User talk:Papa Carlo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Papa Carlo/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Khoikhoi 08:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Results

Hi, the IP test results have come out (Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#User:Pirveli, User:Irakliy81, and User:Papa Carlo) and it appears there is no sockpuppetry. I apologise for my suspicions. --Latinus 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Parts of this conversation (replies of PaC) were later copied from Khoikhoi/Archive_5#Ethnic_Groups' rights for completeness. These replies were italicized for clarity. (PaC 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC))

Sorry for getting off topic, I guess I got a little carried away there. I'll also try to be more neutral and hope we can reach a compromise soon. --Khoikhoi 05:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] Hi Khoikhoi. After some thought I decided that I can not leave your question unanswered: "Honestly, why do you not want Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be independent? Shouldn't all ethnic groups have the right to rule themselves?". It is hard for me to see how someone can honestly find this argument valid when applied to territorial disputes. How do you resolve the problem when there are more then one "ethnic group" sharing the same territory? Which group should get "the right to rule themselves"? In case of Abkhazia, i believe, there were twice as many Georgians as Abkhazians living there. Why do you give the Abkhazians the rights to govern themselves and deny the same rights to Georgians. I believe there are many more ethnic Chinese leaving in New York City then Abkhazians in Abkhazia. Are you saying that they should get independence if they choose to do so? Or if ethnic Cubans in Florida decide to split from US and join this territory to Cuba, they should be allowed to do so? I can go on and on. The principle "all ethnic groups have the right to rule themselves" has an intrinsic sound of fairness but it completely incompatible with real life. As mathematicians may say: this principle "is not properly stated". In particular the terms "ethnic group" and "govern themselves" IMO are impossible to define without loosing the sense of fairness, wouldn't you agree? (PaC 18:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Here's the problem: you Georgians believe that the Abkhazians came to Georgia in the 17th century. They themselves believe that the "proto-Abkhazians" have lived in the area since 4000-3000 BC. There is a difference between this and the Chinese of NYC because we know for a fact that they came over the past few hundred years. Until historians are able to get their facts straight, we'll never really know the answer of when the Abkhaz came to Abkhazia. --Khoikhoi 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] :Thanks for the reply Khoikhoi.

First of all - "you Georgians"? I do not believe I ever stated anywhere that I am a Georgian, did I?

Second - not all Georgians "believe that the Abkhazians came to Georgia in the 17th century". The topic is more complicated.

Third - and actually important, what does this have to do with the issue? Are you now modifying your statement to "All ethnic groups have the right to rule themselves as long as they lived there more than a 1000 years"? Or what do you propose the time requirement should be before ethnic groups can start exercising their right to govern?

Fourth - I believe it is not disputed by anyone that Ossetians became a substantial part of the population of what is now South Ossetia not earlier than several hundred years ago. Comparable to my Chinese in New-York example. And besides, do you really want to talk about residency time requirement when talking about America?

My point: I do not think you can argue your time requirement in this issue. It has no relevance when talking about human rights.

Fifth - you haven't answered my question about which ethnic group should get "the right to rule themselves" if there are more then one living together?

Honestly, Khoikhoi if you do not want to give a serious answer just let me know that you are busy, or not interested, I'll understand. I do not mean it in an offensive way. (PaC 00:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

That was a serious answer. You just don't get it because of your POV. Sorry for assuming that you were Georgian but you certainly have similar views. I'm not modifying my statement at all. I was trying to explain that the Abkhazians believe that they have the right to be independent because they have lived there for thousands of years, from their perspective. Georgians believe they came recently. I never said that ethnic groups have to live in a certain place for a certain amount of years to be able to rule themselves, I was just emphazing the fact that a people, any people, that have, or believe that they have inhabited an area for thousands of years shouldn't have to be ruled by another people.

If there is more than one ethnic group living together it gets complicated, but in this case Abkhazia is mostly Abkhaz today, so it's more simple. --Khoikhoi 00:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] I am sorry Khoikhoi, but I do not believe you are serious. "Abkhazia is mostly Abkhaz today, so it's more simple" ???!!! I thought we were talking about the rights of ethnic groups. Are you saying that if one ethnic group kicks out another then they get the right to govern themselves? This is how you think, seriously?

And what about Ossetians? I can assure you few of them "believe that they have inhabited an area for thousands of years", this is just simply not true, you can check it out. What about Georgians living in S.O. (or Abkhazia for that matter). They lived there for thousands of years. Why should they be ruled by somebody else.

I also do not understand why are you saying "I never said that ethnic groups have to live in a certain place for a certain amount of years to be able to rule themselves". How else can one interpret "people, that have, or believe that they have inhabited an area for thousands of years shouldn't have to be ruled by another people." In other words if people lived somewhere for hundreds of years can be ruled by other people but if they lived thousands of years the can't? (BTW, what do you think about Mexicans in Texas, they certainly lived there longer than white Americans. I do not even say anything avout Native Americans.)

