Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

User:Melikbilge's first edit was on 15 September 2008, he began distorting an obscure article within the AA scope: Melik. Occasionally reverting with the aid of his apparent ip Special:Contributions/206.193.235.2 ‎Strangely enough this is another article that has been stable and had no conflicts for over a year. A pattern seems to be emerging here. User:Noeros' first edit was on 29 January 2007 where he added himself to the participant's list of Wikiproject Azerbaijan. He makes no edits since then and reappears on 26 September 2008 to remove a huge chunk on article Ganja, Azerbaijan. A section that has been there for years. Immediately beginning an edit war. Checkusers might be required but in the meantime AA2 can be used to sanction them.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have these users been informed of the restrictions set by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I advised Noeros [1], and that user hasn't edited since, for good or ill. A checkuser on it would be merited given the fact that user registered many moons ago (January 2007), and if this is the same user over on ruwiki, the user has antagonised the Armenians.

I don't have the same concerns about Melikbilge (talk · contribs) (yet) as they look like a normal user who is just editing a hot topic, but if they continue to edit war it might be a problem. I have left Melikbilge a welcome and a informal warning. I am concerned about Special:Contributions/68.122.145.187; I wonder what checkuser would have to say about that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good reason to believe that 68.122.145.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Hetoum I (talk · contribs), who was placed on parole and is evading it using anon IPs. --Grandmaster (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have soft blocked 69.125.213.0/24 and 69.125.213.0/24. He is welcome to log in and edit responsibly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is a bit more complicated, but there doesnt appear to be any AA2 violations between the IP and the users, so I have left the following note on User talk:68.122.145.187 : "Please log in to edit if you are going to undo edits like you did here, otherwise I will put all of the users on this range under Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 discretionary sanctions, as they appear to be the same person." John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek was involved in AA1 in which he was nearly banned and AA2. The AA2 Amended Remedies and Enforcement allows any uninvolved administrator to impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict, despite being warned, when the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Inspite of being topic banned for one month, followed by two months, Atabek hasn't shown any in improvement in his behavior. In fact his behaviour has deteriorated to such a degree that it has forced me to file this report when I usually avoid doing so.

Atabek was already banned for editing and commenting once by Thatcher because he was ignoring other users comments in the discussion page. ...won't actually take the time to read and comprehend others' comments, ...privilege to comment is temporarily suspended. [2] He was warned strongly not to do that again, but after returning from his "vacation" he added a POV tag here claiming he's doing so because: discuss and explain the selective removal of Dowsett and Minorsky references yet a year ago that topic was beaten to death and numerous users had explained to him that he is misusing those sources and that nobody is denying their validity. Is there some sort of an expiry date attached to the discussion page? In fact a more recent paper of Dowsett was presented to him, user VartanM replied to him (a year ago) by quoting Dowsett this was done on FOUR different occasions [3], [4], [5], and all those answers were addressed to Atabek. As for Minorsky, Atabek used p. 506 of Caucasica IV, but the one single use of Albanian on that page was put in quotations (like 'Albanian'). Here is where it is used: The special 'Albanian' patriarchate of the Armenian church formed the link between the two banks. In fact, the author supports the contrary of what Atabek claims: A particular complication results from the contemporary Armenian fashion of assuming Arabic patronymics (kunya) (such as Abii-Miisii, Abul-Asad, etc.), without any connexion with the original Armenian names. These latter too often recur in otherwise unrelated families, and it becomes difficult to discriminate between several Sahls, Vasaks, and Smbats living at the same time... Beside those sources others were provided which were much more explicit see here by VartanM, which included Britannica. VartanM will be repeating himself, Fedayee will come and start quoting Dowsett displaying that it contradicts Atabek's interpretation as well as providing other sources. So Atabek by adding that tag and by making that summary, he has gone against WP:ICANTHEARYOU, for which he was was blocked previously.

The second case: is here, user Fedayee's description here shows how Atabek refused to read what others have been writting. I quote user Meowy: "Atabek, has returned to editing certain articles after leaving them alone for a year. The material he is attempting to add to the articles is exactly the same material he was attempting to add a year earlier. He is presenting no new arguments to support the material’s inclusion - he is simply restating the same argument that was comprehensively rejected a year before.". Both articles were stable and had 0 conflicts prior to Atabek`s return.

Atabek refused to adhere to WP:BATTLEGROUND when attempting to justify his recent disruptive edits: just because there is a group of nationalist POV contributors who have intended and turned those articles into fabricated propaganda tool? [6]. Wikipedia is not a battleground was a proposed principle both in AA1 and AA2 [7], [8] and all users who were found to have not respected that policy were banned. [9], [10], [11].

On AA2 proposed decision, on proposed principle, arbitrators have voted on a principle about provocations, this proposition was submitted by Fedayee in the Workshop, only three users had documented cases of provocation during the arbitration, the worst offender being Atabek, see one of the pieces of evidence submitted here. In spite that arbitrators have found significant reason to include such a proposed principle and having passed it, they did not find it necessary to impose any sanction on Atabek due to his continous provocations. What is the purpose of spending so much time and effort debating a topic, digging up references etc. when Atabek repeatedly ignores everything and just writes a line or two of redundant sentences full of buzzwords. These provocations still continue to this day, where Atabek continues to make edits knowing full well what sort of a reaction they are going to cause.

