admins and results of 2 RfCs should be honored, and POV forks removed. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
== Ganja ==
== Ganja ==
Revision as of 04:29, 24 April 2007
Balance is the key to all things. For the foreseeable future I will be cutting back on my participation, although not taking a true Wikibreak. If you need assistance you really should try the appropriate noticeboard as I am likely to be slow to respond and choosy about how I invest my time. Thank you for your understanding.
I would like to draw your attention to user:MarshallBagramyan. He is engaged in massive rv's on Azerbaijan-Armenia related page. On page Armenian Revolutionary Federation he removed text with 5 refrences without any discussion and moreover threatened to report me to Arbcom [1]. I was already once insulted on that page by other users which was a part of Arbcom consideration.--Dacy6914:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a break Dacy, you're fooling no one. What is the purpose of wording an article (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) like this "Armenian pro-Bolshevik scholar Papazian noted in this regard that many Armenians get tired of the ARF who terrorized their own people, extorting money from wealthy Armenians or this Dashkov noted that ARF bore a major portion of responsibilities for perpatrating the massacres. Their bands would attack the Muslim and often exterminate the population of entire villages. Exterminate villages? as in genocide? as in cleansing people from their homes all organized by one fringe political party? Talk about falsification of history....
These are purely POV edits supported by obscure sources and complaining to the admins is only hurting your case.
Thatch, this is precisely what I was telling you about: Dacy deliberately words the article in this manner and naturally, an Armenian user must come revert him. I threatened to report him because its edits like this that continually hinder any attempts for reconciliation. He always has something negative he has to add. --MarshallBagramyan16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I almost word by word quoted sources - so it is not my POV. Moreover, it is not obscure sources - it is primary sources. Besides you have removed others and failed to make explanation on talkpage. I gave an offer for content dispute, and wait for responses on talkpage. But you again use inappropriate language.--Dacy6919:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marshal is not part of the case, and I really don't know enough about the situation to judge content (and that is not a proper admin role anyway). You will have to try the dispute resolution process, perhaps a request for comment or third opinion] to start. I see a lot of talking on the talk page but not much evidence that either side is listening. If he behavior persists and you can get some support for your attempted edits you can try and bring a new case. Thatcher13102:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I filed RfC per your advise. Unfortunately, --MarshallBagramyan continue to make personal attack on contrubutor - you can read the end of this message [2], rather on concentrating on dispute content. I will continue developing arguments for RfC but I don't expect that opponents will be willing to work towards solution, taking into account continued attacks.--Dacy6914:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it was a serious mistake that arbcom did not place Marshall on a revert parole as well. He takes advantage of other people being on parole and blindly reverts their contributions. You are familiar with his behavior on Armenian Revolutionary Federation article, but today he made 3 rvs to undo my edits to Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan article, which in my opinion constitutes enough ground for block for edit warring. [5][6][7] As usual, Marshall ignores sources that do not correspond with his vision of the facts, and keeps article to certain version. He even reverted tags that I attached to demonstrate that the factual accuracy of the article is disputed. I don’t think that this is an appropriate behavior, considering the latest arbcom decision, which found edit warring on Azerbaijan – Armenian related articles unacceptable and disruptive for Wikipedia. Grandmaster16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Thatch, I am honestly exasperated of seeing these reports. None of the users who have problems with me exhaust the talk page and after one slight disagreement, where there is no serious attempt to remedy the situation, it's off to admins. to complain about my "problematic behavior". What I could see is that my revert was fully justified from the previous discussions at the Nakhichevan page. I have collected the sources which were cited in the Nakhichevan talk page which include but are not limited to:
An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James S. Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas C. J. Pappas
The Armenians and the East India Company in Persia in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries by R. W. Ferrier, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973)
Shah 'Abbas and the Royal Silk Trade 1599-1629 by Linda K. Steinmann, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1987)
The Shah's Silk for Europe's Silver: The Eurasian Trade of the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (1530-1750) by Ina Baghdiantz McCabe
A Seventeenth-Century Typological Cycle of Paintings in the Armenian cathedal at Julfa by T. S. R. Boase, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 13, No. ¾, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (D.M. Lang review), Vol. 32, No. 3 (1969)
The Status of Religious Minorities in Safavid Iran 1617-61, Vera B. Moreen, Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 40, No. 2 (April 1981)
Alexander the First, a Reappraisal A Reappraisal Second by Ludmila Evreinov and Democracy and Nationalism in Armenia, Peter Rutland, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 5 (1994)
The Alteration of Place Names and the Construction of National Identity in Soviet Armenia, Cahiers du monde russe, 44/1, by Arseny Saparov [8], Georgia and the Fall of the Safavī Dynasty, D. M. Lang, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 14, No. 3, Studies Presented to Vladimir Minorsky by His Colleagues and Friends (1952)
Those sources supported what was is said about the Armenians in Nakhichevan in the 1600 period. For some reason, they are insufficent for Grandmaster.
