Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Edit this section for new requests

Using sockpuppets to avoid user:COFS/User:Shutterbug article topic ban?

1. User:COFS AKA User:Shutterbug, per admin User:Bishonen is "You have been pagebanned for 30 days from editing scientology-related articles and their talkpages, per the terms of Article probation". Banned by Bishonen, per Arbitration
2. From this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS page, it appears that User:Misou, among other editors, is a sockpuppet of User:COFS AKA User:Shutterbug and is editing from Church of Scientology computers.
3. Misou (talk · contribs), Misou contributions, the sockpuppet of the user that is "pagebanned" from "scientology-related articles", gets to continue to edit those selfsame articles ?

What am I missing here ? Does this seem to you like a way of using multiple user names to avoid a ban and get around Arbitration Committee decisions ? I would appreciate your advice before doing anything else.

• I wanted to check to make sure this was the right place to post this troubling issue, but ChrisO (talk · contribs) did suggest [1] that this was the right spot to see what other Arbitrators and Admins think of this. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

From the Arbitration itself -

• Sorry I didn't post this initially as well, but looking through the resolutions by the Arbitrators at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS - it looks like there is some interesting conclusive language here regarding just this issue.
• I refer specifically to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice, and to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Use_of_Church_of_Scientology-owned_IPs. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Blocked for 3 days, and general topic ban extended for 30 days from today. Thatcher131 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional user evading the block/ban

I must also point out that another sockpuppet according to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, Makoshack (talk · contribs), is instead now editing Wikipedia, which seems to be an attempt to avoid this editing topic ban per the Arbitration, as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

A lie spread after Misou pointed out that you are a sock puppet or a single-purpose account. I am not surprised about your reaction, but I might point out to responsible administrators that injustice is being done here. I am not a "sock puppet" nor am I operating any. You refused to answer on what recourse exists and one of your colleagues blocked my talk page. I will not stop. It is arbitrary, injustice and promoting a lie. Have you ever asked yourself why the checkuser was not enforced for many months? Because it is non-conclusive, because a shared IP is not evidence for anything. Review the subject, thank you. Makoshack 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.157.193 (talk)

• Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) has acted most appropriately in this matter, and I stand by all of his actions, and all of the evidence, above. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

Unblocking and modification of the probation

Both Maksoshack and Misou have asked to be unblocked, as apparently there was an earlier acceptance of a claim that they were different people, although editing from a shared IP address. The problem with editing from a shared IP address (see checkuser) is that it is impossible for us to tell if multiple accounts with similar interests are really separate people or not. When one account edits disruptively, another account could be a different person who behaves more reasonably, or it could be a calculated good cop/bad cop strategy by one person, or two people coordinating their efforts, both of which are not allowed. Likewise, if one editor is blocked or banned, it is impossible to tell whether the other accounts are being used to circumvent the block or ban, either by one person using multiple accounts (sock puppets), or through multiple people coordinating their edits (sometimes called meat-puppetry). The alternative to blocking all but one account is to apply the same remedies, blocks and bans to all the accounts, which is consistent with the ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice. If one account edits disruptively and is banned or blocked, the same ban or block will apply to all the accounts. It appears that CSI LA (talk · contribs) and Grrrilla (talk · contribs) are inactive for the time being, so this notice applies to Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs) and Makoshack (talk · contribs). All for one and one for all. If one of you is blocked or banned for any reason, that block or ban will be applied to all of you. For the time being, Shutterbug is banned from editing Scientology-related articles for 30 days from October 2, so that topic ban applies to Makoshack and Misou as well. You may make suggestions on the talk pages, and are encouraged to pursue the dispute resolution process (such as request for comment and request for third opinion) rather than getting into arguments. I will withdraw the 30-day extension of the topic ban, since you were not previously notified that bans applied to one apply to all. I hope this works out, and you should also be on notice that if there are repeated violations someone will eventually decide to stop accepting the shared account explanation. Good luck. Thatcher131 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF??

Can someone explain what a "new editor" that is using wiki syntax in his edit summaries from his "second edit" is doing over here complaining about sock puppets and checkuser? (Kettle, black - I have a pretty good idea of whom we are dealing with.) And an experienced admin is indef blocking an established editor?? This just went through a long arbitration and don't you think that if blocks were called for then they would have been specified in the final outcome? There are no sock puppets, that was never determined anywhere. What was discussed was considering as if all of them were speaking with one voice. But extending that concept to "they are sockpuppets" is a reach indeed. This needs some serious scrutiny! --Justanother 05:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, VonSavage is obviously a sock; it's so transparent I doubt he'd bother to deny it if you asked him. But is there any evidence it is being used abusively? Who do you suspect he is a sockpuppet of? Picaroon (t) 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I asked (smile). --Justanother 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really really abusive as far as I can see on casual glance. She seems to be revisiting articles that she edited in a previous incarnation and reverting them back so that is problematic as it just stirs issues that have settled out and moved on already and so it makes more work for others and she has complaints on her talk page about it. But that is not against the rules. 05:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC) --Justanother 05:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who Curt WVS is, he/she is still subject to the same article probation as other editor on Scientology topics, and distruptive editing can result in a topic ban. Make a report in a new section if you feel there is enough evidence to justify this. Thatcher131 12:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar

Behenuir (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of banned user Hkelkar, going by the set of articles edited and the nature of the edits - mostly undiscussed reverts in support of a Hindutva pov or on Timeline of antisemitism. Doldrums 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note I've requested a checkuser here for Behenuir. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, fails the duck test. Obviously a troll even if the checkuser does come back negative for some reason. Probably is Hkelkar, but IMO a lot gets pinned on him that may not be his fault. Moreschi ^Talk 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Parishan

Parishan is an involved party to both Armenia-Azerbaijan arbcom cases and has been wikipedian since July, 2004. After I rightfully added Armenian and Persian names to the Ganja article[2]. The city was part of the Persian Empire and the name itself has Persian origin. The city has had a significant Armenian history, was part of Greater Armenia Kingdom of Armenia, number of notable Armenians are from there etc... After seeing my edit Parishan added the Azeri name to every Armenian city.

