User talk:Jaqeli

This is Jaqeli's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives:

Your response may be helpful at WP:AE#Jaqeli

Your recent edits are being discussed. It might be helpful if you would respond there and express your willingness to negotiate with other editors. One of the points being made is that you discuss poorly, if at all. Your constant removal of posts by others from your talk page has been mentioned in previous comments. If you work in a controversial area, some patience is expected. Being able to respond calmly, without losing your temper, is a good thing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement does not address the concerns which have been raised but instead casts aspersions on other editors. It has also reinforced the evidence presented so far that you don't work collaboratively which is vital on Wikipedia. Please revisit your statement so that it addresses your own conduct, and includes some things which you intend to do differently. At the moment a topic ban has been proposed and your lack of comment on your own conduct is supporting the suggestion that a topic ban may be needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement sanction: Topic ban

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned, as described in WP:TBAN, from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia, such as for example the history of the Georgian alphabet.

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in this Arbitration Enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Standard discretionary sanctions and the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 11:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, your decision is totally unacceptable. You are killing my motivation for contribution for Wikipedia without knowing more closely the situation. And what does "everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" mean? What does Armenia has to do with it? I have zero interest in Armenia or Armenian related articles. I am improving the Georgian related articles and all I do is to contribute, improve them. Check the history of the Georgian alphabet, all I did was I reverted it to the balanced and neutral version as it was back then before it was changed into biased version. I've done nothing wrong to have this kind of sanction from any administrator. Jaqeli (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I've copied the above comment of 12:00, 5 January 2014 from my talk page and am replying to it here.) I've explained the grounds for this sanction in the AE thread linked to above. By impugning fellow editors from Armenia as a group with statements like "the Armenian wikipedians as they are trying 24/7 to push their nationalistic agenda", "typical nationalistic pushing from our neighbours" and "the Armenian users with their nationalistic needs" , in violation of several conduct policies, you demonstrate that you are not able or willing to collaborate productively with others who do not share your view on articles related to Georgia and Armenia. Hence the ban. Sandstein 12:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when the word "nationalistic" became the offensive and insulting word? I am improving the Georgian related articles only. I have no interest with Armenian articles at all. Jaqeli (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein's "decision" was based on the community discussion, which in part was based on your own comments - horrendous comments, to say the least. Nobody is trying to "kill your motivation" for editing Wikipedia - we're trying to "kill your motivation" for acting in an anti-community manner, and making horribly anti-community comments. Your statements say it all ES &L 13:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are sanctioning me from all the Georgian articles and that is killing my motivation to improve and contribute to those articles I want to. If I cannot take part in the Georgian related articles than that means I can no longer be on Wikipedia and how can that be justified from your decision? Jaqeli (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're only permitted to edit Wikipedia if you're willing to respect all members of its community - you refused to do so. As an interim step (before an indefinite block) you're being permitted to edit outside of areas where you're likely to insult others, and edit contrary to policy. If you can show you've grown up enough to edit peacefully, you can appeal the topic ban in the future. You personally are the author of this topic ban by your behaviour and until you recognize that, you're a bit beyond hope. Maybe it comes from the ~~stupidity~~ foreign concept (at least to me) of always seeing your neighbours as the enemy - but there's no place to transplant that belief system onto an international, community-focused project ES &L 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just called me stupid? Jaqeli (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. However, as more than one person on this page is not a native English speaker and appear to have missed the grammatical nuance, I have amended it to ensure that nobody erroneously thinks I would do such a thing - and I apologize if it read that way to you and others ES &L 15:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what EatsShootsAndLeaves said except for the "stupidity" part. EatsShootsAndLeaves, please retract that, it was uncalled for. Jaqeli, to clarify, you are not banned from all Georgia-related articles. You are only banned from all content that is related to both Georgia and Armenia, such as the topic of what role Armenians had in creating the Georgian alphabet. Sandstein 14:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think it meant something slightly different than you thought Sandstein, I have amended it ES &L 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AE sanction whatever misses the big picture. Do peruse the talk page of Georgian alphabet. There's about -- what -- five or six people there, arguing, each trying to push their own POV -- and with such vigour. Amazing, really. I say we block the whole lot of them; they're quite obviously WP:NOTHERE. — Lfdder (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I am asking you to cancel your decision as it seriously lacks legitimacy and cannot be justified by any means. It is totally unacceptable because you do not have a strong reason to do so and what you're just doing is that you're topic-ban me for using the word "nationalistic" which is not an insulting or offensive word by any means. It just describes the situation what is going on or was happening for years in the Georgian alphabet article. And such behavior is characterized as "nationalistic pushing" etc and such definition is a well-established word for describing the situation of edits being made. Nationalistic pushing also happens from the Georgian users who mostly without being registered on wikipedia edit-war and vandalise the article of origins section and I am also against that as well. What I did was that I reverted the edit back to a balanced and neutral version and nothing more. I am contributed oriented user here and it is unacceptable to treat me like a second-class user just because I have a terrible history of editing in the past back in 2011. But it does not mean that you should treat me same way because I don't do these kind of things as I've said to admin Elockid who I respect much for giving me that chance. Yes I edit-warred in the past, yes I made many mistakes but currently what you are doing is just basically killing my motivation to edit articles concerning Georgian-Armeno articles because of a word "nationalistic" and how can that be justified? It is indeed not deserved, as I've done nothing so serious mistake to deserve such sanction. Nor do I have any negative thoughts about Armenia or Armenians I just stated my mind concerning the current situation which is what it is. And by sanctioning me with this topic ban I cannot contribute and take part in any of these matters which is a motivation-killer as there are many articles of Georgian-Armeno historical, geographic etc. articles which I will take part or edit it. Again only the balanced and neutral attitude is made from my side. I understand all these kind of things and such sanction should be cancelled as no strong reason is seen here. If I've did anything serious I wouldn't have a problem to recognize it but now it indeed has no basis for that because banning a user just one word is totally wrong. Jaqeli (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "it lacks legitimacy"? I was decided by the community during a community discussion - on Wikipedia, that's the strongest form of legitimacy possible. ES &L 12:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, EatsShootsAndLeaves, the sanction is not based on community consensus but was my own decision. Nonetheless, I decline the appeal. The problem with your statement, Jaqeli, lies not in the word "nationalistic" as such, but in the fact that you did not address your own conduct but rather framed the dispute as a conflict between the entirety of Armenian Wikipedians, who you believe are driven by nationalism rather than a desire to improve the encyclopedia, and you, who are not. We call this treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and it is forbidden. This approach is not suited to an international collaborative project. You must assume good faith in every fellow editor and, in the case of disagreements, discuss the disagreement with a focus on the content and the sources rather than on the identity (such as, e.g., the nationality) of the other editor; see WP:NPA. Your ban is not based on your past behavior, but only your present behavior. If you wish to appeal this sanction further, please follow the instructions above. Sandstein 14:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of sanction? Jaqeli (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite. That is, it may be lifted if I am convinced that it is no longer needed. That'll take a few months of noticeably cooperative editing by you in other contentious topic areas. Sandstein 17:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would you check my performance? Jaqeli (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to the appropriate noticeboard to request loosening of the restrictions, you'll provide proof of extensive editing outside of the topic area and proof that there have been no issues ES &L 17:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate, Jaqeli. I've found it frustrating trying to get you to justify your edits, but a topic ban seems too severe. — kwami (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't evade your topic ban