I am trying to show you that the issue is not as simple as "ethnic groups should rule themselves". In fact it is not a proper principle at all. It is impossible to even define the term "ethnic group" precisely in this context. I challenge you to do it if you disagree.

And another thing... I do not believe "ethnic groups" should rule anything in a civilized society. What happened to democracy? I am surprised to here this from an American. (PaC 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

In response to your last paragraph, Americans all have a sense of belonging to the state - there aren't any significant separatist groups. I'm sure it is very different in Georgia. What ever happened to democracy, you say? Look at Iraq, the 3 groups are about to split up because they all hate each other. How is it impossible to define "ethnic group" in this context you say? There are Georgians, Ossetians, and Abkhazians. These are the 3 ethnic groups.

About Mexians in Texas, I said that every ethnic group should have the right to rule themselves. The Tejanos should have a choice, but most of them don't want to separate from the US because they feel a sense of American identity, despite the fact that many are recent immigrants.

I didn't say that if one group kicks another out then they can rule themselves. I was talking about the current state of Abkhazia, where most of them are ethnic Abkhaz. The expulsion of the Georgians has nothing to do with it. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] Look, the Georgians were expelled from Abkhazia 12 years ago. Are you saying that 12 years ago Abkhaz did not have the right to rule themselves, but now that they committed ethnic cleansing they do have this right? I do not see what else could you mean? (PaC 02:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] And still, what do you propose to do with Georgians who still live in Abkhazia and S.O. They still fit into your definition of "people, that have, or believe that they have inhabited an area for thousands of years", and therefore "shouldn't have to be ruled by another people." I really want to hear your answer on this one. (PaC 02:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] I hope you do not regret that you asked the question by now... [I mean you are not getting annoyed by my pestering (PaC 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC))]

I did not ask you to list the ethnic groups, I asked you to define what an ethnic group is in the context of territorial disputes. Something that will start with "An ethnic group is a group of people that ...." Can you do that? (PaC 02:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

No, 12 years ago the Abkhaz had as much of a right to rule themselves as they do today, it's just back then Abkhazia was also home to ethnic Georgians. When you have a mixed population, things get complicated. What often happens, as it did in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is that the country was split up and the groups, in this case the Serbs went to their own republic and the Croats and the Bosniaks went to their own as well.

The Georgians still living in Abkhazia shouldn't have to be ruled by the Abkhazians, you're right. But because they are persecuted most of them have left, making the demographics of Abkhazia a lot different than in the early 1990s.

I'm not regretting anything. I still stand by my beliefs as you do.

An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices.

What do you mean in the context of territorial disputes? --Khoikhoi 07:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] OK, here's your definition:

(Or I guess the definition by a fellow named Smith PaC 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

"An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry."

And here's your statement:

"Every ethnic group should have the right to rule themselves."

Well guess what? My family fits this definition of ethnic group perfectly (as I am sure your family does too). Does this mean that my family has the right to claim independence and rule ourselves on the territory that me reside on? That is precisely what your statement is suggesting. Or do you want to change your definition now? Or may be your statement? (PaC 08:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

You're taking advantage of the general wording of this definition to suit your point. You know very well that an ethnic group is "French", "German", or "Chinese", not the "Smith family" of four. I'm not talking about small clans or anything like that. I'm talking about ethnic groups. --Khoikhoi 00:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] See, that's exactly what I meant. You could not come up with the suitable definition, because it does not exist. I challenged you to define "ethnic group" in the context of your statement and you couldn't. And not surprisingly you turn to "well you know what it is" clause. No, I do not know and if you can not define it then you do not know either. Ergo, your statement "Every ethnic group should have the right to rule themselves" is completely meaningless. Case closed. (PaC 02:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

Whatever. The day that Abkhazia reunites with Georgia is going to be the same day that pigs will take flight over the Caucasus mountains. I seriously doubt it will ever happen. --Khoikhoi 02:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Parts of this conversation (replies of PaC) were later copied from Khoikhoi/Archive_5#Ethnic_Groups' rights for completeness. These replies were italicized for clarity. (PaC 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC))

Sukhumi

Parts of this conversation (replies of PaC) were later copied from User_talk:Khoikhoi/Archive_5#Sukhumi for completeness. These replies were italicized for clarity. (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] Greetings Khoikhoi. Why did you endorse the change from Sukhumi to Sukhum? This is as far from NPOV as it gets. Nobody except for Abkhaz calls it so.Sukhumi is not even a Georgian name for it (Georgian version in Sokhumi). Sukhumi is a name generally used by everybody outside of Abkhaz nationalist cirlces. Don't you think you are carrying your pro-Abkhaz POV a bit too far? (PaC 20:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