Atabek topic banned for a minimum of six months from all historical subjects. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Eupator has much room to accuse others. He himself has been repeatedly placed on parole, after the original one expired, for edit warring on topic related articles: [12] Which did not stop him from acting the same as before, this is his most recent edit war in violation of his parole: [13] I don't see Atabey doing anything like that. Also Eupator fails to mention that he himself was "nearly banned" during the first AA case. [14] So what is his point in mentioning that? Grandmaster (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't. Not even once. Since the expiry of the the original sanctions I was blocked once and that was a mistake and I was promptly unblocked. Since the original AA1 sanctions expired no new sanctions have been applied against obviously, unlike you Grandmaster who was topic banned or Atabek. As for discretionary sanctions, they can be applied to all original parties of AA1 regardless of their actions since then. So lets stick to Atabek's current behaviour.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, the admin who closed the thread, said right on top: Eupator unblocked, put on clear notice about AA2 and as such subject to discretionary remedies under that case. So you must stick to your parole. As for Atabek, you demonstrated no violation of 1RR or any incivility on his part, but still want him banned from the topic. Grandmaster (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand, as a party of AA1 I was already subject to discretionary sanctions so are you and everyone else by default, that was merely the required warning before discretionary sanctions can be applied. I'm not under any specific editing restrictions, no parole or anything else so cease distorting the facts. I'm not reporting Atabek for violating 1RR (he's not even under 1RR restrictions) nor mainly about his incivility. Read the report again if it's still not clear for you.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one of the clearest examples of Atabek's (and Grandmaster's) WP:ICANTHEARYOU, see here [15] and here [16]. That said, I don't support a longtime ban on anyone - especially if you have to invoke the disgraceful AA2 to get it. What I would hope would be that administrators would start to confront the activites of Atabek and those like him with some intellectual rigour. Meowy 15:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not propose a ban via a long term block. I'm merely suggesting that he be topic banned from all historical topics for at least six months so that he can reassess his behaviour.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical topics are mostly what he does, and 6 months is a long time. But it is AA2 I object to. A bad law is not made good by its occasional justified use, that only makes the bad law more entrenched into the system. So I cannot support its use anytime. Meowy 16:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no other forum at this point to refer this matter to. Given his history, I must say six months isn't long enough.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There probably would be other ways, if administrators and the system were up to the task. I think following his edits on the Azeri-language Wikipedia could be useful. It will probably show he is not approaching many articles here with clean hands. Meowy 17:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what is criminal in editing articles in Azerbaijani wiki? Since when the rules do not allow people to edit other language wikis? Grandmaster (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like how Eupator and Meowy always fail to mention their own role in what happened in the diffs they cite. For information, Meowy was the only one blocked for edit warring on Shusha pogrom. And I would really like someone to take some time to see what exactly happened there. To me, this is nothing but an attempt to get rid of an opponent by frivolous reporting, while those who report themselves committed much worse offenses. --Grandmaster (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you and Atabek were blocked for 3 weeks from editing that article (and even banned from its talk page), a ban later extended to 4 weeks as a result of your blind refusal to accept the administrator's comments. It was the blind refusal to accept (or perhaps even read) my edit and talk page comments that got both of you the 3 week ban. As I said, one of the clearest examples of "ICANTHEARYOU". Meowy 16:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the PRIMARY emphasis of this report, not slow and calculated edit warring but precisely that.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither me, nor Atabek were blocked, that's not true. This is the entire thread for everyone to see, please pay particular attention to the bottom of the report, a section called "Revision": [17] It is pretty obvious that an error in judgment was made back then, while the real offender was Meowy, who in the end was the only one actually blocked. Grandmaster (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to have your own pov, unfortunately for you the facts laid out here do not support your pov. As for frivolous reports, you personally produce them at an alarming rate per year. I can't recall when is the last time I filed one, if ever. I doubt this soapboxing is going to divert the attention away from the true disruption.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Administrators: Grandmaster is attempting to divert attention by trying to mislead administrators, check the several checkusers filed, Eupator knew already he was reverting a user who was using multiple socks by their behaviours. He was consequently unblocked, and I am not even including here how obviously several of those socks’ edits could have been qualified as vandalism. The second claim by Grandmaster is even more bogus, if we check the second diff Grandmaster provides, we see Eupator reverting a single purpose account who's only purpose was to insert and revert [18] on Melik article, to make the article similar to this one. Was it not Grandmaster who tried merging Malik with Melik and was opposed? Checking the talkpage we see what position this single purpose account was trying to impose: Grandmaster’s, Atabek’s and Adil’s. It is hardly the first time Grandmaster provides such misleading explanations to divert from the true disruption.

Grandmaster is also distorting intentionally by claiming that there was an error of judgement in the topic ban imposed against him and that Meowy was the only one blocked at the end. For a lack of a better word, he is intentionally lying. Thatcher's revision was not to revise the one month topic ban imposed against Grandmaster and Atabek, but to revise his decision on unblocking Meowy. Meowy was first blocked because it was found he failed to respect the restriction of 1 revert per week. Thatcher unblocked Meowy and then revised his decision because Meowy’s edit was technically a revert even though it wasn't obvious at all (he didn't know he was reverting). Thatcher admitted himself: Meowy, you are making the same mistake I did when I first analyzed the edits. Parishan and Atabek both added back De Waal and duplicated the casualty text. Look at this diff and the next one, and search for the text "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt" in both versions. Thatcher 02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Thatcher finally reblocked Meowy for 15 more hours to equal the initial 24 hours block. [19]. But he never revised the one month topic ban as seen in the log here. In short, when Thatcher says that Grandmaster and Atabek were partially right, it was that technically Meowy’s edit could have been qualified as a revert. But this does not change the fact that neither of them have read what they have reverted when they have reinserted the duplicate and even perpetuated it. So according to Grandmaster a topic ban of one month (initially 3 weeks, but extended to 4 because they still refused to read others) is insignificant compared to a block of 24 hours for a technical revert, when Meowy’s intention wasn't even a revert at all.

Grandmaster has a long history of intentionally filing baseless charges against members to distract the attention from other members’ legitimate concerns on abuses. See here where I have provided evidence about this on AA2. It does not seem like he's changed his behaviour. See here, another documented case where Grandmaster ignores others' words. - Fedayee (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So many nice words, thanks Fedayee. But first, no CU was ever filed on the user whom Eupator reverted 3 times in violation of his parole, so any attempt to link him to a banned user is baseless. The fact that the article Melik is a POV fork of the article Malik is quite obvious, and of course many people see that, and some may try to fix. But there's a group of users who guards this article and tries to present the Arabic title of Malik as something unique and used only by Armenians. As for Thatcher, I never agreed with his decision, and the fact that Meowy made 3 rvs in violation of his parole was clear to all other admins who reviewed the report. At the same time, neither me nor Atabek made any violations, and I did not make any reverts at all. So clearly this was an error in judgment, and Thatcher partially admitted it. This group of users always brings up their "evidence" that they submitted to various arbitration cases, but they forget to mention one minor detail - their "evidence" was rejected and no action was taken on the basis of it, which pretty much speaks for itself. And they accuse me of filing a baseless report, while themselves filing a baseless report on another user, citing no violation of 1RR or incivility, which are covered by the arbcom remedy. If this is not an attempt to get a rid of an opponent, then what is this? --Grandmaster (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The charges brought up are an obvious attempt to distract attention from this report. Adding established scholarly references to an encyclopedic article, without any personal attacks unlike those accusing me, does not constitute a violation. Unfortunately, my accusers in this thread hold the same POV in A-A related pages, are group warring across several topical pages. This isn't something new, and third parties are welcome to review Talk:Sahl Smbatean and Talk:Khachen to observe the lack of any willingness of these editors to engage in any discussion of references, but rather using angry and bad faith language [20] as evidenced in the report. Outside of that, I don't think either this report or my further responses to it will contribute anything to Wikipedia. My only request is that arbitrators carefully review and enforce the parole on editors who are being obviously incivil. This would greatly assist in future rather than targeting contributors. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If at all, the one that may need a break from editing these articles is Ευπάτωρ, which is my proposal. Look forward to hearing other comments from admins active on this board, as for the appropriateness of this ban. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing what Jossi recommended above, would perhaps be tantamount to the most single ludicrous thing I have ever heard or read on Wikipedia. And that means a lot coming from someone who has reserved patience and entrusted administrators to decide on the right thing for years now. Atabek has been exploiting Wikipedia for well over a year and at a time when he should be blocked for his provocative and disruptive edits, an administrator instead advocates that they punish a non-guilty party? Where is your partiality and are you even reading the evidence we are posting? We have laid more than enough evidence, documenting disruption and vandalism and that is the best you response you can come up with? Let's hope the rest of the administrators come to their senses because your proposal is outright ridiculous. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that is needed is to say "Resolved - No violation found". The complaint was brought in good faith (proved by the amount of effort Eupator would have taken to write it and the evidence he presented), but it was a bit too non-specific to ever succeed since many of Atabek's edits are non-disruptive, and those that are are often not intensive enough or are too complex and long-running to get the appropriate attention. Unfortunately for Eupator, it may be that admins don't like to be called for and then not get to swing the ban hammer at someone. I hope that is not going to be the outcome. Meowy 02:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay..., can we please have some other administrator express his opinion on the evidence, and this time, preferably, give a reason as to what he based it on? Otherwise, Jossi seemed to have just arbitrarily picked someone to punish without even elucidating on the hows and whys. An even better question: How did Atabek fall out of the equation of Jossi's comments? VartanM (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to sleep. I'll review this mess and hopefully sort it all out in the morning. Moreschi (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sort it all out in the morning" - doesn't a task of that magnitude require the abilities that usually come with superheros in skin-tight cotumes. I doubt any admin has those, though a few think they have, and some probably even have the costumes. Meowy 01:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant articles are Principality of Khachen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Sahl Smbatean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). While this may seem a long way off from the Nagorno-Karabakh War, the location of the historical Khachen is also that of modern-day Nagorno-Karabakh, so from an Azeri point of view, if we can prove that Khachen cannot validly be called Armenian (the other candidate is Albanian), then Armenia's claims to NK could be considered less valid. The row at Sahl Smbatean is along similar lines. Essentially this is WP:BATTLEGROUND again.