Hi. I am concerned here because, right after you were topic-banned from editing on any issue involving a combination of both Armenia and Georgia, there were two suspicious edits (here and here) made to the Georgian alphabet article from IP addresses belonging to an ISP in Georgia. If, by any chance, these edits were made by you, then you have already violated your topic ban (and, even worse, you have committed sockpuppetry in an attempt to evade your ban). I would advise you, in the strongest possible terms, to stop doing this immediately and hope people do not decide to turn your topic ban into a full-on site ban. I know you have often taken discussions to my own personal talk page, but in this case I must insist that you keep any followup discussion on this issue here, on your own talk page (or on an incident / enforcement page if the matter ends up getting escalated). If these two logged-out edits were in fact made by some other user (or users), and not by you, I apologize for suggesting it might have been you, but you need to understand that you have placed yourself in a very precarious position here through your recent behaviour (compounded by your past history of sockpuppetry — something which I truly hope you have abandoned, but you must realize that people will be very quick to dredge up your past misdeeds if it looks like you're returning to old habits). — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. We're now celebrating Christmas in Georgia and wanted to wish you all the best again. Socks and such things are over long ago and I can assure you that those IP's are not mine. I was editing today many other articles, I am still watching these articles myself and I'll be informing the admins including you if the balanced and neutral version will be reverted by any user whoever it may be. Don't worry such silly things I used to do in the past are over but current sanction by admin Sandstain is totally unfair. He refused my request unfortunately and see no point going to the arbitration again at this time. Jaqeli (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