• Vardenis
• Vanadzor
• Tsakhkadzor
• Abovyan
• Maralik
• Yeghegnadzor
• Spitak
• Masis
• Ijevan
• Gyumri
• Echmiadzin
• Dilijan
• Noyemberyan
• Meghri
• Kapan
• Gavar
• Berd
• Artashat
• Ararat

His phobia of Armenian language was covered in the last arbcom case[3] when he searched the word Armenian and added the Azeri just because Armenian was there. His not Assuming Good Faith, his making a [[WP:Point]|Point]] and retaliating, non of which are constructive. VartanM 08:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a long standing dispute with Armenian users, who keep on adding Armenian names to Azerbaijani towns and places and remove Azerbaijani names from Armenian places. See for example Syunik, where Azerbaijani name was completely erased, even though I added it back in 2006 [4] I think there should be some sort of a decision made as to whether Armenian names should be included to Azerbaijani places and vice versa. Otherwise this dispute has no end. I even filed an RFC back in April 2006 with regard to this issue, see: [5] Unfortunately it generated no interest. I don't think Parishan violated any rule by his edits, but there's a naming dispute that needs to be addressed. Grandmaster 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also worth mentioning that VartanM reverted all the above edits of Parishan and removed Azerbaijani names from all those articles without any discussion. Such massive reverting also requires attention. Grandmaster 11:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that VartanM added a name to one city by which it has been known throughout most of its history. So obviously that name is relevant. Parishan retaliated by violating WP:POINT and WP:AGF with an overkill, adding names with no history or relevance to a plethora of articles.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a great surprise to meet like a false claim. VartanM is shooting his heel at nomination paragraph;Ganja..has had a significant Armenian history, was part of Greater Armenia.., Selfexplanatory, Greater Armenia is a Pan-Armenian, irredentist allegation..(see article). All the cities which Parishan added Azeri names, have very deep historical relations with Azerbaican,Turkey and Turks.Parishan is not violating any rule here, but VartanM did. Grandmaster's solution is suitable to stop dispute.Regards to all.Must.^{T C} 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely false. First of all Greater Armenia is the name of a historical state that covered all those cities, it was known so in contrast to Lesser Armenia. It has nothing to do with Greater Armenia (political concept), but you know that very well since you are familiar with both topics. Second of all Parishan has no excuse to add those names wikiwide to Armenian cities in retaliation. They have no historical or etymological value, not to mention that a good chunk of them don't even exist and have been just been made up. The Armenian names on the other had existed before the Azerbaijani people, their language or alphabet existed.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any logic here. Armenia as an independent state stopped existing in the 4th century A.D., and Ganja was founded in the 5th century A.D. Therefore Ganja could not be a part of Greater Armenia, whatever meaning you put into it. As for the Azerbaijani names, they are well documented in the Russian sources, most of the above locations were given present names after 1918. The article on Vanadzor even admits existence of the name of Qarakilisa. So why is it OK to add Armenian names to Azerbaijani cities and not the other way around? Grandmaster 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Greater Armenia ceased to exist in 428 AD when it was annexed by the Sassanid Empire. That's in the fifth century and it didn't change names or populations. The fact remains that the Armenian name of the city is the exact same name of the city when it was founded: Gandzak. That alone is notable. Some cities in Armenia had contemporary Turkic names during Turkic occupation periods (mostly under Safavids), obviously the language of the occupiers was in common use. Some of them could ahve been founded under their rule. That doesn't make it Azeri but Turkic. I don't think anyone has ever objected to including historical names of cities regardless of their origin. Adding an Armenian name to Baku makes no sense even if it was once dominated by Armenians but adding an Armenian name to Ganja is absolutely required because we have early medieval and later Armenian sources that refer to it and its Armenian significance. This doesn't change the fact that Parishan clearly stepped over several boundaries here.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is again not related to Parishan's behaviour but again if and when we add relevant Turkic names to Armenian cities, they must be added only in the ARABIC or modified Persian Arabic in some cases but never in Latin.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This was already documented in the last arbitration cases. It is obvious it continued since the Arbitrators did nothing about it. Most probably when they saw the long list of evidences they didn’t even want to read it.

Grandmaster’s justification actually shows that his intention here isn’t for the better of Wikipedia. It has been explained to him and Parishan that Armenian names have etymologic value in those articles and Armenian name preceded Azerbaijani names even in the case of territories now part of the republic of Azerbaijan. Armenian names were used even in British historic documents. On the other hand Azerbaijani names are modern, the Azerbaijani alphabet is modern. Parishan adds the Azerbaijani term in those articles when those regions were never called by any Azerbaijani name… not in the past, nor now. The Azerbaijani names are either Turkic derived also shared from Ottoman Turkish OR Persian derived.

When those regions were not yet part of the Armenian republic, there was no Azerbaijani alphabet, no standardized modern Azerbaijani language. In short, what Parishan is doing and unacceptably supported by Grandmaster (and I don't know what this is if it is not POV pushing) is adding a modern word which was never used to call those regions. It is the equivalent of adding the Chinese word for that region.