• This drive-by insulting revert from Baku87 (talk · contribs) is not acceptable, especially considering his non-participation on the talk page. This merits 48h off.
• Atabəy (talk · contribs)'s editing at Talk:Principality of Khachen and Talk:Sahl Smbatean is classic tendentious editing. He comes back many months after the last dispute ended pushing the same rejected arguments as he did previously. While his arguments are not completely without merit, edits such as this are not supportable. I would have a lot more sympathy if he had tried to remove the ethnic description, which IMO is dubious, but to replace it with one which is clearly not founded in reality is very poor. Two pagebans, then.
• VartanM (talk · contribs) - Vartan, come on. While reverting here was justifed, the rhetoric in the edit summary doesn't help. You know better, and are lucky not to be blocked for that. Warned.

There is also a row going on at Caucasian Albania - in all honesty I haven't had time to properly check this out - in which MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) has apparently not stuck to 1RR. I am sure this was an oversight. Please stick to the general limitations in the future that everyone else does. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48 has effectively claimed ownership of the template IrishL. With clear knowledge that I have a 'probation' under The Troubles Arbcom, it is my belief that Domer48 used this knowledge to game the system in order to keep his preferred version of the template.

The editor reverted my good faith edit to the template with no explanation given other than the edit comment "per talk", referring to a talk page that he had not yet edited. I reverted his revert, giving clear explanation again as to the rationale behind my edit, both in the edit summary and on the template's talk page. His own explanation, which he gave just before his second revert on the template's discussion page, was not satisfactory and my alternative was clearly a more appropriate symbol to use for the template. Domer48 did not accept this and, after my second revert of his revert, he reported me for breach of the ArbCom and subsequently reverted the template again to suit his own agenda.

When I say agenda, I mean a political agenda. The template covers the subject of Loyalism. The flag of Northern Ireland is not a specifically Loyalist symbol. My alternative was specifically Loyalist. Domer48 is amongst a group of editors who have campaigned tirelessly to have the flag of Northern Ireland removed from articles throughout Wikipedia, except in sports and apparently situations whereby the flag is shown in a negative light.

I am left in a position, due to an ArbCom ruling against me as a result of a case on suspected sock puppetry by a collaborator with Domer48 (which was not presented with the full facts), in which I am effectively unable to introduce balance to many articles, categories and templates because of a certain group's apparent avid patrolling of said articles. --Setanta747 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48 is currently blocked, and AE probably isn't the right place for this, this looks like a case of edit warring, content disputes, and disruptive behavior on a sensitive subject.--Tznkai (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a set of articles that have been subject to arbitration.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I take that back, Domer48's behavior suggests to me he should probably placed on probation as well. Second opinions please?--Tznkai (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be put on hold at least until Domer can edit again as he is currently blocked and at least he should be allowed to explain his edits. BigDunc^Talk 21:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like any decision will be taken soon, there is no reason why his edits cant be discussed in his absence, but of course natural justice dictates that he be given an opportunity to defend himself.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another note Northern Ireland does not have a flag except the Union Jack, Setanta747 is trying to portray the Ulster Banner as the official flag of NI and this matter has been discussed endlessly. BigDunc^Talk 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this complaint has much more to do with Domer trying to portray the Northern Ireland flag as that of loyalist terrorism. This isn;t about Setanta's views on that flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs)

I couldn't care less about the content dispute. If I consistently and earnestly edit with the belief that polar bears are blue and not white, that's not an issue as long as my behavior in pursuing that belief is not troublesome. It doesn't matter who is "right" it matters what conduct is pursued. As for the concerns about Domer being able to defend himself, I am willing to wait for him to say his piece, but an uninvolved administrator (thats me) has discretion to put editors on probation due to the relevant Arbitration case. I am fully willing to use that with as wide a net as the community desires.--Tznkai (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who dealt with this for over a year, Tznkai.. grab the biggest net you can.. and make it three times as big, and hope it's big enough. SirFozzie (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[de-indent slightly & edit conflict] To BigDunc: Northern Ireland does have a flag - the flag of Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland's flag. It is an "official" flag. I'm not trying to "portray" anything. If you'd like to discuss it more, I'm happy enough to tell you the same facts, yet again. I hardly think this is the place to be doing so though. TU is right when he says that the notice is here to discuss Domer48's abuse of the flag and contemplate his possible abuse of the system and attitude etc.

At the time I posted this notice, I had been unaware that Domer48 had been blocked from editing. I made no recommendations or suggestions. I leave it to the community and/or admins to decide whether his behaviour warrants any kind of action. I also hope that this will pave the way for a sensible discussion about the template that has been mentioned, instead of just a cursory comment or two and a report (of me) to ArbCom. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m surprised this user hasn`t been spotted sooner, when you look at the history. It seems to me he is constantly fighting with every user he comes across who has a different opinion. When horns are locked a user is subjected to a vile and constant attack, which is obviously not the wikipedia way. Maybe this user should have a topic ban on all Irish related subjects --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a considerably more nuclear option.--Tznkai (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to take anything that Rockybiggs has to say regarding Domer with a pinch of salt, as this editors comments and troll actions against Domer can be seen here and it looks like an attempt to get one back. BigDunc^Talk 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigdunc, this is not true, just the same as user Setanta747 mentioned in the first paragraph (see [21]), i was subjected to a the same banning campagain by domer and his friends, which happens to be the same as the user who brought the allegations against Setanta747 which was One Night In Hackney. Thank you for bringing this matter up Big Dunc and i feel this further backs the claim Domer rallies peoples to his cause to cause problems on wikipeda. Also i would like to add this editor has got away with these actions for far too long, it seems to me he pushed serious editors to the extreme where they feel they have no other choice sometimes, and who are then sucked into allegations not of there making--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) Just so you all know, my usual reaction to seeing accusations of groups of users taking sides is to squeeze them through dispute resolution, and to make sure any enforcement measures, say probation, be applied equally and all around until people prove themselves otherwise capable of operating outside it. In other words: be very careful about accusing other editors of teaming up against you!--Tznkai (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am only observing and after seeing a administrator`s comments. see admins comments [22]

