User talk:Armatura/Archives/2022/March

DS notice: Armenia and Azerbaijan

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution initiatives

Just saw your post on various regional dispute resolution initiatives. As a curio of Wikihistory, the Sri Lanka project was actually preceded by the Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board, although it was never as detailed. CMD (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's very helpful, CMD, it's even closer to Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, with enmity between Armenians and Turks rising from middle ages, carried on through WW1 to 21st century. Will add to the proposal as an example. --Armatura (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issues on Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest

Hello, I hope that you are doing well. I recently reverted your edit in which you rephrased the section about Efendi's controversy. In short, I think that you copied the petition too directly, making it seem like it was somehow correct.

Firstly, the sentence used to say that the petition was accusing her of using "hate speech", (...), whereas in your version, the petition pointed to Efendi's "use of hate speech", (...). The prase "pointed to" here sounds like it's a fact that is out of the question, but Wikipedia cannot claim that something is "hate speech" because everyone has a different definition for what that is, and especially in this conflict it is clearly not agreed upon. That's why I prefer calling it an "accusation" (although "alleged" or simply "stated" could work too); it makes it obvious that what follows is the petition's words, not Wikipedia's. I also think that the added quotation “making a mockery of thousands of Armenians were displaced as a result of Azeri aggression” is a bit over the top; we don't need to quote the entire petition but only describe what it's about in broad lines.

Then there's the part that I personally really have a problem with: despite Azerbaijan ranking low on freedom of speech index. Not only has this absolutely nothing to do with the petition or Efendi's actions, the word "despite" directly implies that "praising the country's leadership" is a wrong thing to do. That's something that Wikipedia should never imply, regardless of how much you dislike that leadership. Although I still assume good faith, this really makes it seem to me like your edit was to "right great wrongs" or to spread how much you dislike Azerbaijan. I hope that this was not the case.

Now I am still open for a discussion about this, as I do see that the current phrasing still has some issues. (I'm thinking of maybe starting an RfC to get a wide variety of opinions.) But for now, I hope that you understand my concerns and I am interested in your response. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jochem van Hees. Thanks for opening a discussion. Do you want to transfer this to the article talk page, though, so the others can join, too? I doubt we can solve this between you and me only, and it is best to have the discussion there, so when other people come and want to make changes it could be easier for them to see what's already been discussed and agreed on. --Armatura (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think that makes sense, to make the discussion more open. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden

You suggested here that CuriousGolden may have violated the Conflict of interest policy. Please elaborate on what articles that they have edited which you understand them to have an external relationship with.
Further, you accused this user of edit warring. I searched WP:AN/EW's records and did find a report you filed against CuriousGolden where admins specifically declined to take any action.
Lastly, you claimed that CuriousGolden was "banned" previously, but I could find no such restriction logged in the Arbitration Enforcement log nor in the records of AN/I and AN. In fact, before the sockpuppetry incident, I saw CuriousGolden had a completely clean block log. The closest thing to a "ban" can be found here which was an informal, voluntary, self-imposed restriction not to edit a single article for a period of two weeks. If that was the ban you refer to, then it's a misrepresentation of the user's history at best. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @MJL, Armature, I really hate when two people I respect are kinda not that friendly with each other. So CuriousGolden is in the process of appealing their ban, I see. I'm not even gonna bother to add my thoughts in their userpage but I'll try to respond to MJL from my experience with CG...

I actually first edited in the article of Zangezur Mountains, where CuriousGolden added the "Azerbaijani translation". This was post 2020 war, and Aliev was in full swing of his: "Yerevan, Zangezur (Syunik), Gegharkunik are historical Azerbaijani lands, and we'll return to them" rant, along with his multiple irredentist claims (especially intesified after the war) [1], [2].

We eventually settled to have alphabetical order in Zangezur Mountains (and I did many mistakes which probably contributed to my ban, and which I'm not proud of) And btw, I love how other fellow Azerbaijani editors claim that I'm a "sockpuppet" in ANI, just look at the edit history in that article lol. Yeah, I was a proper sockpuppet... Btw MJL, you can find the answer to Further, you accused this user of edit warring in that edit history as well.

I'll try to answer your concerns about conflict of interests... Here are some of the many interactions I had with CG in the past which to me seemed like POV:

1) Adding names/translations other info, most obvious POV one being "Azerbaijani village" in the lead of an Armenian village, with an Azerbaijani source with pro-Azerbaijani information – Ermənistan azərbaycanlılarının tarixi coğrafiyası, Bakı, «Gənclik», 1995. That "Azerbaijani village" would continue in other articles of Armenian villages/towns. [3]

2) Same thing really, same blatant "Azerbaijani village" and historical info based on one Azerbaijani source.

3) This one doesn't even have source cited for the name, but somehow didn't stop them to add the names/translations whatever you wanna call them.