Hey Papa Carlo,

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Follow_local_conventions. Sukhumi/Sukhum is currently in Abkhazia, not Georgia, so the official name has been changed to "Sukhum". National Geographic even uses "Sokhum". If Abkhazia reunites with Georgia, then the Wikipedia article should be moved, but the title was at Sukhum before until it was moved by some user with only about 5 edits. --Khoikhoi 21:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Follow_local_conventions that justifies your approach to this situation. The fact that Sukhumi is not in Georgia exists only in your pro-Abkhaz POV. The rest of the world tends to disagree with you. Show me a single government in the world that supports your belief? There are none. And yet you insist on your personal interpretation that is shared only by a Abkhaz ultranationalist. You can't seriously tell me that you know better than the rest of the world. To express your POV in such a blatant way seems incompatible with your role of "fighter with POVs". (PaC 00:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

The rest of the world tends to disagree with me? So you seriously believe that Abkhazia, just because every country doesn't recognize it, is completely ruled by Georgia? The fact that Sukhumi is not in Georgia is true. It's in Abkhazia. Offical government beliefs don't determine everything. The USA never recognized the incorporation of the Baltic countries into the Soviet Union, but were they independent? No! This is not my "personal interpretation", it's a fact that Abkhazia is a de facto independent country, despite that you don't want it to be. --Khoikhoi 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] Oh I see, "Offical government beliefs don't determine everything" but Khoikhoi's POV apparently does. It is not just some governments that insist that Sukhumi is in Georgia. It is ALL the governments in the world! It IS your personal interpretation! You somehow think that ignoring the opinion of ALL the governments in the world substitute an NPOV. I do not think a lot of people will agree with you.

BTW apparantly the name Sukhumi was first moved to Sukhum only last year.

OK, I do not really see the point in continuing this discussion with you. Can I take you up on your offer of help when you welcomed me? Can you tell me how one can move the page name? Will a simple revert suffice? Also, is there a way to file a complaint against administrators pushing their POV? (PaC 00:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Look, tell me, where is Sukhumi? The governments will say that it's in Georgia, but where is it really? Is it ruled by Georgia? No! You continue to deny that Abkhazia is independent country, it is. To move a page click "move" right next to the "edit this page" button. Btw, I'm not an admin. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] Thanks, sorry, I didn't mean you. (I can see though how you could've thought so... but I am not that nervy) (PaC 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] OK, so you think you have the right to ignore the opinion of all the governements of the world. If you truly believe that's NPOV I can't really see how to argue with that.

BTW, the Russians who actually rule in Sukhumi at the moment, call it Sukhumi. Abkhazs officially call Sukhumi Akua (or smth like that). Sukhum is their nationalists' way of showing contempt for everything Georgian, by dropping "Georgian-style" ending.

Your insistence that the proper way to call the city is by an unofficial name used by a bunch of ultra-nationalists reeks of Abkhaz propaganda(PaC)

You're trying to emphasize the fact that I'm a "government ignorer". You keep trying to say that Abkhazia is becomming closer to being ruled by Russia every day. We're talking about the present here. Abkhazia is an independent country with Russian influence.

The Russians rule Sukhumi? Says who? Is that just your POV or is it a real fact? I understand that the "-i" suffix is Georgian, like "Batumi" and "Tbilisi". What's your point? Is Sukhumi or is it not in Georgia? That's a question for you to answer. I'm sorry but this "unofficial name" just got very offical back in 1994.

You're trying to push the Georgian name, but remember the question that I asked you, "Is Sukhumi in Georgia"? --Khoikhoi 04:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] You keep pretending that you do not hear this, and I keep telling you. Yes, Sukhumi is in Georgia! Me and all the sovereign states in the world say this! You can cover your ears, but it won't become less true. And you will not be able to justify your answer by anything but your own POV.

Let me ask you something. If the criminals take over the city hall of your home town and start screaming that they are renaming it, you are not gonna rush and change it on Wikipedia are you? (PaC 13:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Saying "Sukhumi is in Georgia" is your POV. It's a FACT that's it's in Abkhazia. Go see the Sukhum article yourself, "the capital of Abkhazia". I can't believe you saying that I'm the one covering my ears here. Are you completely denying what happened in 1994? You think that Georgia has the authority to tell the Abkhazians what to do? They haven't for more than ten years. The analogy you gave me is so biased towards your point of view that it's even hard to understand. Declaring independence from Georgian hegemony is a lot different than invading some new area.

I don't mean to be rude, but what nationality are you? I'd say what ethnic group but I don't want you to get on me about that again. --Khoikhoi 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] OK, let me spell it out for you. Sukhumi IS IN Georgia according to international laws. If you go to any court (except current Abkhaz courts) with your arguments you will be laughed at.