--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a pattern on Irish articles. To a reader familiar with Irish matters the abuse is obvious. It's very clever and it appears to apply with policy and guideline until you examine it closely. I'm not saying it's a team effort but there are obviously some who monitor various articles to ensure they don't get changed from a particular POV. Woe betide the editor who challenges the status quo. The Thunderer (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not pretend it's not happening from all sides, if not quite all users. SirFozzie (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue as far as I'm concerned because I haven't seen it happening from all sides. Admittedly my experience is confined to a small number of articles but I have found that various editors use the same methodology to poison those articles with the synthesis being to persuade the reader that the police force and military forces in Northern Ireland were anti-Catholic. Being a realist, when I edit in information it is, in my mind anyway, factual and supported by refs. I then find that information is introduced in the way of "spin" and handy quotes from anti-British authors which try to refute the information I have included. That then means I have to introduce other material which shows how the spin works. The finished article is then full of allegation and counter allegation which does little to enhance the encyclopedic value of the item.The Thunderer (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here Thunder is that you see the obviously anti-Nationalist "Security Forces" as not anti-Nationalist. And you try to put that "spin" on things. Sarah777 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhh! These British PoV -vs- Irish PoV arguments are all the same. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Sarah the question of Nationalism doesn't come into it. The issue of "anti-Catholic" practices is the point. I don't shy away from anything which may appear to make the security forces seem anti-Catholic, however instances where they were patently NOT cannot be refuted by spin. That's my argument. So if the regimental history of the Ulster Defence Regiment states that Protestant politicians complained because 3 UDR was heavily Catholic and that promotion was difficult for Protestants because of the high number of Catholics then that needs to be in the article. Not because I like it, because it is a verifiable fact. Similarly, if the powers that be took action to prevent infiltration by Protestant paramilitaries then it also should be in the article, as should infiltration by Republicans. What the article can't be is an outright condemnation of the regiment nor should it be a statement by Sinn Fein or An Phoblacht to that effect. Articles are not a platform for political gerrymandering. They are for the input of verifiable encyclopedic knowledge. I respectfully request you bear all that in mind. The Thunderer (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) AE is not the place for content disputes. Get back on topic.--Tznkai (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered the comment by Sarah to indicate that my views and edits are non-partisan. Too many people make the mistake of thinking that everyone who edits on Northern Ireland articles is either Loyalist or Nationalist. There are some of us who were just born as either Protestants or Catholics and we have no political allegiances. This is the entire crux of this matter and whilst I agree that content disputes have no place here the reasoning behind them is the fundamental cause of edit-warring on Irish articles.The Thunderer (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point Thunder - my bad, I conflated "Catholic" with "Nationalist". You did say "Catholic". Apologies. Sarah777 (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'll should be atheist (like me), less hassle. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Born as either Protestants or Catholics"! Saddest think is that the person who just wrote that won't think there is anything wrong with it. Meowy 01:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you think there is something wrong with my statement? Perhaps you should think about what I'm saying rather than trying to read something subversive into it. The Thunderer (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have just proved my point. People are not "born" Catholics or Protestants. Meowy 16:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor has also described some editors as "rabid Irish bigot", and having been asked not to responds by saying it's very much a question of "if the cap fits - wear it!". Tznkai, since you are taking the lead on this one, could you outline what the issue is and we can address it point by point. Diff's always help, because comment and opinion makes it just go round in circules. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who did I call a rabid Irish bigot then? Or did I just say it generally in a fit of frustration? Of course it must be pointed out that I am Irish too. What you're missing Domer is the fact that we don't need contstant reminders in articles of the "Republican struggle". Your most recent edits on Ulster Defence Regiment and Ulster Special Constabulary are exactly what I'm talking about. In articles which contain specific information about the fears of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland as well as an overview of how they were regarded politically, you feel it necessary to add in newspaper quotes stating their fears, without putting in any balance whatsover from the opposite POV. In other words, you are making the articles a condemnation of the existence of the organisations without letting the reader just deal in pure facts and making up their own mind. This is an encyclopedia, not a political platform.The Thunderer (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree Thunderer, that somes up the entire problem; some editors use wikipedia as a political platform for their own agendas and obviously try to spin the articles to that end.--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a political platform. rem POV on B Specials, corrected POV, Nationalist opinion is of no consequence..., Not correct at that time. A Republican POV. So its not just newspapers but respected authors also you have a problem with, most of which could not be described as Republican, quote the opposite. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this dead mouse has been laid at my feet, I'm going to have to clean this mess up my way.

From this point forward, I will take any unprofessional or uncivil commentary on this AE thread as further evidence that you need to be placed on discretionary sanctions. Furthermore, any further airing of content disputes on this thread, or accusations of bad faith or similar motivations will constitute unprofessional and uncivil conduct. I want two things, and two things only from the complainants.

1. Specified diffs of bad conduct. I don't care about motivations, our supposed POV, and I certainly am not interested in accusations of cabalism or meat/sockpuppetry, or admin repression of your rights. I'm looking for edit warring, genuine personal attacks, confirmed sockpuppets and similar bad conduct.
2. I want a short consise statement why you should not be put under sanction yourself.

Some Caveats:

• Do not bother quoting policy to me, I know it as well as you do.
• Bickering will be taken as evidence of unprofessional or uncivil conduct
• Limit yourself to the month of September if at all possible
• Limit yourself to short concise statements, if it is too long I will remove and ask you to try out again.
• Be on your very best behavior. You are proving to me that you are not going to disrupt Wikipedia or Irish related articles.