This sort of retaliatory measure is unacceptable, just because Armenian words are in some article for regions part of Azerbaijan or Turkey, without understanding the context Parishan has again wiki-wide retaliated. If we read the evidences of the last Arbcom we could see the extent of Parishan’s POV pushing in this case. He had, in the past, Wiki searched Armenian words to add for each of those Azerbaijani words without understanding the context. One funny example was the article for Jerusalem, where Parishan added the Azerbaijani word because the Armenian word was there. He even justified it, when it was explained to him that the reason why the Armenian word was there was because Old Jerusalem has an Armenian Quarter, dating over a millennium ago, and that the Armenian word had a scripted value, while the Azerbaijani modern word was simply the Islamic word. I think something must be done to stop Parishan’s POV pushing.

Also, Grandmaster’s argument about Ganja is ridiculous; in the 5th century there was an Armenian nation right on that area with a written language and with its distinct name for that place. He claims that an Armenian state ceased to exist in the fourth century, when there were continuing Armenian Kingdoms such as the one reinstated in the 9th century, admitted by scholars that he himself uses to support his arguments. In the 5th century there were no Azerbaijani people or languages.

And Grandmaster still repeats why Armenian names could be there and not Azerbaijani. Well, we have been explaining this hundreds of times. Prior to the Azerbaijani republic or modern Turkey, those places were mostly called by their Armenian name; Armenian names were mostly the origin etymologically of those words. The Azerbaijani name has never been used to call places now part of Armenia. They were either Persian or Turkic, the modern Azerbaijani language has no connection. - Fedayee 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me start with commenting on Vartan's edit to Ganja. Ganja was never part of the Armenian Kingdom, regardless of its ethnic composition. It made no contribution to the development of Armenia as a state, and certainly did not change the course of Armenia's history. So why should the Armenian name be there? If you wish to go by ethnic presence, then let's add an Azeri name to Yerevan as well: not only is it in the immediate vicinity of the ethnic Azeri homeland, but Azeris at one point were outnumbering even the city's Armenian population. The Azeri community of Yerevan flourished and produced important personalities in many fields, which proves its great sociocultural role in Azeri history. So... why not? And given the fact that Azeris once populated "...almost all of Russian Armenia" (phrase taken straight out of Brockhaus and Efron), more than one article on the Armenian cities should undergo such edits.

I don't think the example with Names of Jerusalem was "funny", as Fedayee referred to it. What was funny is the fact that none of my opponents managed to convince me, why the Azeri name shouldn't be there. The claim of "historical linguistic relevance" could have worked; too bad, my opponents' double-standard attitude prevented them from being able to account for the presence of Persian, Urdu, Hindi, and Old Norse variations of "Jerusalem." In other words, if one can agree that the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, or Armenian name must be present due to their cultural influence within the city, languages such as Persian, Urdu, Hindi, and Old Norse must not, because none of them has been traditional to Jerusalem throughout the centuries. Just like Azeri. However VartanM and Eupator chose to pick on Azeri only. Which is why it seems strange to me, that they are the ones blaming others for assuming bad faith.

Now let's get onto the issue of the day. It looks like VartanM has not made as thorough research on the Armenian cities, as he has on Ganja and its history. Let's see how these cities "have never been called by Azerbaijani names", shall we?

1. Vardenis (until 1969 - Basargechar) is an urban-type community and centre of the Armenian SSR's Vardenis rayon. [6]
2. Kirovakan (Soviet name for Vanadzor - P.) (until 1935 - Karaklis; renamed after S.Kirov) is a city in the Armenian SSR. [7]
3. Tsakhkadzor (until 1947 - Darachichag), Kechanis, is a city in Armenia. [8]
4. Abovyan, Armenia Page. Other names: Elar [9]
5. Maralik, Armenia Page. Other names: Molla Gekcha, Molla Gëkcha. [10]. Also check Vardges Petrosyan's Армянские эскизы where he uses the name Molla Gekcha and mentions that it is now known as Maralik.
6. Yeghegnadzor, Armenia Page. Other names: Mikoyan, Yeghegik, Keshishkend, Yekhegnadzor, Keshishkent [11]. Keshishkend is also mentioned by Simon Yerevantsi in Jambr.
7. Spitak is a city in Armenia. In the past [it was known as] the village of Amamlu. Renamed in 1948. [12]
8. A right turn from modern S Highway leads to Masis (formerly Zangibasar, Narimanlu and Ulukhanlu villages) used to be a main transportation depot of the S. Caucasus. [13]
9. Ijevan is a city in Armenia. After being granted the status of a town in 1961, it was renamed from Karavansaray to Ijevan.[14]
10. Soon afterwards, he returned, and moved to Echmiadzin (Uch Kilisa) and stopped at two farsakhs' distance from Ashtarak (Hashtarak). [15]
11. Dilijan, Armenia Page. Other names: Tilichan, Dilizhan, Delijan, Tili, Dili Pʼokʼr, Dili P'ok'r, Dilishan, Delishan, Dilichan, Delizhan, Hin, Dili [16]
12. The town of Noyemberyan (until 1938 - Barana) is situated in a distance of 185 km from Yerevan. [17]
13. Kapan. Other names: Qafan, Katan, Kafan, Madan, Ghap'an, Ghapʼan, Zangezur, Kafi. [18]
14. The name Kyavar for Gavar is even mentioned in the name of the city's Internet portal: http://www.kyavar.com/
15. Berd, Armenia Page. Other names: <...> Tovuzkala, T'ovuz, Tʼovuz, Taua Kale. [19]
16. Artashat, Armenia Page. Other names: Kamarl, Kamarlu, Kamarlyu. [20]
17. Ararat, Armenia Page. Other names: Davalu. [21]