My second revert was here: [9] Grandmaster added the word “allegedly” in regards to the Armenian monuments and removed the word “alleged” for the destruction of Azerbaijani monuments claiming that it was part of the original quote. But alas, there are no quotation marks since it is in my own wording and no actual support of the statement by the statesmen in the respective article Is this a good faith edit?
The article which I wrote presents the destruction of the Khachkars as a position not as a fact, and Grandmaster removed the term “alleged” for the claims of destruction of Azerbaijani monuments, preferring to present it as truth in the Khachkar article which doesn’t even present the destruction of Khachkars as truth. Grandmaster also removed other pieces of info without discussion [10] and yet he criticized for my revert of Dacy69's edit, for something which was already discussed in the past while here, he removes something without even going to the talk page.
The removal of the template questioning the article is justified; GM's reason for adding it has more to do with the fact that he opposes the fact that those Khachkars were destroyed, which is an inadequate reason to have it there.--MarshallBagramyan22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I think Marshall's behavior is within acceptable limits at Khachkar_destruction_in_Nakhichevan, however I question why there are two articles Khachkar_destruction_in_Nakhichevan and Khachkar_destruction which deal with exactly the same cemetery. If the various editors here can't work on one version together I will be happy to ban all of you for a month and turn the article over to someone else to integrate the two. If the point is that there was mass destruction of khachkars at a particular cemetery allegedly with the collusion of the Azerbaijan government and also allegations that Armenians are also destroying khachkars for economic purposes, these two things can both be accomodated in one article and having two just so you don't bump into each other is pointless. Thatcher13101:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two similar articles because Marshall created Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan as a POV fork to the existing article Khachkar destruction. The article Khachkar destruction was nominated for deletion twice, and both time the result of RfCs was to keep. See: [11][12] After that Marshall created Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan to avoid mentioning any destruction in Armenia. The admins warned not to move or delete or renominate the article until June. [13] So the opinions of other admins and results of 2 RfCs should be honored, and POV forks removed. Grandmaster04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ganja
Hi. I would like to ask your advice. User:Vartanm restored edits of banned sock accounts to Ganja. It is against the rules, as banned users are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. Vartanm did not respond to my request for anyone wishing to readd the section created by socks to quote the sources cited in that paragraph on talk, so that we could verify the accuracy of the claims. I checked one of the sources available online, and it does not say what is attributed to it. I think the issues like this require admin control, as this user’s recent contribs are nothing but baiting other users to edit warring. Grandmaster06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another rv by Vartanm (talk·contribs): [14] on the same article. Again, he restored the edits of socks of a banned user, who is not entitled to edit wiki articles, and refuses to provide quotes from the sources he restores to the article, despite my repeated requests at talk and his personal talk page. The section that he keeps on restoring to the article was created by sock of a banned user: [15] I would appreciate if you could review the situation, because I don’t think that edit warring and ignoring the talk page is acceptable bahavior. Thanks. Grandmaster11:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Annotation on RFAR
I think it's better to annotate for context than to rely on the statements remaining in the same order in future. People jump in and add comments, and context is easily lost. The simplest solution is usually the best. --Tony Sidaway00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was quick! As for my "casting a wide net", please note my attempt here, before posting any evidence, to find out just how wide a scope the arbcom was looking for. I took Mackensen's response as encouragement to post exactly the kind of evidence I then did post. Admittedly Mackensen was a bit vague. Bishonen | talk14:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No worries. I would just like Ideogram not to overreact to your evidence section unless is looks like the arbitrators are taking it under consideration. Thatcher13114:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Thatch, I'm fed up by User:Dacy69's bait, provoke, insult and switch methods. He continuously reports me and Fedayee for these ridiculous reasons [17] because he still has not grown accustomed to the Talk Page. He's always intransigent, he never accepts compromise with his "my way or the highway" ideology and continuously, just hacks away by provoking us into these shouting matches. Where does the buck stop? This is borderline harassment: he interprets everything that goes against his POV as personal attacks and then reports us, only to be turned away because they are baseless charges. You asked me to keep track of his methods and the above link just about illustrates it. I can't be looking over my shoulder every second to see if I have been reported again.