გილოცავთ ახალ წელს და შობას! Please keep in mind that your topic ban covers everything (not just the editing of articles) pertaining to any issue involving both Armenia and Georgia together. This includes talk page discussions, and (per my understanding) it would also cover off-wiki e-mail if the e-mail is a request for someone else to do things on-wiki that you are not allowed to do (i.e., meatpuppetry). So, please don't tell me (or any other admin) if you see problems in any article relating to an Armenian/Georgian connection or dispute. Trust other editors to notice problems like this and deal with them. Your best course of action is to honestly and conscientiously respect your topic ban — there is still plenty of constructive work for you to do here, and you can still contribute to Georgia-related articles as long as you steer clear of any connection to Armenia. In my opinion, you could even help with the Georgian alphabet article as long as you stay far away from the origin section or any other mention of Armenia, Armenians in general, or any specific individual Armenians. If there is any uncertainty, however, I would advise you to play it safe — don't imagine you're driving on a winding mountain road and wonder how close to the edge you can get without falling off — instead, be a very careful driver and concentrate on staying as far away from the edge as you can. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, he can't even tell you that he has concerns with one of the articles? That's utterly ridiculous. I could see it if he became a pest, and you asked him to stop bothering you, but not if he simply had concerns about new edits to an article. People are allowed to do far worse things on WP than Jaqeli without being banned, and usually bans exclude article and user talk pages. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@kwami: The language of WP:TBAN covers all pages of Wikipedia, including article and user talk pages. WP:BAN also frowns on WP:PROXYING edits on behalf of a user who is banned from a topic. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that a topic ban was too harsh sanction for him, especially given the fact that the behavior of Jaqeli's teamed-up opponents had been far from being a model one. There is another important issue. There can be many Georgia-related articles but only marginally related to Armenia. Is Jaqeli allowed to edit such entries? How can one define the limits of his involvement? --Kober^Talk 05:45, 7 January 2014 (

Warning: topic ban evasion by Jaqeli

Please kindly note Jaqeli that you have recently violated your AA2 topic ban by editing [1] - a controversial article on Armenia at Mithridates of Armenia. Hablabar (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rrrriiiiiight. — Lfdder (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaqeli, please provide reasons why you should not be sanctioned for violating your topic ban with this edit. The article you edited is covered by the topic ban, as it relates to both Armenia and Georgia. Sandstein 23:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is he allowed to request a move? --Երևանցի ^talk 23:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, and the article Caucasian Iberia too is covered by the topic ban because it relates to both Armenia and Georgia. Jaqeli, please address this as well. Sandstein 23:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should not allow the topic ban to become a tool in the hands of certain users to simply evict their opponents from Wikipedia. I don't see any real controversy surrounding Mithridates of Armenia and what Jaqeli did was just addition of a benign category. Regarding Caucasian Iberia, by that logic, any article related to Georgia is also related to Armenia. If anything, the two countries have been neighbors for millennia and share much in history. I have already addressed this issue earlier, but my comment was ignored by you all. You should more specifically define the limits of his involvement in the Georgia-related area. --Kober^Talk 05:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious and clear, regardless of the facetious comment below by kwami, who I usually respect. If the article clearly delineates that it is related to both Georgia and Armenia - this may be in the text, through categories, or just obvious from the get-go, then he cannot touch it. Why skirt the topic ban by trying to play around the edges? There's millions of articles where he can prove himself worthy of being re-allowed to edit Georgia-Armenia articles - why screw things up? ES &L 09:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is all a quite ridiculous. I'm hardly a fan of Jaqeli, but how is he supposed to what the ban covers? Is he allowed to edit Sun, which shines on both countries? — kwami (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous already. I automatically added the category to Mithridates article but what does Iberia has to do with a topic ban? Maybe I cannot even edit an article on my home country? There is a neighbor called Armenia mentioned in it as well. Jaqeli (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I see in this comment by Jeqeli is defiance and the lack of comprehension of why he is under sanctions. Hablabar (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian Iberia relates to both Armenia and Georgia because the area of Caucasian Iberia covers part of the areas of Armenia and Georgia, and accordingly the article text mentions both modern countries, e.g. "Its population, known as the Caucasian Iberians, formed the nucleus of the Georgian people (Kartvelians)" and "One theory on the etymology of the name Iberia, proposed by Giorgi Melikishvili, was that it was derived from the contemporary Armenian designation for Georgia". Jaqeli, you are free to disagree with a topic ban, but you must either obey or appeal it; you may not simply ignore it. For your noncompliance, and because your statement indicates that you intend not to comply with the sanction in the future, you are blocked for a week. The next block may be considerably longer. Sandstein 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban as discussed above,

you have been blocked from editing for 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Sandstein 17:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.