If you've commented on this thread in any capacity, and you're an editor on the Irish articles, you probably want to respond. I'll be digging through page histories in the meantime, and any other admin wants to handle this, feel free to step in.--Tznkai (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Rocky some editors use wikipedia as a political platform for their own agendas and obviously try to spin the articles to that end. You'd know all about that? As for your comments to me lol Vandalism - don’t make me laugh your an IRA supporter and then RV Domer IRA POV comments as usual from this user says so much more than I could. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, welcome to my world, genuine personal attacks, confirmed as outlined above. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Domer48 for bringing those edits up, which i was totally (over the top) punished for these edits which you say above, by your friends of a 3 month ban and a ban on all Irish related articles (still in place). Your constant ownership of these files is the problem. I have no further comments to make on this board as all i say is i welcome Tznkai comments earlier that everyone will be subject to punishments and trust this will be as severe as the over the top punishments given to me --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel I should be put under any sanctions. I've contributed good material in a non POV way to the couple of articles I do edit. My interest isn't so much in Irish matters but rather military and as soon as I'm finished with the three articles where there's a crossover I'm on my way, unless I find something else in Irish military history which interests me. To be honest I'm getting fed up with the whole thing and might just quietly disappear.The Thunderer (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's it gonna be? is Domer gonna be barred from Irish articles for a period of time? or at least barred from the Template in question? GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked by Tankzi to comment here. My view is that an "Irish" article ban for Domer would be pure censorship, and wrong in a very profound and anti-WP:NPOV way. Apart from "abusing" the template contesting his block what did he do? I'll need to read up on this as I'm obviously missing some of Domer's "crimes". Sarah777 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too, am not familiar with Domer's conduct (weither it's good or bad) on Wikipedia. Best I excuse myself from this AE report. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VartanM has been placed under civility supervision per Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom. Please, check out his commentary, while reverting my edits: "rv: did you drop something on your head? because you're showing signs of amnesia. See talk", clearly removing a reference to a scholarly source. Speaking on subject term, perhaps User:VartanM needs to be reminded about the parole, and I am still hopeful that he can discuss references in a civil manner on the talk page, instead of unconstructive comments such as this. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tendentious, disruptive and highly provocative recent edits were clearly intended to invite such a reaction. After all what could you have possibly expected to happen? You show up and revert on articles after one year of inactivity by repeating the same nonsense that was discussed and refuted throughout last year (Talk:Principality of Khachen and Talk:Sahl Smbatean). You have been uncooperative every single time. Insisting on the same misinterpretation and instead of attemtping to pay attention to the arguments against your misinterprations you constantly allege that other users are disputing your sources when nobody has or is disputing them. I don't expect anyone to engage in an effort to assume good faith or to attempt to take you seriously when you haven't changed your editing patterns in all this time. Atabek should be topic banned from any and all articles that deal with anything predating the 20th century.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what adding a scholarly reference to an article, and your obviously angry reactions have to do with AGF. Is VartanM's comment on something hitting my head, and me having amnesia, an AGF? No. You suggest that I am topic banned for adding a reference to an Oxford scholar and expert on the topic in encyclopedic article, just because there is a group of nationalist POV contributors who have intended and turned those articles into fabricated propaganda tool? Eupator, amidst this nationalistic zeal, you're forgetting a simple thing, I am for impartial use of references, in fact, my edits of the same pages [23] always included references to all, including Armenian scholars, and those claiming Sahl Armenian. But removing CJF Dowsett references from these two pages, is like talking about Communist history by removing any reference to Marx. As far as VartanM's comments go, he was incivil as he was placed on parole precisely for that reason. So, AE post is only seeking to follow the rules, if any. Atabek (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: Atabek claims that he was impartial and that he included all the sides and supports it by referring to this edit of his [24]. To not accuse him of lying, he is not saying the truth, the edit in question was made more than a year ago, while the recent events relate to this edit where he entirely removed Armenian to replace it with Albanian. (to correspond to his recent creations over Azerbaijani Wikipedia where he excludes him being Armenian) The following references have been provided that state that Sahl Sbatean was Armenian:

• The Cambridge History of Iran. Par W B Fisher, Richard Nelson Frye, J A Boyle, Ehsan Yar-Shater, Peter Jackson, Lawrence Lockhart, Cambridge University Press (1968)

• E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936 Par M. Th. Houtsma, E. van Donzel, BRILL, (1993)

• Islamic Culture by Islamic Cultural Board, Editors: -Oct. 1936, Marmaduke Pickthall; Jan. 1937- Oct. 1938, Muhammad Asad-Weiss. (1927)

• C.E Bosworth, Encyclopaedia Iranica.

More sources can be provided.

It was explained to him by several users, on several occasions that he was misinterpreting Dowsett. He was even cought misquoting this author.

His disruption on another article was also one of the reasons why we had to have 20 reference to support an authors ethnicity. [25]

Also note Atabek's above remarks, he is accusing several users of being a "group of nationalist POV contributors who have intended and turned those articles into fabricated propaganda tool?" I am deeply offended and I'm wondering for how long Atabek is going to continue with this sort of battleground mentality. VartanM (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM is on parole and was given a final warning [26] like 2 months ago. Grandmaster (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you Grandmaster, here, have a cookie. VartanM (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here is Grandmaster engaging in editwarring[27]. VartanM (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, none of your sideline arguments justify your comments, which are a personal attack and violation of WP:AGF, while you're on parole. I would also refer you to WP:TROLL, as you're simply disrupting this thread by bringing absolutely irrelevant subjects trying to cover up your comments, I repeat: "rv: did you drop something on your head? because you're showing signs of amnesia.". And I would think, that any non-disruptive user would simply apologize for making such personal attacks while editing. As far as nationalistic POV goes, I think the appearance of Eupator in this thread even before yourself, and edit warring of both of you and MarshallBagramyan on the page in question are more than sufficient proof of my point. But this thread pertains to your disruption only. Atabek (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek only a person suffering from amnesia can come into an article after a whole year has passed, when he was proven wrong time after time, and re-start a disruptive campaign to unArmenianise an article. If any person, that has 2 brain cells, reads the talkpage of the Sahl Smbatean will see and understand how disruptive you are.

And since you decided to insult me here on AE page by calling me a TROLL let me teach you what the term means.

TROLL: "The archetypal example of trolling is the deliberately inflammatory edit[28] or post[29]. Inflammatory edits usually come from users who have a minority or controversial opinion[30] and who sincerely believe that this view is inadequately represented by Wikipedia, and therefore will seek reasonable ways to properly represent their views; trolls, however, will generally not seek consensus but will instead insist on a position without any regard for compromise.[31][32][33][34]"

Sounds familiar? If not, see the history and talk pages of Osroene(banned from editing), Edessa, Mesopotamia (banned from editing), Sahl Smbatean, Principality of Khachen, Movses Kaghankatvatsi and dozen of others.

Second note to administrators As you can see Atabek did not stop the battle ground rhetoric, he actually went further and unjustifiably insulted me. And if you take a precious second and click on the diffs provided, you will see who the real TROLL is, and why exactly after months of quite and peace, Armenians and Azeri-turks are back on this page. VartanM (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, I am not trying to "unArmenize the article" (such wording is rather nationalist too btw), only to add a reference to an Oxford scholar, mind WP:OWN? The matter is simple - these are your words: "rv: did you drop something on your head? because you're showing signs of amnesia. See talk". There is nothing that justifies such angry attacks. Atabek (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here is continuing problems on A-A articles with little, if any, progress being made by either side. While there is heated talk from both sides, I see only VartanM making comments like this. If the two sides of the A-A debate can't work this out, we will not have many options left. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A typical comment from a typical administrator. You can't be bothered to understand the subject and its background, so you come up with "to hell with all of you" type comments. Administrators should either be wise to the subject, or cease being involved in things they know nothing about. Meowy 20:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have no clue about what you are talking about; it is because of administrator’s actions like yours that we are in this situation. Atabek was banned for two months from several articles nearly for the same reason as this current situation and you write just that? Atabek right here writes: just because there is a group of nationalist POV contributors who have intended and turned those articles into fabricated propaganda tool? while ‘Wikipedia is not a battleground’ was a proposed and voted principle in AA1 and AA2 and that users have been banned according to those principles. But what you see is some incivility as an answer of an obvious provocation.