The argument that the names "aren't Azeri but Turkish and Persian" is comic. It's like saying, all cities in Portugal have Spanish names, given the similarity between the two languages. I do understand the urge to attribute Azeri heritage to as many surrounding cultures as possible, but even that should be done with a certain degree of adequacy. The place names in the medieval era weren't defined and administered by government committees, like they are nowadays. Villages were referred to by whatever name the local population called them. There was little or no Turkish or Persian ethnic presence in our area of interest. It was the Azeri ethnic presence that ensured the usage of most of these toponyms, and it was the Azeris that used those names in the Azeri language to refer to the respectives towns they once populated. As far as the alphabet is concerned, yes, it is a good idea to show the name in Arabic script, and I'm volunteering to do that, but the Latin script must remain, as a) It is the only literal form of Azeri nowadays; and b) It is conventional on Wikipedia, as you see with the Kurdish names in Arbil, Mosul, Sulaymaniyah, etc. Parishan 02:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This board is not for content disputes. I reported a WP:POINT violation. An administrator is yet to comment on it. VartanM 03:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the content dispute demonstrates how disruptive your own mass reverting of my edits was. Parishan 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that you yourself started that disruption. The correct response to my edit was to revert the article and start a discussion in the talkpage. VartanM 03:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

STOP IT! I have addressed Parishan’s POV pushing, including Jerusalem here. [22]

Persian and Urdu are all dating languages which have scripture values, unlike the modern Azerbaijani which was introduced in the 1930's. Parishan’s wiki-wide POV pushing has been covered in the last arbitration case, added by TigranTheGreat, and I followed there.

The fact is that if administrators check the last contributions by Parishan they will see that Parishan retaliated just after Vartan added an Armenian name which preceded Azerbaijani and was etymologically valid considering the modern name, for one single article. This was clearly against the WP:POINT. The retaliation was done on various articles and ironically closing all this by finally reverting Vartan.

THE FACT is that region wide before the Azerbaijani language even existed most of the names were etymologically Armenian. Those places were never called in Azerbaijani, they were Turkic with Arabic scripts for a while when Turkic populations invaded them. Parishan has to accept the fact that Armenian is an older language than Azerbaijani, its alphabet exists since the beginning of the fifth century and that Armenian terms on various occasions were the etymology of the modern current terms. Turkic and Persian for some places true, but not modern Azerbaijani.

Parishan is still continuing on the line of battle ground mentality by calling those with who he disagree with as his “opponents”. He doesn't seem to have learned anything from the two last arbitrations and if there was any doubt still remaining that the decision to include him in the restriction was a mistake, there should not remain any such doubts anymore. - Fedayee 03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fedayee??? Parishan was not included, even though his behavior doesn't seem to have stopped and I hope that administrators take note and at least warn him.VartanM 04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how important of a "scripted value" Hindi has to Jerusalem, with which it does not have any common cultural background. Same goes for the Persian and Urdu versions, which are simply copies of the "scripted value" of Arabic. But let's not go off topic. Parishan 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument that modern Azerbaijani language cannot be used for the Armenian places holds no water. All those places have Azerbaijani names, and the Azerbaijani language exists in a written form at least since the 13th century. Azerbaijani population left those places during the deportations of 1988, and most of those places were renamed in Soviet times, so I don't see why we cannot use Azerbaijani language to transcribe Azerbaijani names for those locations. For example Azerbaijani name of Basarkecher was changed to Armenian Vardenis in 1969. By the same token Armenian name for Ganja is not justified at all. The city was founded either by Sasanian Persians in the 5th century or (which is a more prevalent version) by Arabs in the 9th century, and the name is of Persian origin. The city never had an Armenian majority population or was part of any Armenian state. Tell me then why Armenian spelling of Ganja needs to be included? This is a very long dispute than continues for years. I think it is time to attract the attention of wiki community to this issue. Grandmaster 04:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Only after the community pays attention to Parishans disruptions. VartanM 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If he was disruptive, you were even more disruptive with massive reverting over multiple pages. Grandmaster 04:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I didn't start this. I only added one word to one article. In return Parishan disrupted 20 articles. I also did not violate any rules by reverting him. While he violated wp:Point VartanM 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. The nationalist undertones in VartanM's original report and several of the resulting responses are despicable. I know there haven't been too many blocks since the conclusion of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom case, but the mere discussion of potential ArbCom violations has become disruptive. I don't know how far it extends into the real world, but this dispute (whatever it's about) is appearing increasingly petty. -- tariqabjotu 04:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty simple I add one word to one article, Parishan adds 20 words to 20 articles then reverts my edit. The rest are just frustrated users. VartanM 04:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He made 1 rv, and you made 20. Sorry, but I don't see how he is more disruptive than you. Your claims that Ganja had anything to do with the kingdom of Armenia have no grounds. It is a well known fact that Armenia lost the territories south of Kura to Caucasian Albania in 387 A.D. The scholars date foundation of Ganja to the 5th century at the earliest, so it is still not logically possible that Ganja was part of the kingdom of Armenia. Yet you made your edit and reverted Parishan, whose edits had more basis, because most of those locations were renamed in Soviet times. Grandmaster 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You do understand that I broke no rules while he made a point by disturbing wikipedia. My reverts would have been disruptive if I reverted Ganja article as well. Like I said this whole situation would have been taken care of professionally if Parishan used the talkpage of the Ganja article instead of disturbing 20 different articles. VartanM 05:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You made no use of the talk page either, and 20 rvs is nothing but edit warring, considering that Parishan's edits were not vandalism and had factual basis. Grandmaster 05:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I made use of this noticeboard. Disturbing 20 articles in retaliation to one edit is very disruptive and might make cool headed users do things that they normally wouldn't. Those reverts wouldn't have been necessary if he used the talkpage. VartanM 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what you mean by the "factual basis"? The Encyclopedia of Brockauz and Efron marks the Armenian name of Baku as Bagavan. Noone added it as Baku as it founded was never a part of Armenian Kingdom.