One more time: Sukhumi, LEGALLY is in Georgia. This is not my POV. This claim is supported by international laws. Try to conduct any business in Sukhumi circumventing Georgian government. This would be an illegal activity in the eyes of international law. Any court will support this point of view. Your point of view, on the other hand, will only be supported by a bunch of Abkhaz nationalists, who conducted ethnic cleansing.

I suspect you are still not convinced. So I repeat once more: International laws and all of the sovereign states in the world are on my side of the argument. And on your side are... hm,... I only see people who committed ethnic cleansing. And contrary to what you think, ethnically cleansing 250000 people is a criminal act. So my analogy was right on target. The fact that you don't understand this only proves your bias not to say more.

And one last time, just in case. Sukhumi is de-jure in Georgia. Somehow you decided in your mind that de-facto situation (and a very questionable de-facto at that) is more important when deciding which variant of a name to put in the article. Where you got this idea is beyond me. When Abkhazia gains international recognition you can change the name. What you are doing now is pushing Abkhaz POV.

Your argument "read the article, Sukhumi is the capital of Abkhazia" is as "serious" as most of your arguments. Read the article about Batumi, it says it's the capital of Ajaria. What's your point? And Munich is the capital of Bavaria. And Makhachkala is the capital of Dagestan. So what?

I know you didn't mean to be rude, but where I come from it IS rude to ask somebody about his/her ethnicity, race, religion etc to prove a point in an argument. (PaC 03:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Your problem is that you believe that international recognition is the supreme factor for determining a country's independence. It's not, and this is simply your POV. And the sovereignty of a country has nothing to do what atrocities it has committed. Nazi Germany was certainly sovereign, but the Nazis killed 6 million Jews.

It's a fact that the Abkhaz rule themselves, without having to be part of Georgia. You're trying to push this fact away with your Georgian POV, despite what nationality you are.

When I meant "Sukhumi is the capital of Abkhazia", I was refering to the Republic of Abkhazia, not the Georgian province. Since Abkhazia is a country (something that you chose to deny but is an obvious fact), it's not POV to use the offical name.

I'm trying to remain civil, but your tone of voice is leaning towards personal attacks by saying "is as serious as most of your arguments". You know that I'm serious and by being sarcastic you're only being rude. --Khoikhoi 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] I am sorry. I know you say you are serious, but I think you are trying to make fun of me when you are saying that the opinion of the international sociaty is MY POV. I also do not believe that you are serious when you keep insisting that you, Khoikhoi, know better than all the sovereign countries in the world. And I still do not truly believe that you seriously do not understand the concept of the word LEGALLY. Just admit it, you are making fun of old papa Carlo, aren't you?

Oh... and starting your arguments with "your problem is..." is bordering on rude, don't you think? (PaC 04:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

I can assure you that I'm serious. As I've said before, no one says that international recognition has to be the #1 factor in determining the sovereignty of a country. Sure, legal is legal, but you seem to think that the Abkhazians, who obviously rule themselves, can't offically be able to change the name of their capital. The fact is that they did, and using the "-i" is only going into the past. Just because no one recognizes the country doesn't mean that it's not offical.

Let me give you an example - Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh. The title is at the Armenian name, the "separatist name". Btw I'm sorry about that comment, I'll try to remain civil. --Khoikhoi 04:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] I am glad you finally acknowledge an obvious fact: "legal is legal". So you agree that your proposition is illegal and yet still insist on it. I am not saying you should change your views, I am saying you should not push your personal POV in Wikipedia. Every single encyclopedia (where irresponsible editors are not allowed to write articles) lists the name Sukhumi. UN refers to it as Sukhumi (see for example [1] in every single document). Even Russia calls it Sukhumi. (And yes it is Russia who rules in Abkhazia for the moment, despite what you think. If you want to speak de-facto consider this. Every single member of Abkhaz government is a Russian citizen, and many are KGB officers. They are subject to Russian law and Russian rule.)

I hope you see now that it is not MY POV. You, on the other hand keep pushing your own pro-Abkhaz propaganda. Your statement "using the "-i" is only going into the past" is a great example of it. The whole world, every single organization keeps insisting on settlement of the conflict within the territorial integrity of Georgia and you are calling it "going into the past". The whole civilized world insists that the Georgian refugees should return to Abkhazia, and you are saying "no". This is loud and clear propaganda of Abkhaz POV and you can not honestly deny it.

As for your example... two wrongs do not make one right. (PaC 05:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

You're putting words in my mouth. My proposition is not illegal. And once again you're making personal attacks, calling me an "irresponsible editor".