Nothing coming from Atabek can be trusted, but there is nothing new here. See how he lies, he claims: majority of your choices are Armenian. Actually, from the six sources provided NONE were Armenian, neither their sources, neither their authors. Here are the sources in question which prove that he is Armenian:

• The Cambridge History of Iran
• E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam
• Islamic Culture by Islamic Cultural Board
• Encyclopaedia Iranica
• Poetics Of Islamic Historiography Deconstructing Ṭabarī History
• Prelude to the Generals: A Study of Some Aspects of the Reign of the Eighth ‘Abbsid Caliph, Al-Mu ‘tasim Bi-Allah (218–277 AH/833–842 AD)

On the same answer Atabek writes: In this sense, Dowsett and Minorsky references,..., you can find what Thatcher already wrote about the matter here, Thatcher claims that it seems that Minorsky is claiming him to be Armenian but then the author claims that his origins were unknown. But as I have clearly explained here, when Minorsky claims that his origins are unknown, he is referring to his genealogy since a royal lineage and from where he came. Thatcher also claims that, from Dowsett’s own words, it is not clear and it could support both sides. Which was also addressed, since those reading Dowsett’s specialised works know already that Caucasian Albania in the time of the Sahl was culturally Armenia, actually Dowsett writes about his realm as being in Armenia (about Khachen) in a more recent paper than the one distorted by Atabek (also provided, from a review of a book)

In short, six notable and neutral sources (Minorsky and Dowsett are not included) were provided explicitly claiming him to be Armenian, the quote from Minorsky used by Thatcher which is the following: A particular complication results from the contemporary Armenian fashion of assuming Arabic patronymics (kunya) (such as Abii-Miisii, Abul-Asad, etc.), without any connexion with the original Armenian names. These latter too often recur in otherwise unrelated families, and it becomes difficult to discriminate between several Sahls, Vasaks, and Smbats living at the same time is an implicit admission of him being Armenian, what Thatcher uses to suggest there is a contradiction is actually on the search of the prince’s genealogy and birthplace. So Minorsky does support the claim that he was actually Armenian. As for Dowsett anyone is invited to read the talkpage of the article to see how Atabek is distorting it. See here his recent version, where he replaces Armenian with Albanian, when no one including the source he uses dispute him to be Armenian. So Atabek lies when he claims that he was impartial.

Atabek has a history of distorting, misusing and misquoting sources… see for instance the discussion here on his misuses of sources, he was subsequently banned for two months from editing those articles. He is continuing his distortion by replacing Armenian with Albanian that he started recently on Azerbaijani Wikipedia where everything Armenian becomes Albanian. An example here where a monastery built in the 13th century becomes an Albanian monastery, when the Albanian Church was abolished under the Arabs and replaced by the Armenian several centuries prior, which alone shows the impossibility of the existence of an Albanian Church in that era. All the engravings on the walls, the architecture, and the letters are in Armenian.

But continue being fooled by a user whose every single edit regarding those articles are done in bad faith, just recently he started to re-edit the articles he was banned from… see here, where he claims that figure to be a disciple of Christ, if you knew the period (time frame), you'd know why it is impossible. But why he does this is complicated for someone unfamiliar with the stuff to understand, but once you understand why those articles which seem so unrelated are actually related, you'll see why those edits are in bad faith. Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Grandmaster still refuses to consider what others write. For example, here he changed the map back by claiming: “restoring the map that was removed for no reason.” Grandmaster knows that's not true. I started raising the issue of this map on September 5, on the Artsakh talk page. Grandmaster replied, The map that you mentioned is for the 2nd century B.C., i.e. the period before Armenia conquered the region, and it comes from a neutral source, unlike the map based on Bagrat Ulubabyan. [35] It was told to him that the map was prepared by the Soviets and was politically motivated (I explained why); later I provided 13 different maps which abundantly disprove as that map being unreliable.

Grandmaster cannot claim he did not notice the above mentioned points: they were provided during a discussion which involved both of us, and did not bother to answer. From the map provided, three are those which are officially used over Wikipedia. In fact, even the scholars Grandmaster quotes contradict the map in question. I was even reverted after I reverted Grandmaster by Elsanaturk, who seemed to come out of nowhere. This sort of behavior is very much similar to what I reported on his conduct on AA2. I don't see how discussion is possible when on the other end the editor is deliberately ignoring the comments you make; made even worse so, as if they were never made to begin with.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i'm concerned Atabek is now in Adil territory. Look at the articles in question here which he created and modified in the Turkish and Azeri Wikis and check out the content: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] etc.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, I am in Adil's territory?...do you even understand what you're talking about? Yes, I contribute to both Turkish and Azeri wiki, I don't see how that matters here. Btw, you forgot to include few other Azeri Wiki articles which I started or edited - on Caliphate, Georgian Democratic Republic, artificial intelligence, Aga Mohammed Qajar, some translated from English Wiki. Perhaps, you could accuse me for making these too... Or maybe, I shall remind you that Azeri Xachen article I created, actually cites Armenian spelling of it, something you never do in regards to Azeri or Turkish spelling of relevant articles in any Wiki. At least I contribute something to encyclopedias, unlike you reverting scholarly work with angry non-neutral POV and/or personal attacks. And again, your argument above only serves to cover up VartanM's incivil comments... Atabek (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hoping that I will say something funny again, so you can go and cry to administrators? In regards to your inclusion of the Armenian spelling, you copy pasted half of the word with spelling errors, why aren't you coping the entire name? Oh yeah, I forgot, you don't want anyone to know that it was a principality. Your historically wrong Azeri articles don't bother me one bit, so you can mislead and misinform your fellow Azeris as much as you like. You're dumbing down your own people after all. VartanM (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, this is irrelevant to the AE thread but Azeri Xachen article is titled "Xaçın məlikliyi" (Khachen principality). Anyways, what you're saying is not funny, I am actually very sorry for your inability to admit your obvious incivility, being now even more emboldened. This is precisely why I opened this AE thread, to get you to stop disrupting by being disrespectful of editors. Atabek (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we could mix up the time periods, I wonder what the German Wikipedia would have looked like under Nazi Germany? A bit like the Azeri Wikipedia probably, only on a bigger scale. It would be a neat project to come up with a Wikipedia parody with articles containing nothing but propaganda, from the wildly unbelievable to the almost credible. Trouble is, the parody might seem too much like reality. Meowy 20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm reading all of this bickering and it strikes me that nearly all, if not all the people, in this thread have been warned about the Arbitration case and the possibility of discretionary sanctions. I remind the parties most importantly of principle 7 of that case:

7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Right now, in my opinion as an uninvolved administrator, several editors in this thread are "fail[ing] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." and really need to re-examine and change their conduct if they desire to continue editing in this area. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above meant to be proof for my "can't be bothered to understand the subject and its background, so you come up with 'to hell with all of you'" observation? Try to see beyond the "bickering" and observe the complainant to be an individual complaining about an alleged "insult" that nobody would reasonably be upset about, and who, if you would explore his editing history, has in fact been insulting the whole purpose of Wikipedia. (OK, actually, I believe Wikipedia to be an inherently evil concept, tailor-made as it is for spreading lies and propaganda - but you admins must still have some hope for it, so try and do something positive and not go down the easy "damn you all" route.) Meowy 02:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy, such an attitude is precisely what causes these problems and why the A-A articles are in a constantly surrounded by bickering. The problems are not one-sided. There is merit in both sides of this argument and until such time as when the users on the two sides of the A-A articles learn to cooperate and build the encyclopedia instead of constantly pointing fingers at the other side, these problems will not go away. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator and VartanM have already explained that the complainant, Atabek, has returned to editing certain articles after leaving them alone for a year. The material he is attempting to add to the articles is exactly the same material he was attempting to add a year earlier. He is presenting no new arguments to support the material’s inclusion - he is simply restating the same argument that was comprehensively rejected a year before. His actions actually make co-operative editing impossible (for what is the point of engaging with an editor and discussing proposed material if that editor deliberately ignores everything that has been said and at a later date tries to repeat the entire process). VartanM was actually being polite to Atabek with that alleged uncivil comment. It was not "signs of amnesia" that Atabek was showing, it was more like a contempt for those who had worked on those articles and engaged with him in their talk pages. Rlevse, you claim there is "merit in both sides of this argument" without bothering to say what the merit is? Saying everyone is partly right (or partly wrong) is an intellectual cop-out, and just a variant on the limp damn-you-all response. Meowy 16:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! That is precisely the root of the problem. Not one administrator has actually bothered to spend some time to understand the essense of the question here. This whole process has created an environment where users such as Atabek make calculative provocative and obviously ludicrous edits and then come and complain on this board against perceived incivility and victimization as a result. You do not have to "take sides" to make a judgement here, common sense should be sufficient.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The root of the problem is that some people continue edit warring and making incivil comments after repeated warnings, and nothing is being done to stop it. How many times was VartanM warned, yet here he is with another incivil comment, see the top of this report. Civility is one of the main rules in wikipedia, and observation of this rule is not a subject to any discussion. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM wasn't edit warring and wasn't being uncivil/incivil, he just wrote a badly explained edit summary. Look at the context. The edit summary would have been understood by (and got a smile from) anyone who had previously editing that entry and seen the talk page discussions, but it would not have been understood by a newcomer to the entry. Atabek too would have understood the edit summary; he is not a victim and is just playing the system. Meowy 15:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can explain something to a user only so many times. After it was made abundantly clear that Sahl Smbatyan was an Armenian, that Albania was a mere geographical notion, that he was engaging in original research by interpreting what Albania meant, then further edits by Atabek simply became very provocative vandalism. The very fact that he has systematically removed the word "Armenian" in articles on Azeri Wikipedia and replaced them with "Caucasian Albania" reeks of the foul scholarship that Farida Mamedova and Ziya Bunyadov are quite notorious for. A topic ban seems to be quite appropriate.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you all try to just scroll up and read the first line of the thread. Are any of your commentaries relevant or do they justify these words: "rv: did you drop something on your head? because you're showing signs of amnesia" against an editor. Answering the question fairly may assist arbitrators in closing the thread. Atabəy (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do let's get back to the actual complaint. As has been pointed out lots of times in the above posts, Atabek were trying to add to an entry material that had been discussed and rejected many times in the past, and was offering no new arguments for that material's inclusion. So it seems he had forgotten all about those previous discussions (hence the "amnesia"" and the "see talk" comment were justified). At worst VartanM is guilty of writing a bit of harmless sarcasm and of not giving a proper edit summary - and even that last point is subjective because anyone (including Atabek) who had previous contact with the page would have fully understood the meaning of the edit summary as written. Nobody can seriously believe Atabek actually felt insulted. The complaint is about something really trivial and has been a waste of everyones' time. Meowy 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No violation found--Tznkai (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi appears to have violated the findings and remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat as documented here including a personal attack [41] on the editor calling him on it. Cla68 (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of a do about nothing, the data is all there in these diffs for all to see. I am off WP until Monday, but may check email from time to time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi--provide evidence of the stalking. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was my response to his allegation. I found the Rawat stuff while researching for the RFAR I'm involved with, with him. I saw this one was nearly 100% unsourced, AFD'd it, and walked away. I noted it got deleted, and hours later checked Jossi's contribs to see if he'd DRV'd. I saw he put the deleted material back in article talk, and moved it back to user as a courtesy, which led to my being a "stalker". rootology (C)(T) 19:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a user's contributions by itself is never stalking. Contribution lists are available to all for the sake of transparency and editors are welcome to use them. Following an editor to unrelated pages and attempting to disrupt or frustrate their activities may constitute stalking, depending on the severity. Jossi, any chance you could amend your comment, and then we could close up this complaint? Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi repeated this inappropriate use of WP:STALK twice, first at 15:01 20 September 2008, and then again a few minutes later at 15:07, 20 September 2008 after Rootology took the matter to AN. Both times Jossi is saying something different to the core message of WP:STALK ("stop the witch hunt", and "raiding my contrib list"). IMO Jossi is explaining how he feels about his interaction with rootology's recently, but it isnt supported by evidence of the hallmarks of wiki-stalking; they havent interacted enough on content for Jossi to have any justifiable claim that he feels concerned for his personal safety, nor concern for the longevity of his wiki-creations. I am reading it as an off-hand remark by Jossi, and he should be trout slapped when he returns. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something relevant re the ArbCom here, but this thread seems to center more around something jossi said about stalking. I see nothing here which leads me to believe that putting deleted content in other spaces is wrong. What jossi says about keeping the content so that it can be used in other ways only makes sense, unless it constitutes something like a BLP violation or whatever. He also explains it well here. Thus, if that part of it is not a real issue, the stalking accusations hardly even live up to the standard of trout slapping. If such is happening, saying it is not even uncivil. Rootology says that it was copied to mainspace. It wasn't, at least according to jossi. If jossi is correct in this, it looks to me like a bit of harassment may have been going on. And there is a limit to how much one can talk wikispeak all the time: harassment comes in forms which may not be documented specifically in that policy. There is obviously history between them, or (I'm guessing) between rival bands of editors where they have both been pigeonholed, and perhaps there is provocation on both sides. If there is, then the thing to say here is that it should stop, not that there should be admin action taken. I'm a complete outsider here, so perhaps it doesn't make sense (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, prior to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence and first coming across each other on the Sarah Palin article a week prior, Jossi and I to the honest best of my memory never even "met". I stumbled across the article I AFD'd while looking at his contributions putting together that evidence. We weren't even on opposing "sides" re the Palin content. I just was opposed to his unprotecting it (ironically, and rather sadly, Jossi and I, I suspect, are ideologically/politically pretty close together, but it hardly matters now). rootology (C)(T) 04:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might matter. People can make up. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undent: A bit of background, As seen at User:Kelly's talk page archive here, [42] Kelly made what is in my judgment, a baiting attempt on Talk:Sarah Palin. Without placing blame, Kelly and Jossi have been in a dispute over Sarah Palin articles, and itsbeen getting increasingly personal. Rootology's comments on the Kelly's talk page carried what could reasonably interpreted as an acidic tone. Which it seems lead to more escalation, until we're here, on WP:AE for no good reason.--Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. That was after Jossi at first all but implied that Kelly and I had specifically coordinated some Palin-related counter-attack on the Prem Rawat content. Which is preposterous, because while Kelly and Jossi clearly have issues between them, I've had zero stake in any of this beyond the unprotection issue! That link is actually another example of Jossi casually tossing out the harassment and stalking accusations. Things like that just devalue and make the idea a joke, which makes it worse for people who actually are stalked and harassed. I believe that I did nothing wrong here, in moving that material that was deleted by bold consensus at AFD out of article space back to Jossi's userspace, when I could have easily hit the CSD G4 button in my Twinkle and had it just deleted with no recourse for him. I do a guy a favor, and now I'm an asshole stalker, and probably an easy target for Jossi to do this to, given that I've been falsely accused of stalking before. That's fine, whatever. However, if Jossi again accuses me in bad faith of stalking, harassment, or any civility violation, he is stalking me out of spite for putting in evidence against him in the RFAR over Palin that demonstrated he abused his tools in the face of a BLP. And yes, I *am* sensitive about this, which I'm entitled to be. I've busted my ass to prove I care about this site, and don't appreciate an admin in tenuous community standing accusing me of this that and the other thing like Jossi has. rootology (C)(T) 15:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You being upset is duly noted, and I make no judgements whether or net its reasonable for you to be upset. What I am making a judgment on, is the following. First, that for whatever reason, your comment on the talk page carried a tone that made the situation worse, not better. Two, Jossi's reaction, while unhelpful, makes more sense when more context is given than what was originally here. Three, Jossi's community standing is not your concern, or frankly, anyone elses, and the constant remarks about how various people think Jossi sucks or is under Arbitration review or what not is unhelpful. Four, Jossi's comment was directed at Kelly at first, not at you. Five, this situation is escalating, not getting better, thus making its placement on AE disruptive instead of constructive. Six, the relevant remedy in the Arbitration case is an article probation on Prem Rawat, and this is a generalized complaint about Jossi started from an incident on a Sarah Palin talk page. Eight, to be clear, I am not accusing you or calling you an asshole or whatever, merely stating your comments were not constructive. Nine, no harm was done, and this post on AE is counter productive. If you want Jossi to be reprimanded by the community for misusing WP:STALK, fine, we have various methods and procedures for that.--Tznkai (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC) (N.B) You can't "violate" findings of fact.[reply]