And Parishan is also making personal attacks on me (a Russian-speaker) by using his own OR on Russian linguistics against a number of sourced quotations by me: "I do have tremendous respect for the ability of people to learn languages despite the difficulties they face. Yet I find it appropriate to correct your grammar in this case: in Russian, "шы" ("shy") does not exist. It is not allowed under any circumstance to use the letter ы after ш or ж. Ironically, it is a grammatical rule that students learn in a form of a nursery rhyme in grade one" , etc.[23]. Andranikpasha 12:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a personal attack. He only corrected your error in Russian translation. It is not an OR either, you can ask any native Russian speaker, and he would tell you the same. Parishan was very patient and polite while explaining you the errors you've made when translating a Russian text. And factual basis for Parishan's edits is very obvious, most of those locations in Armenian were renamed in Soviet times, so previous Azerbaijani names need to be mentioned as well. Grandmaster 13:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, it wasnt "my error". I cited many different sources, and even according to Parishan, "The violation of this rule is merely an example of low quality translation". The marked translation published... by Russian BBC [24], not me:) I dont sure if for Englishi Wiki there is something related to Russian linguistics, which is so "obvious", that no sources needed and a translation by BBC (and some other newspapers) is ... just an error. While making Russian "classes" here with such a non-correct style (I finished my "grade one classes" many years ago, my Russian grammar is not need an OR correction, and I see nothing "ironical" in this case), its better just cite few Russian linguistic sources marking the "rule" according to which the word by BBC is an error! Andranikpasha 15:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Several things. Number one, this notice lets us know that at any point any one of us can go on a POINT spree such as this in retaliation given how no admin said that this was a violation of WP:POINT. Second Parishan didn't make an addition, he made reverts since he had added these names to those articles in the past and they were all revert instantly years ago. Most importantly Parishan has no argument for those names at all. Even if he could prove that those names have a Turkic etymology, he then has to prove and cite their connection to modern Azerbaijani people. Good luck with that. Then he has to explain why we should use them given how all those cities have their original names. It is asburd to want to add a nomadic turkic tribe's name to a city like Artashat that existed since the second century BC! Is Parishan insinuating that there was a Turkic designation for the city prior to that? A Turkic name for Vagharshapat? Grandmaster claims that an Azerbaijani language existed since the 13th century. That's very interesting, but shouldn't the Azerbaijani people exist first? It's tough to prove and explain their existance today, look at the Azeri people article much less for 7 centuries back. Grandmaster, if those names were renamed in Soviet times when were they renamed to allegedly Turkic names (which have NOTHING to do with Azeris that live today in the Republic of Azerbaijan anyway)? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Who were Turkic people who in the 19th century constituted the majority of population of what is now the Republic of Armenia? Of course Azerbaijanis, whom Russians called back then Azerbaijani Tatars. Obviously all those names are historically more justified than Armenian name for Ganja, which never was an official name of the city. And yes, the first written source in Azerbaijani language dates back to 13th century, you can find that info in any encyclopedia, and of course Azerbaijani people existed back then, even if the modern ethnonym is relatively new. Not a valid argument to dismiss historical names. Grandmaster 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no such people. The Azerbaijani Tatar designation began to be applied by Russians to certain groups only in the late 19th century. We can consider them as proto-Azeris. None of those names are justified. How can a name with an unclear etymology be historically justified when it didn't even have an official status? At best you could say "Safavid occupiers" called the city this and this. Arabs used the name Dabil for the city Dvin when they occupied it but it's not the cities name and it cannot be used in any other context. Gandzak on the other hand was the name of Ganja long before the first Turkic speakers ever set foot in any region West of Urals or the Caspian. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Parishan didn't make an addition, he made reverts since he had added these names to those articles in the past - that's a lie. I have never added Azerbaijani names to Armenia-related articles other than to Lake Sevan and Sayat-Nova, which weren't blind edits either and were justified. There is no need to make connexions to Azeris: they were the sole Turkic-speakers in the given region, which can be proven by every pre-Soviet source dealing with the issue. Even if you attribute those names to the Persian rule, the Turkic language spoken in Persia is considered by scholars an earlier form of Azeri: you can see for yourself at Ismail I (he was the first Safavi shah, and one of the first known classical poets who wrote in Azeri). Finally, those names were widely in use long after the region stopped being part of Persia, all due to Azeri ethnic and linguistic influence in the region. Parishan 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no Azeris. There were Turkic speaker but they were not Azeris. The modern definition of an Azeri can in no way be applied to any person living before the late 19th century. Simple as that. Again, this has very little to do with the fact that those names are illegitimate. Turkic names that had an official status under Soviet rule could of course be added but we can't say they're of Azeri origin. Still, the main point here is your disruption via retaliation. Do you deny that you did that in retaliation?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There were Turkic speaker but they were not Azeris - another piece of OR. All pre-19th century sources refer to the Turkic-speaking inhabitants of Russian Armenia as either Azerbaijani Tatars, or Transcaucasian Tatars, both of which used to be common ways of refering to Azeris by the Russian academia. For more information check Azerbaijani people, a featured article containing enough sources to disprove your POV. It makes a lot more sense than to claim the sudden disappearance of the Turkic-speaking population and their automatic replacement by a "brand new and in no way similar ethnic group."