He was placed on a 1 year revert parole yet cannot help himself to agitate the other editors, attacking us because of our ethnicity and then throwing the blame on us. I've gotten sick of this already....--MarshallBagramyan23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would better support your accussations. It is you who put ethnic watershed. You asking me why I am editing ARF page, or Armenian related page. You have not engaged in discussion until I complained. You just blindly deleted edits - not only on ARF page but several others. It is enough to check your contribs.I think we can distinguish content dispute from personal attacks. Diffs I presented speak for themself. I can't work - whenever I touch articles - it is reverted frequently without any explanation. I complaining to this and other admins because there is no remedy thus far against constant attacks. You are pursuing this strategy to force me not to touch certain articles which you deem that you posses them. Go on RfC page and make your comments - not on me, on the content. You are refering to Arbcom parole. yes, I was put on parole for revert wars as well as many others like Fedayee - plus others for personal attacks, not me. Your accusation here about harassing is groundless. You just can't accept any other editor with different ethnic background to your domain. This is a real problem.--Dacy6901:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted you, what better way to support them(I have yet to see where the personal attacks you accuse us are)? I did not discuss because we had already discussed Papazian far before the arbitration started. You embellished it with other alleged sources(which were found to not support your wording) and reintroduced knowing the result. I reverted, knowing that Fedayee will revert you to then violate his 1RR parole for something (Papazian) which previously created a revert war and the protection of the article. You now have enough attention on that article and are claiming to be willing to make concessions and dropping Papazian. You should have thought of this before reintroducing the controversial source without a follow up of the previous discussion. You forced Fedayee into another pointless revert war. Am I the only one who sees the irony in your last remark? I have FA articles, which obviously would have required collective contribution between various editors regardless of their ethnic background. You on the other hand keep calling Armenian contributors as your opponents, and what I have quoted here were your words not mine. This is my last answer, I do not wish to exhort Thatcher on what to do, we are on another person talk page.--MarshallBagramyan01:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your guidance and will take a note of critisim regarding my comment. I hope after your involvement it will be easy to reach solution.--Dacy6915:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach to MedianLady case has been disrespectable, immature and utterly inappropriate. You have blocked her, because she was speking of the truth, which you could not handle it – it is a collective punishment, that she did not deserve. You have threatened Ashkani in the same manner, which demonstrates that you are a young and immature character. Thius is your duty as an Admin to go through formal and normal checks to establish that MedianLady and I are not the same people, before accusing her of any wrong doings; - instead you have blocked her based on your personal assumption and conclusion. In the meanwhile I hope you come to your senses and do the right things, i.e. go through formal channels to establish the alleged suck-puppetry, and resolve this matter in a responsible manner. ← ← ParthianShot(Talk) 08:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser has shown that MedianLady was accessing Wikipedia through open proxies. Therefore, no proof or disproof of identity is possible. What you consider "speaking truth" I consider making disruptive racist personal attacks. Thatcher13111:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you cannot prove or disprove, thus you have decided to block her? Where is the reasoning and logic in that? I though the law considers one's innocent until proven guilty! Also what disruptive racist personal attacks? Is this another assumption of yours or do you have proof? Watch out you are walking on a fine line here of accusing me as a racist - either you prove that, or you have to apology immediately. ← ← ParthianShot(Talk) 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accused MedianLady of making disruptive racist personal attacks. [19][20][21] I have changed the block reason and user page tag to indicate this. MedianLady can post {{unblock}} on her talk page to request a review by an independent admin. You are entitled to file a request for comment against me if you wish. Thatcher13115:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although you have done right thing to changed the endorsement form her user page as my suck puppet, but it does not resolve the problem yet. She was blocked not on the bases of any abuse or misbehaviour conducts, but as an alleged suck puppetry; here is you comment on here talk page: (Blocked: Indefinitely as a sockpuppet of ParthianShot(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) evading a block. If you are not ParthianShot, post a comment here and I will be happy to unblock you after your (non)identity has been confirmed by a checkuser. Thatcher131 19:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)). I hold no grudge against you or anybody for that matter, and I only wish to end to this craziness and havoc that has been created by FullStop and Behnam. So please do the right thing and unblock her - let’s call it a simple misunderstanding and everybody would be happy. ← ← ParthianShot(Talk) 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also replied to her followup:
If you are not, and if you wish your account unblocked on the grounds that I made a mistake, post the {{unblock}} template on your talk page to have the block reviewed. I would rather not entertain further edits from another user whose main goal is to use a sockpuppet to turn Wikipedia into a racial or ethnic battleground, but I am willing to have that opinion reviewed by another admin.
I still believe that MedianLady is a sock puppet or alternate account of another user, created for purposes of making a disruptive allegation (perhaps to keep her main account "clean"). This is not permitted either. In any case, the next step belongs to MedianLady, to request unblocking and an independent review in her own name. Thatcher13116:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I appreciate your attempt to resolve problems at 1929 Hebron massacre with Edit warring, I fear you are missing the point. The article in its current form is unfit to be in the encyclopaedia. It's been hi-jacked by POV, it reads like propaganda - and that's because it is propaganda. Just as one example, in the lead, it says "The massacre also led to the re-organization and development of the community defense organization, the Haganah, which later became the nucleus of the Israel Defense Forces.", when many/most of the settlers were already armed for offense (eg Jabotinsky "The Iron Wall" 1923). PalestineRemembered15:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to attempt the normal dispute resolution process such as request for third opinion or request for comment or mediation. If you can build a consensus for change then you won't have to revert war to implement it. One revert per day per editor should be more than enough for reasonable people to work out their differences. If a group of editors refuse to cooperate through the disupte resolution process you can take them to arbitration. Thatcher13101:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was heavily involved in the article for a while and I dropped out of editing it because of the reasons I outlined in my note. I'm actively avoiding the article due to the behavior of those editors in the EVP article and others. I'll let you decide if that means I'm "involved" or not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