4) Same goes here with a twist: I actually noticed and later removed the one and only Azerbaijani (again) source cited for an Armenian village, and this one I checked extensively, sure thing I did: translated – "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan. Author: I. M. Bayramov. Baku, Elm publishing house, 2002": The source added to the article is by an author who has worked extensively on the Western Azerbaijan (political concept), i.e. the irredentist belief that all of Armenia is lost Turkic lands that rightfully belong to Azerbaijan, Here's his AZ wikipedia page

CG based their names/translations on that book btw. I guess they forgot about the infobox (oh god almighty what about the InFOBOX, that nearly isn't enough...) so they did a seperate bonus edit for "native name". I wonder if that author or that wonderfully titled book says "native name", hmmm... You get the idea and the pattern at this point.

I can post so many other diffs like this, but I think I had enough of wikipedia "drama" as you say these couple of days. Just don't want to see two of my favorite people potentially fighting. Bottom line is: Do I think that CuriousGolden should return or edit in AA area? It's one of the things that I'm sure of, and I would say no, I really don't. Am I gonna add any of this to their appeal discussion? Hell No, I had enough drama for probably a month. Besides, looking at the appeal, they will most likely be banned again for socking. If any of you wants, feel free to use this. And I'm so sorry for the long message MJL, Armatura, hope you read it all. Best wishes and both have a good weekend, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: I really don't want to re-litigate what happened at Talk:Zangezur Mountains. It's pretty obvious that both of you did not act your best in that dispute, and it is undeniable. However, I would not use that dispute as evidence that a user (including you) should ever be indefinitely blocked from the project. It's clear that both of you learned since then how to discuss and communicate rather than edit war, so that's where I will leave it.

As for the villages thing, I'm sorry but I don't see how those edits propagate a negative POV. I mean, don't get me wrong, it certainly shows a bia on CuriousGolden's part. I tried to look into scholarly research on the history of Vanand, Syunik just as an example, but it became clear that I was not going to find a lot of info which isn't tainted by blatanted nationalism (Azeri article vs Armenian article... even Bulgaria has something to say). There's definitely a lot to sort out, but walking away from it all it's pretty clear to me that at some point the village could have been considered Armenian, Azerbaijani, and the Armenian again (I think?). There is definitely room in that article for what the Azeris say about the village, but that's gotta come from someone making the effort in good faith. It definitely does not serve us well for nobody to be saying anything about how the village came to be abandoned (even if the answers contradict each other).
Maybe CG comes out of this and starts socking again, but I think at the very least CuriousGolden should get a WP:LASTCHANCE.

Notes

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I really don't want to re-litigate what happened at Talk:Zangezur Mountains – and I wasn't trying MJL, you asked to show an example of them edit warring and I showed you the edit-history of Zangezur Mountains. Keep in mind that I got banned because of that report (and it was the first time of me editing), while CG having far more experience than me (if I remember around 8-9K edits at that time), they still acted no better in terms of edit-warring. Also, I have no problem with that week ban of mine, quite frankly it helped in the hindsight.

As for the villages thing, I'm sorry but I don't see how those edits propagate a negative POV – Citing non-WP:RS sources and putting your bias based on them is POV. Even if you think that sometime some of the villages changed hands, you still need to provide WP:RS. 3rd example doesn't even have a source, the definition of unsourced POV. 4th example is from a literal propagandist, who refers to all of Armenia as "Western Azerbaijan". Do you not see the problem in basing names/translations on that kind of "source"? Are you gonna tell me someone with the experience of CG isn't aware of WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NPOV? I'm sorry but I didn't change my opinion MJL. There is just too much, and if you want, I can even provide more diffs. There are diffs for days actually of this kind of POV behavior, using subpar sources for controversial historical info or no sources at all / pushing your preferred names based on those sources or the absence of them /etc. In repeated bad faith instances like these, there just isn't a room for good faith. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: You weren't banned because of the report. It was only a short block. See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF.

As for the villages things, there are two main issues.
First, Azeri academic sources are quite frankly highly nationalistic by their very nature. However, for something as basic as a name of something, you'll normally find that they offer a decent perspective as to what Azeri person might call something. It's critical to remember that WP:RS do not need to be neutral, and when a source isn't WP:BIASEDSOURCES applies.
Secondly, in general, translations and contextualizations do not count as original research. If we were discussing a village in Western Europe, I don't think anyone would do more than shrug if a francophone name was added to a location in Belgium or the Rhineland. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

MJL I understand the "Imagine all the people"-style humanist approach of yours but I just would not extrapolate the situation in Europe / West (where people learnt to live in peace and where there are no strong disagreements about who this or that land belongs to) to Nagorno Karabakh and adjacent areas where thousands lost their lives just a year ago, where hostiltilites are still fresh, where the level of interethnic intolerance reaches still surpasses that of the Israel-Palestine or Kashmir conflict, where Azerbaijani president does not allow a day to pass without announcing that Azerbaijanis are going to "return to their historical lands" and including in those lands the capital of Armenia. So no, there is nobody in that area just shrugging their shoulders about names that imply historical "ownership", they take it very seriously next thing may happen is claiming legal rights on those lands. This is just one of the examples of skewed misrepresentation of the historical population of village I became aware of, and I remember the editor in question had a habit of systematically going over many villages in current Republic of Armenia and giving them "Azerbaijani flavour" by adding Azeri names, pro-Azeri population percentages etc. The editor in question did not utter a word about how this nationalistic behaviour is going to change in his wish to come back and I would very much would like to hear that, if he is to be given a last chance despite what he has already done. --Armatura (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: You weren't banned because of the report. It was only a short block. See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. – Thanks bunch, still learning.