The UN also does not recognize Abkhazia, so it's a bad example. "Every single member of Abkhaz government is a Russian citizen" - ah yes, but they're also Abkhaz citizens.

This is most certainly "your POV". For some reason you don't think the Abkhaz people have a right to self-determination. You're talking about proposals for a resolution, a resolution that hasn't happened yet. It's March 6, 2006 and Abkhazia is a de facto independent country, not part of Georgia, not part of Russia, but it's own nation. Just because it remains unrecognized does not mean that that it's part of Georgia.

You continue to accuse me of pushing my "pro-Abkhaz ultranationalist" POV yet you seem to have a very strong ultranationalist Georgian POV. --Khoikhoi 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] I do not think I ever called you "irresponsible editor". You are putting words in my mouth.

How can you with clear conscience call my position "strong ultranationalist Georgian POV", when it is the position shared by all international organizations. It is absurd. I can not find a shred of logic in your arguments. And this is not a "personal attack" it is a fact. I just fail to find it. And I doubt anybody can. Again, not a personal attack. Just analyze your train of thought: You acknowledge that the whole world recognizes Sukhumi to be legally IN Georgia, you see that all international organizations call it Sukhumi, you I am sure are aware that all encyclopedia call it Sukhumi as well. And after all that you are saying that this is my "strong ultranationalist Georgian POV". If you can find any logic in this I would really appreciate it.(PaC 06:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

You said it indirectly. You were implying it.

You're using your "international organizations" thing as an excuse to prove your point. You deny that Abkhazia is independent - there's your POV. How can you say that you're neutral when you say that Abkhazia isn't independent? Btw, you can't do copy & paste moves as it destroys the edit history. I'm going to ask another user what he thinks about this. Until then please refrain from moving the page. --Khoikhoi 06:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] You keep ignoring the opinion of international community and talk only about my pov. Forget about me and my opinion. Argue with UN, EU, your own government and international laws. Do not accuse me of denying independence to anybody. Accuse UN, EU, your own government and intrnational laws. It is not my fault that the world does not work the way you want to (PaC 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] I could not move it tha way you told me to. I did not realize it destroys the history. What about reverting to previous pre-move version? Is this allowed? I am in the middle of changing Sukhum to Sukhumi in Abkhazia article, but I'll wait for now. (PaC 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

You keep ignoring facts - the most important of which is not Abkhazia's recognition, but whether it is independent or not.

Reverting to a pre-move version would not move the page. Since moving it the normal way didn't work, you're going to have to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Khoikhoi 07:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] Well, it would have been nice if told me about WP:RM before, don't you think? (PaC 07:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

You didn't tell me that the move didn't work until your last message. --Khoikhoi 07:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] You did not tell me about the proper way to move the page, which is apparently to go through WP:RM. And then you go and accuse me of pushing my POV. Does not look like a nice thing to do, does it? (PaC 07:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

It's only necessary if you can't move the normal way. --Khoikhoi 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] I am looking at the last move of this page by Mikkalai and can not figure out how did he do it? Can you figure it out? (PaC 07:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

He's an admin. :( --Khoikhoi 07:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from Khoikhoi's discussion page for completeness (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))] May be you should accuse him of "strong ultranationalist Georgian POV" too. Seems to be your favorite trick. You can copy all your arguments from my talk page. I am OK with it. (PaC 07:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

I don't think he moved it because he agrees with you, I think he reverted to the version before El C moved it just so we could work things out. But of course we already have. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Parts of this conversation (replies of PaC) were later copied from User_talk:Khoikhoi/Archive_5#Sukhumi for completeness. These replies were italicized for clarity. (PaC 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC))

Copy & paste moves

Please stop doing the things you do. Copy & paste moves are forbidden and may lead to blocking action, because they ruin the article's history. If you feel that the name is not proper, list it on WP:RM and let's vote. Take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Attitude detracts from the good content

Your recent edits to Talk:Wine contained an excellent citation that supports Georgia as the earliest-known home of viticulture. How unfortunate that your post contained abrasive comments such as "There are more recent sources out there than 1911 Brittanica...not everything that comes up at the first page of Google search is the most recent news either. Also, it is important to study carefully what you are citing.... And if somebody actually bothered to read McGovern's book, they would have found out...". The commentary detracts from the otherwise well-presented citation. dpotter 04:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

De jure

The article already has a lot of information of the De jure status of these entities, it is not necessary to repeat it a hundred times, that is undue weight and not allowed in wiki-pedia, this is why myself and others revert you. The words de jure appears in intro and in footnotes, a total of four times, the words de facto appear three times, words like recognized and unrecognized are there ten times, you can not ask for more than that. No one is in any doubt if they read the article, it is already repeated more than once, the article is very clear on the status of these entities so stop repeating it, it just makes it worse Pernambuco 04:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me where in the article de jure status of Abkhazia is mentioned? Where does the reader get the idea that Abkhazia is de jure part of Georgia? (PaC 04:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