There is also no proof of these places not having Azeri names initially. That's another case of OR on your part. It is physically impossible of a large group of inhabitants, who originated and populated these lands for centuries, to not have founded a single village or town. Parishan 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, do you think people are blind and they'r enot goign to see how you so obviously avoided th main question here? I'll just copy paste it until you answer: Still, the main point here is your disruption via retaliation. Do you deny that you did that in retaliation? There is not a single source pre-19th century calling any Turkics Azerbaijanis, not one. Why would primitive nomads or at best pastoral people create their own towns on foreign land? Makes no sense. I'm sure there was a village or two populated primarily by Azeris, Armenia has always been very tolerant towards its ethnic minorities and guests. There are many villages today in Armenia populated only by Kurds.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And Andranik, you know perfectly well that in Russian language the words’ ends change depending on the case, therefore the text that you quoted uses only 1 spelling of the name, but in different cases. I suggest we ask a neutral native Russian speaker if you still insist that you are right. In any case this is an English encyclopedia and English spelling prevails here. Grandmaster 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I do not need language classes here, I marked sources and only answer by Parishan was a personal attack on my knowledge. I asked many times, I need sources proving "rules" you mark to see if all marked reliable materials (not me) are non-correct, nothing more. My skills are not important here, I'd like to know why the sources use different rules than Parishan and you. if you want to prove Shushy form by all of that sources are non-correct, than mark reliable linguistical sources, without OR and personal attacks on my knowledge. Andranikpasha 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't giving you language classes. The only reason I corrected your grammar is because your unawareness of a Russian grammatical rule led you to erroneous conclusions regarding the content of the article. Parishan 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also about why it is necessary to use Ganja's Armenian name: I looked just in 2 respected Russian encyclopedias:

• Great Soviet Encyclopedia in different articles mark the city as Gandzak while describing an important event "union of Georgian and Armenian armies near Gandzak" or person "Mkhitar Gosh was born in Gandzak",
• Ryzhov K., All the monarches of the world... (Рыжов К.В. Все монархи мира. Древняя Греция. Древний Рим. Византия - М.: 2002. - 576 с. (илл.)) ."Irakly with his army.... took Karin (Erzeroum), Dvin, Nakhichevan and Gandzak (Ganja)" [25].

This sources also prefer the Armenian name for the events happened before the Azerbaijan state was founded. Andranikpasha 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because a group of Armenians soldiers set foot in Ganja at one point in the past isn't enough to include the Armenian name of the city into the article. Parishan 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And because VartanM adds one word to one article doesn't give you the right to disturb 20 different articles. Talkpages are there for a reason. VartanM 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by banned user Tajik (talk · contribs), and replies to it, have been removed. Picaroon (t) 05:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

48 hour mark

All I got from administrators, was one "I don't get it" and then an insult. You might as well tell me to go away and close this thread before anymore banned users show up. VartanM 09:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson

User:Anyeverybody

Please see this edit for Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly User:Anynobody) focusing negative attention on me (User:Justanother) in violation of the "harassment ban" imposed as a condition of the COFS arbitration. Anyeverybody is turning a discussion on sourcing and verbage into an attack on me. Please see decision and related remedies and enforcement. --Justanother 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This was actually the edit, provided for easy access to the links within:

If you feel harassed, then report it to the arbcom, but you haven't been very helpful in resolving the disputes here. Almost from the start you have displayed a negative attitude and not observed WP:AGF. (This despite insisting we all do so toward you. Q:...would you please provide a better link? A:WP:AGF my friend....)
You've made irrelevant comments about points to other editors. And all but refused to commit to any position, as this response which ignored the issue at hand helps illustrate. Yet another example was provided after I asked a reasonable question to help resolve the Personality section issue, you also ignored.

The point being made is that he is not really trying resolve disputes, either by ignoring simple questions to gain a consensus or adding remarks which are unrelated to the issues at hand. Anynobody 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It continues in direct violation of the terms of the arbitration in which Anyeverybody is subject to increasing blocks for making negative comments about me is various forums. It continues in this forum right here with his trying to remake his case against me above and it continues at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard with comments such as "As to the negativity aspect, it brings me no joy to point out behavior which disrupts the discussion here." It brings him "no joy" but he violates the spirit and letter of the arbitration anyway. --Justanother 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin response II

Hi, Anynobody, I understand that it's difficult, for you and Justanother both, to completely leave each other alone on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard, since you both edit the article. This is how I understand the situation: both of you may discuss any article edits on the talkpage, including the edits of one another. But here's the thing: you don't get to comment on Justanother. Don't "make points" about him such as "the point is being made that he is not really trying resolve disputes, either by ignoring simple questions to gain a consensus or adding remarks which are unrelated to the issues at hand." Make points about specific edits only. Don't start talking about Justanother's "attitude", or anything remotely like that. This is the only warning you'll get, and you're only getting it because I'm willing to assume that you genuinely haven't grasped the difference. But I hope it's starting to get through, with the help of this example of what is not acceptable. The next time I see an edit like "If you feel harassed..." from you, it'll be block time. Here's how to avoid that: just stay a long way away from discussing Justanother and you'll be fine. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