It's critical to remember that WP:RS do not need to be neutral, and when a source isn't WP:BIASEDSOURCES applies. – Please take a closer look at the diffs and articles. It's not some controversial or split area, or one that both Arm and Az claim, it's literally Armenia proper villages. Look at the map gelolocations etc, they're not even in Karabakh. Adding "Azerbaijani village" to sovereign territory of Armenia isn't just WP:BIASEDSOURCES, it's plain and simple misinformation and extreme POV.

Secondly, in general, translations and contextualizations do not count as original research. It's not just translations, those names were added in "native name" templates, see diffs. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

MJL, ZaniGiovanni hello and thank you both for your comments. I have elaborated further on CuriousGolden's talk page, to allow others to scrutinise his previous behavior and avoid duplication of threads. Not that I like drama, but somebody who abused multiple accounts to push his POV should be scrutinized and avoiding the drama should not be a reason for ignoring the concerns raised or for trivializing them to the level of interpersonal conflict. --Armatura (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement

I should start adding I'M ONLY FIXING CITE ERRORS to my edit summaries. 89.241.33.89 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixing cite errors is generally fine, thanks. It is just in this case you were fixing something that is already controversial, and that was just a a rollback of the whole added subsection. --Armatura (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand, and appreciated this a fraught content area. Just maybe be mindful of which editor you comments are aimed at. 89.241.33.89 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and comments were definitely not aimed at you, sorry if that has been impression )) Keep up the good work! --Armatura (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Prisoner status in the lede

Are you sure about this that the status is not to be described in the lede? In Turkey it is quite common that one enters into prison if one is involved either in politics, journalism or human/women's rights.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Prisoner is not an occupation, though. He is currently in prison, and that can be mentioned. But to say he’s a businessman and a prisoner? That’s so wrong. In and outside Wikipedia. --Armatura (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I can follow your argumentation Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Paradise Chronicle I added a sentence about his imprisonment and the ongoing scandal it has caused to the lede, further refined by another user, please have a look - does that look ok? Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I copyedited a bit. Have a look as well and see if you agree.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, looks ok, although I wonder whether breaking the sentence into two parts would make it less long and more readable. --Armatura (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Armenian Romanian dialects

Hi Armatura, you're the user from Armenia I've interacted the most with, so I wanted to ask if you knew about any Armenian sources confirming the existance of a separate Armenian dialect in Romania in the past or not and whether there are enough sources to sustain the article or not. I imagine Armenian sources would be the ones that would cover such a topic the most. Thank you in advance. Super Ψ Dro 20:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi SuperDro, nice to hear from you. Thanks for your interest in Armenian language. The Diaspora Armenians (outside Armenia and Artsakh) overwhelmingly speak Western Armenian (the dialect Armenians in Ottoman Empire used), and the dialect spoken in Romania is not an exception. There may be a few people who emigrated from Armenian SSR before 1990 or Republic of Armenian since 1930, speaking Eastern Armenian, but the percentage is going to be small. I don’t think a stand-alone article about Romanian Armenian dialect would be sustainable and whatever small data is available about it can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians_of_Romania Hope this helps. Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I opened an AfD [4], you can participate there if you wish. Super Ψ Dro 13:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Melik Shahnazar II has been accepted

Melik Shahnazar II, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC Agdam

Hi. Regarding the RFC, I think it would be a good idea to split the votes from discussion, as it was done in Shusha RFCs. Otherwise every RFC turns into a total mess with endless back and forth comments between the votes. If comments section is split, then navigating the votes becomes easier. What do you think? Grandmaster 20:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Grandmaster, I don't mind, if a structure of who commented and who answered to what can be preserved. Although the primary method of avoiding a mess is not making a mess in the first place... --Armatura (talk)

Let's face it, every RFC on AA topics turns into a mess. But it is probably not a unique situation for contentious topics, which is why the smart folks at the RFC board came up with this solution. I don't know how to separate the comments from the votes now, but for the future RFCs I think it would be good for us to follow the format. Grandmaster 20:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You can reduce the mess yourself but not citing random guys from Facebook, Grandmaster, please face it, as well. I don't mind the "vote"-separate-from-discussion format, I already said this. --Armatura (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

As I explained, I did not take it from Facebook, it comes from an Armenian media outlet. I split the last section into a discussion, if you do not mind. Anyway, have a nice evening. Grandmaster 20:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I had enough of this. You don't take a random piece of dirt and present it as gold, Grandmaster. Check your sources - who do they cite, what quality do they have, where are they registered at? what other nonsense do they post, etc, etc. You don't throw random mud and expect others to clean after you. It has never been a Wikipedia policy. --Armatura (talk)