List of sovereign states

Actually, I reverted to the version at which the page was protected the last time, as a sort of default measure and since the protection was not supposed to expire (full protection in edit wars is not supposed to expire until the edit war has been resolved). Any changes can be worked out on the article's talk page, since the edit warring continued immediately after the protection expired. --Coredesat 05:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Try contacting the other participants on their user talk pages to see if they're willing to discuss the article, or open a request for comment on the matter. I'll go ahead and throw a {{disputed}} tag on the page in the meantime. --Coredesat 07:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to a more acceptable version (by Pirveli, who had just reverted edits by Yburgsey). If there is no discussion after a while, or if consensus is reached, feel free to request unprotection on WP:RFPP. --Coredesat 00:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazia

You've already made 3 reverts. Please beware of WP:3RR. Alæxis_¿question? 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You've already made 3 reverts. Please beware of WP:3RR. Alæxis_¿question? 06:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, you both did break 3RR, and together with the preceding revert-warring on 13 May and before this doesn't look too good on either of you guys. I'm not a big friend of double blockings after the fact, but I'd really like to see a bit of constructive dispute resolution by both of you there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Tkvarcheli

You've already made 3 reverts. Please beware of WP:3RR. Alæxis_¿question? 08:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Btw could you answer my latest question there? Alæxis_¿question? 09:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hello Papa Carlo. Nice to meet you on Wikipedia and thanks for your support. I hope you will enjoy all beauties of Russo-Georgian relations on Wikipedia. это только цветочки! :)) Some of the most exciting examples can be found on Talk:Tbilisi and Talk:Treaty of Moscow (1920). Enjoy! --Kober^Talk 17:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Do you want to have a good lough? Look here. :)) --Kober^Talk 16:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI

Feel free to respond here. Please keep your response civil. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted here on the suggestion by the administrators at WP:ANI. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Hello.

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kober, where I have concluded that you are either a sockpuppet, or a proxy editor for Kober (talk · contribs). This account will be blocked accordingly.

You may appeal this block, but given that the vast majority of your contributions have been edit warring in support of the same arguments, I would expect that stringent conditions would be imposed before it can be unblocked. — Coren ^(talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing alternate accounts, or proxy editing. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

[Copied from my recent appeal which proved to be unnecessary since the charges of meatpuppetry were not found to be justified and appeal never answered] (PaC (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

First of all, I would like to apologize to Kober for getting him in this mess and just state that this is fundamentally unfair to him. Despite how my edits may appear to serve as proxy to him, he has nothing to do with it. All I was doing was occasionally reverting POV edits on Georgia-related articles (mostly by one user). Most of the time I would stop after one revert. My understanding was that one-time reverts of POV is neither edit-warring nor disruptive. In fact removing of POV is encouraged

As I mentioned elsewhere, even though I do not have time to edit more often, I was often able to monitor the articles of interest and when I thought that a particular POV pushing would go too far I would usually interfere. I would usually do only one revert and add comments at talk pages if the dispute arises. Often these disputes would involve Kober as well (he is extremely prolific and is always "present" on wikipedia).

I though it was clear that this is the case of "two editors who happen to agree on the subject" and not of meatpuppetry. After all the sockpuppetry policy is clear that this term applies to NEW accounts created for the sole purpose of helping each other. I was already editing for a year (granted not a very prolific editor but still) when I even came across Kober. I guess I misunderstood. But in this case I would like the blocking admin to explain to me what was that i did wrong that granted a block. Was it:

1. Not editing enough so that I appeared to only serve as Kober's proxy? (Many other editors support Kober (he is present on virtually all Georgia-related articles), but it seems my "coming out of hiatus" is what got me blocked.)
2. Reverted edits that I found POV? (You call it edit warring but note that I rarely did more than one. And which wiki-policy forbids POV reverting?).
3. Agreeing with Kober when he was disputing with Pocopocopocopoco? (Was I supposed to sit quiet just so as to not to appear his proxy?)
4. Editing mostly on Georgia related articles? (Is that against some wiki-policiy and warrants a block?)

Please assume good faith and advise me which of the above (or smth else perhaps) could have gotten me in trouble.

I would also like to point out that branding me as Kober's proxy is unjustified even on the surface. Here are several recent examples of my edits when Kober was not involved at all: [[2] which did end with editors supporting my version, [3], [4] which is still there, [5] which is also still there, [6]] which was also supported by other editors, and there are more as you can see from my contribs. And these actually constitute a bulk part of my recent involvements in wikipedia (yes, I admit again, I do not edit very often, but does this actually warrant a block?) How exactly are you deciding from these that I act on Kober's behalf?