In order to keep things simple let's discuss your answer tomy earlier question before going into this one. Anynobody 20:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nrcprm2026

Repeating my comments here from WP:ANI because I don't know which board will work faster:

3 clear sockpuppets in violation of probation/block on Nrcprm2026

User Nrcprm2026 (James Salsman) was 2-month-blocked 9/19 for sockpuppet LossIsNotMore in violation of ArbCom probation. About 9/28 his 1-year-old puppet BenB4 was blocked. Last night I testified that 1of3 was also a clear 1-year-old sockpuppet, which was used hot and heavy since 9/29. Being relatively new myself to WP policy, I'd be really encouraged to hear that this is ripe for indefinite ban. Thanks! I ask because it's really inconvenient to see a POV tag get added to the Ron Paul article every week or two over basically a single objectionable sentence (which sentence is usually immediately cut and does not appear the majority of the time the POV tag stands). This appears to me as serious article hijacking. Please also alert my talk page, thanks.

BTW, just in researching this, I happened to search on "WP:pov tag" in the main namespace and, would you believe, "Ron Paul" came up third. <rolling eyes> Just to illustrate the seriousness of this issue. John J. Bulten 14:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As previously noted, also see Acct4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Andy r2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). - Crockspot 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1of3 was indefinitely blocked 10/18 by Morven
• Acct4 was indefinitely blocked 10/3 by Tariqabjotu
• Andy r2 was indefinitely blocked 10/18 by EliminatorJR

Admins, there are more outbreaks, please keep up with WP:SSP for latest, thanks for all your help. John J. Bulten 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a section of the same title on this page back circa September 29 dealing with this same user. He has previously stated that his interpretation of WP:IAR calls for him to continue to create accounts and edit, in spite of his ban. This issue will probably be ongoing for some time. - Crockspot 17:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nikola Smolenski and Gazimestan speech

A dispute has arisen between Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and three other users, including myself, concerning a paragraph in the Gazimestan speech article that he has repeatedly sought to replace. The wording proposed by Nikola is regarded as a clear violation of NPOV by the other editors of the article, but repeated attempts to find a compromise have failed and the article has seen a slow-motion edit war between Nikola and the other editors (see history). This and other Kosovo-related articles are currently under article probation following an earlier arbitration.

I would appreciate it if uninvolved editors could drop in at Talk:Gazimestan speech#Request for comment to advise on the proper application of NPOV to this article. -- ChrisO 11:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeq - edit warring, tendentious editing, removing sourced content, reverting under Wikipedia:article probation

Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is a frequent site of edit warring, and the subject of a current ArbCom matter.

user:Zeq is subject to the terms of probation:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Zeq banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation states that "Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans."

Also, Zeq was warned as part of the same decision:

3) Zeq is cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources.

The article had seen little editing in the few days previous to this edit by Zeq. After being reverted, Zeq's reverts in a two step edit (making the revert harder to see: [26] [27]. He edit wars over a fact tag: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Tendentiously edits: [33] [34] Removes sourced material, and wars over it: [35] with a misleading edit summary

At the same time time he was reverting, Zeq did open a new section on the talk page. However,

I have yet to see any of the reverters addersing the issue raised here on talk. Please use talk instead of just trying to win by being a larger group of reverters

understandably did not lead to any sort of cooling off/discussion. The page was just fully protected.

Could an admin look this over and see if in fact this is a violation of Zeq's probation? Jd2718 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1. This is a very problematic article. The issues were raised on talk (by at least 3 editors) and there was absolutly no response (until the protection) to the issue raised. The article is now protected in the version that the reverts wanted it so they have no incentive to engage in talk.

2. Accusation that I used misleading edit summary are foundless: the article was tagged with "too many quotes" for month and I have revoved (in an NPOV fashion) quotes from both sides that were not eneclopedic making the artiocle a bit readable.

3. I have tagged some claims in the lead with a {fact} tag - but instead of providing source the reverters removed the tag.

all together, what takes place in this article is relativly minor, it is unfortunate that instead of tryong to help resolve the issues (I don't think the disagreement is so large) there is only intervention to protect it. Instead I suggest that all participants will be encourage to use talk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Concerns_with_lead_paragraphs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Policy_analysis_section_--_lead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Accuracy

Zeq 05:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again I pose the question to you that you have thus far refused to answer...how is it that you think you can swoop in and delete a section of the article without discussion, and when others reverse that you demand that they discuss that reversal first? Tarc 12:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Reverting#Do. You [Tarc] should discuss the edit rather than just jumping right into reverting it. Yahel Guhan 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's wholesale content deletion without discussion amounts to simple vandalism, and can and should be reverted until he provides justification. But this ANI report isn't about me, so unless you plan to file a separate one, try to keep focus. Tarc 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, you are the one that reverted, you are the one that should provide justification. I have explained very clearly that the article included too many quotes (it was tagged this way for 5 months) and since there was no known objection I deleted some quotes. Stop calling good faith edits "vandalism" - this is something you do ofetn and you were requated to appologize. I suggest next time when you object an edit you discuss it on talk and appologize those you call vandals. Zeq 04:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe much justification is required to restore sourced content. Tarc 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Anyeverybody - 6RR and tendentious editing under article probation

Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AKA User:Anynobody) has been reinserting a highly one-sided POV "Personality" section into the article on L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the objections of multiple editors (User:Wikipediatrix, User:Misou, myself, User:Gscshoyru). The Scientology articles are under article probation as a condition of the COFS arbitration. A look at the history shows four reverts in 24 hours and six in not much more than that, over multiple editors and against talk page advices. He has also been warned on the talk page against edit warring in an article that is under probation. I apologize that I am the one to report this but I figured that clear violation of 3RR and article probation where I am one of the "victims" of the edit-warring is an allowable exception, i.e. I am not going out of my way to be "interested" in Anynobody and, if I cannot report this sort of stuff, then I am at a disadvantage and effectively being punished. --Justanother 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, when I went to let AN know about this I see that he has a 6-hour block for 3RR violation. I will not comment further. --Justanother 13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the section under dispute: Personality. Using WP:RS already which included:

• The San Fransisco Chronicle
• The Los Angeles Times
• Time Magazine

I started a section to discuss Hubbard's personality, since it is discussed in several sources. Misou and Justanother reverted text which had valid information, which is specifically something not to do when reverting so Help:Reverting says:Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Essentially, the Scientologists are trying to prevent other editors from using reliable sources in an effort to artificially create an illusion of neutrality in the name of their confused understanding of WP:NPOV. What they are doing would be the same thing as a person removing information about Hitler which makes him look bad by arguing that all the sources are biased. They might be, but second guessing on our part seems like it would be going into original research. Justanother and Misou might not like the information, but it comes exclusively from sources. They seem to be confusing the sources with my personal opinions, despite the fact that I use <ref>s. Anynobody 02:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are leaving out the vital information that those references are in the article since about a year or even longer and used for other parts of it. You did neither locate nor put them in, you are trying to "recycle" them in a POV-pushing way and created a new chapter with the sole purpose adding a derogatory section to the article. Just as you did on the LRH/Military section some months ago. This is absolutely unnecessary. Just as your snide remarks on "Scientologists" (re-read WP:NPA for that). Shutterbug 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To address your concern about my use of the word Scientologists, it wasn't meant to be snide. Aren't you, Misou, and Justanother Scientologists? As to the rest of your post, I've tried to explain several times to you how POV actually works. User talk:Shutterbug#A quick point about POV and me, so I honestly don't feel another attempt on my part would do any good. Anynobody 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

?s about harassment, NPOV

I had actually wanted to bring this issue here sooner, but was concerned it would be interpreted as more harassment since it involved Justanother. I see this as several biased editors removing valid information they don't like because it is about about someone near and dear to them.

The way I understand Wikipedia to work is based on what we can reference. In this case most references only discuss "negative" aspects of the subject, as I understand it we should write what can be sourced regardless of whether it talks about him as a hero or crook. If we were to wait for some "positive" info from a RS before adding "negative" info from a source or sources just as reliable, many articles would find a majority of their content should be removed. (Naturally if a RS says something positive about him, I'd recommend including it. Also, positive or negative it should be assumed that the information is relevant.)

So, would it have been harassment to have brought my concerns here? and What is NPOV, am I even close? Anynobody 03:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (PS, I'm only asking so that I can abide by the ruling and policy, not because I plan on accusing anyone of harassment.) Anynobody 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I mean no disrespect to the responding admin, but my question wasn't answered. Would it have been harassment to mention what I said above? Also I'm still interested to know if my interpretation of NPOV is correct. Anynobody 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin response

Compare my response above. Don't comment on Justanother and you'll be fine. Apart from your harassment injunction, I have to remind you that you're not supposed to comment on any editors. Here's a good example right here. Why the [unprintable] can't you simply say "I see this as several editors removing valid information they don't like because it is about someone near and dear to them"? See the difference? What would you lose, by not describing the editors involved as "biased"? Nothing. You would gain something: your post would make a better and more sensible impression, the editors in question would not feel quite as attacked, you would not stoke the flames as much. I see you quoting a lot of policy on this page. Have a read of WP:NPA already: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bishonen | talk 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen I appreciate your effort to answer my questions, here is mine to yours.

Q:Why don't I say:"I see this as several editors removing valid information they don't like because it is about about someone near and dear to them"?

A:To minimize confusion, general statements like you're advocating can easily be misinterpreted by people not being referred to and ignored by those who the message does apply to.

About your point: Apart from your harassment injunction, I have to remind you that you're not supposed to comment on any editors.

Could you please provide a diff of the particular occasion you are referring to? This discussion is lacking the context in which I said an editor is biased. Without context, it almost never sounds appropriate to discuss editorial bias which could explain why you seem to think I'm pointing it out for any other reason than the truth (or my opinion of it.)

Counterpoint: Generally speaking, if everybody took your advice literally then having rules like WP:COI would be useless, since it is an editor problem how would you propose handling it without addressing the editor involved? (Same goes for NPA or NLT) The answer of course is that there are times when it is appropriate to discuss editors.

Q:What would you lose, by not describing the editors involved as "biased"? Nothing.

A:Actually it's not so much what I'd lose as what Wikipedia would and I'll put it this way; If you think editors like Justanother or Shutterbug aren't biased, I'd be happy to discuss why you think so (I could be wrong after all). However the idea of simply "not" discussing such issues whether accurate or not is at best an incomplete solution.

Please also consider that it requires a big assumption of good faith on my part to discuss this issue with you since you have said you do not assume good faith on my part. Anynobody 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"If you think editors like Justanother or Shutterbug aren't biased . . ." AN, why are mentioning my name in a negative context? --Justanother 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is an honest question on your part, or an attempt at baiting so if someone uninvolved wants to know the answer I'll gladly explain. To you all I can say is that you're the only one interpreting a bias for your religion as "negative context". Anynobody 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)