To conclude: it seems to me that the perceived violation that prompted the block might have appeared from the combination of my rare appearences, combined with Kober's omnipresence on all Georgia-related articles and the fact that we both often find edits of User:Pocopocopocopoco to be POV pushing. Be that as it may, I promise to change my editing pattern in accordance with suggestions of admins (if somebody offers some).(PaC (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Some thoughts, anyone?

I'm not sure how to defend myself against these actions. Please offer your thought on the matter. (PaC (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

"Legal fiction"

It is interesting that the admin that blocked me User:Coren himself admits here that the action he performed is a legal fiction. He basically says that he had no real reason to block us but he went ahead and did it anyways.(PaC (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

OK. So now the block was lifted by User:Moreschi (with no explanations though). But another indefinite block is apparently placed instead by the same user User:Moreschi with a new formulation: "persistent disruption: incessant revert-warring" (again - no explanation). I do not see how I can appeal this block - nothing really shows up on my page. (PaC (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

Disruption

As for accusation of disruption, I welcome anybody to point out any of my recent edits that were disruptive. (PaC (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

Reverts unacceptable?

User:Moreschi pointed out here that "since last year it seems that nearly all his edits have been reverts of non-vandalism" when talking about my contributions and using this as a reason for my reblock. I do admit that this is unfortunately true for I simply have no time currently to do more. But I do ask though, why is this an unacceptable behavior? Which wiki-policy in particular have I violated? I always tried to keep NPOV and many of my reverts still stand in these articles, thus acknowledging their usefulness in a sense.

I do want to contribute to Wikipedia and if somebody can explain why doing mostly single reverts is unacceptable and what policies does it violate I promise to not do a single revert on Georgian articles for a year in case I am unblocked. (PaC (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi Papa Carlo. You don't owe me any apologies. I hope admins will take your request seriously and unblock you. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not immune to this sort of misunderstanding and certain disruptive users are responsible for these flaws.--Kober^Talk 20:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kober. I always admired your work, the breadth and depth of your knowledge and a true enciclopedic approach to wiki-editing. I do feel sorry that my weak attempts to help you got you in trouble. Yes, you are right, things like this unfortunately happen in Wikipedia, but the injustice still hurts. Cheers. (PaC (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks to you too. I'm currently trying to bring your case to attention at the admins board.--Kober^Talk 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Kober (PaC (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

I dont understand under what right, or fault was Papa Carlo blocked indefinitely? In fact, for such a harsh punitive action, there has to be a vote by several administrators which this admin completely ignored. Proco has tons of such abusive edits and rv wars but nobody has hunted him down. I dont se evidence which will suggest that this user was "disruptive" and should be blocked. This is a complete hoax. Iberieli (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Help?

{{helpme}} User:Moreschi apparently lifted the block I had for alleged meatpuppetry (with no explanations though. I assume it just didn't stand). But another indefinite block is apparently placed instead by the same user User:Moreschi with a new formulation: "persistent disruption: incessant revert-warring" (again - no explanation). However I do not see how I can appeal this new block - nothing really shows up on my page. What can I do to appeal it? (PaC (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

If you think your block should be lifted, go ahead and use {{unblock}} again. Algebraist 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But shouldn't the blocking admin at least present some evidence for the block, so I can respond? Right now it seems completely out of blue. I got no notification at all. Also my old unblock request is still pending unanswered here. Wouldn't there be a clash?(PaC (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

If you have one in the queue already, don't make a second one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Which brings me to my original question. How do I appeal the new block? If the old one has been lifted but the request for appeal for the old one is in still in the queue? Shouldn't it be removed first? How? By whom?(PaC (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

I don't know. Just try another {{unblock}} and see if that goes through. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To User:Moreschi

Can you please point out examples of my "persistent disruption" and "incessant revert-warring?" I appreciate your involvement in this case but can you please check the facts? Most of my reverts are single reverts and are certainly not disruptive. Can you also read my thoughts on the matter above? (PaC (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

I've been contributing to Wikipedia for more than two years (granted, I have not contributed much for I am currently pressed on time to be more regularly involved, but is this the reason to ban editors now?). I've never been blocked before for anything, I've never been accused of disruptive behavior, or incivility. I have always used sourced information and tried to stay NPOV. I haven't done a repeated revert in 9 months. Can someone at least explain to me why am I being blocked then. The only things I was accused of was sockpuppetry (three times by a single user User:Pocopocopocopoco). All these charges has been showed to be false. Nobody is able to point to any examples of my disruptive conduct despite my multiple requests. So what is the reason for this block? I promise not to repeat my mistakes if somebody can only point them out to me. (PaC (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

See WP:ANI#User:Kober, where this situation was discussed. From what I can understand just from reading that, the concern is that you revert a lot, and in areas where there is a tendency for edit wars to become bitter, prolonged, and difficult (namely, issues of national identity). In addition, you seem to have a pattern of making inflammatory declarations of "POV" over such points, and then not backing it up. I don't have an opinion on the block yet: I feel that since you hadn't been informed well about the reasoning, you ought to have a chance to think it over and compose a new request. I will say this, though: users who contribute like you do in these areas do tend to end up blocked over POV-pushing and edit warring. Mangojuice^talk 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Mangojuice. I understand your concerns and I will rewrite the request. I do want to point out though that I have not made more than one consecutive revert per page since last year. I was under the impression, that I am following wiki-recommendation by sticking to single reverts to what I thought were obvious POV-pushing. I am not trying to escape the responsibility. I am just trying to clarify the wiki-policies so that not to make the same mistakes again. At any rate I fully intend to stay away from any edit-warring if unblocked. (PaC (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes, multiple reverts on a page is a bad thing, and I do acknowledge you haven't gotten into prolonged conflicts. But edit warring -- that is, aggressive attempts at forcing articles towards one particular state, rather than discussing, building consensus, etc. -- can be a problem in other circumstances too. To me you seem more like a footsoldier or henchman: you back up a side in many different conflicts for a brief time, rather than engaging in any pitched battles. But it's the mindset that's the problem. Mangojuice^talk 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments again. I do see how it may appear from the side that I have the edit-warring mindset. The henchman comparison is somewhat... surprising, but I guess this is how it looks to a neutral observer. I will definitely try to change this perception if unblocked. Still would like to point out that all of my reverts this year were single reverts of a single disruptive user, whose multiple-reverts pattern remain unchecked, while I am fighting for my wiki-life. Not trying to shift the blame again, just trying to understand what are your suggestions for dealing with users like this. Mind you, many a discussion has been conducted with this user, but to no avail. I guess my point is that I assumed a single revert by editors is their way of expressing their opinions on the matter. WP:3RR actually states: If an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. Well, I always thought of myself as that "some other editor", definitely not a henchmen. Anyways, I will stay away from any reverts for awhile if unblocked, and hopefully the distinction will be more clear to me in time.(PaC (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Request to unblock

{{unblock|User:Moreschi, imposed an indefinite block on me with a formulation "persistent disruption: incessant revert-warring". I have tried in the last months to stick to single reverts per page (as I thought is recommended by Wikipedia) but I understand that my pattern of reverts were perceived by the admins as being disruptive. While I am still somewhat confused as to what the proper POV-reverting-behavior should be, I do not want to be perceived as a disruptive editor. I understand that my previous editing pattern is seen as unacceptable and if unblocked I fully intend to change it.



If unblocked I promise to not make a single revert on Georgia-related pages for at least a year as was suggested by John Vandenberg at WP:ANI#User:Kober. I would also like to except John Vandenberg's offer of mentorship if it still stands. This would be greatly appreciated. (PaC (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC))}}

Moreschi has unblocked, and I'll be happy to mentor. Ask me on my talk page if you need advice on anything wiki, Email me if necessary, or you just want to yack.

I suggest you archive your talk page now, to put this in the past and start a clean slate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question

Yep, it was because the category was automatically added when you were indefinitely blocked by Moreschi. See {{uw-block3}}. I've removed it now so you are no longer listed in the category. Khoikhoi 22:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

explanation

Hi, sorry for not responding promptly. I am on the final days of a contract job, so time is hard to find. It is not easy to say which edit looks bad .. it is the pattern as described at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kober which looks bad. Of the 250 edits prior to the sock accusation, many were reverts. Many of those reverts were to previous versions also selected by another user as their preferred version of the article. For someone with so few edits, this looks alarming.

The area where you editing has been a big problem on Wikipedia. There have been many edit wars between Azeris and Armenians, which has educated both sides on how to edit war better, which means that they set up sock accounts to assist them edit war without breaking the rules, and which means that the other side keenly looks for socks whenever they are alarmed, or even if they are annoyed. You say "it feels like a game without rules", and you are sort of correct - in fact the rules are understood, but people are taunting the rules. As a result, the Arbitration Committee has told administrators to deal with all arising issues without restraint. i.e. block first, and ask questions later. Sadly it seems that you were caught in friendly fire. Your unblock request was clear evidence that you are a good sort, willing to cooperate, and not an enemy. We are sorry about the bullet hole in your leg.

As you are interested in editing in this minefield, you need to tread more careful. You also need to spend more time editing in the green pastures where there are no mines. If you have other interests, I suggest you spend 50% of your time improving our articles that pertain to non-controversial non-nationalistic topics. This will allow your fellow editors to see you are not here solely to pursue an agenda related to your nationalistic persuasions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1