Agree with Tznkai's comments. The article probation enables admins to ban editors from Prem Rawat related articles, in order to prevent disruption to the normal editing process. Jossi isn't disrupting the normal editing process, so I don't believe a ban is required. PhilKnight (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Petri Krohn will be immediately blocked upon disruptive edits--Tznkai (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was banned from Wikipedia for one year, for his part for attempting to incite ethnic hatred against Estonian editors and turning Wikipedia into an ugly battleground. The fallout of Krohn's disruption has been the departure of three excellent Estonian editors from Wikipedia. He is due to return in October 2008.

During the period of his ban, Petri Krohn has continued his anti-Estonian rhetoric that earned him his original Wikipedia ban: Within blog space:

• May 2008, where he rails against the mainstream view that Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union and agitates against Estonian membership of NATO. English translation here
• August 2008, where he uses the conflict between Russian and Georgia as an opportunity to spray anti-Estonian hate speech, in particular that Estonia glorifies Nazism. English translation here
• August 2008, where he characterises Estonia as a fascist apartheid state created by a secret coup d'état by the late Lennart Meri and former prime-minister Mart Laar. English translation here
• September 2008, where he again claims Aparthied is at the heart of Estonian independence, English translation here

and also in the Finnish and Estonian press via the "letters to the editor" pages:

• Here he characterises Estonia as a fascist apartheid state

While I respect his right to free speech, however extreme it may be, Wikipedia is not the venue for the promotion and publication of these personal viewpoints. Given the evidence presented above of his apparent need to voice his strident hate speech in a number of off-wiki forums, and his previous resort to really nasty slurs on-wiki, I have no doubt that he will not be able to restrain himself from bringing his battle on-wiki again.

Therefore a topic ban in all articles covered by WikiProject Estonia and WikiProject Soviet Union is requested as the best option to preserve the relative harmony that now exists within these topics areas and is a necessary preventative measure to ensure that Wikipedia is not turned back into the ugly battle field that it became when Krohn was actively pushing his extremist viewpoints, which risks driving away the remaining handful of Estonian editors that continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Martintg (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Martin here, but I think it would be nice if other admins were to comment. There is an issue of precedent here: further, what then do we do with Petri's old sparring partner Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Admittedly, Digwuren is somewhat less of a nutter than Petri, but he was also pretty awful in his time here. Moreschi (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Krohn's anti-Estonian bile above to Digwuren's recent off-wiki activities here. There is no comparison between the two, Krohn clearly has an axe to grind, while Digwuren does not. The existing discretionary sanctions regime as it applies to all of us would be sufficient in the case of Digwuren. Martintg (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Say a six-month topic-ban for Krohn, to see if he can edit peacefully elsewhere, while discretionary sanctions deal with Digwuren if he starts causing problems? Moreschi (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me this discussion seems to lack the proper ripeness. If he's going to cause a problem, deal with it when it happens, unless you think some sort of permanent damage would be caused in the minutes and hours before an admin is on hand.--Tznkai (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never could took the fringe theories Petri Krohn has been supporting seriously but in case he is going push his extremist POV on WP again, it surely is not going to be funny. But then again, taking preventative measures doesn't feel right either. There are simply too many eyes on this guy that hopefully prevent him doing too much damage this time. Regarding Digwuren, the way I see it, he became "awful" only because Petri Krohn's behavior was tolerated for such a long time on WP. Since nothing was done about Krohn, the only way to stop him was to become just like him. And that was exactly what Digwuren did, I think he took willingly the role of being collateral damage in a BATTLEGROUND created by Krohn.--Termer (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary topic ban (six months would be adequate) is only meant as a precautionary measure for the benefit of Krohn, Digwuren and Wikipedia. It would ease the transition back into Wiki-world. Krohn has clearly built up a fair amount of anger against Estonia in the recent months. Just as in a Fire triangle where separating either oxygen, fuel or heat will prevent a fire, so a topic ban would remove a source of friction and prevent something blowing up immediately. While in theory an admin could act within hours of some incident, experience has shown that the issues can become muddied and confused in the ensuing heated debate, and thus it may take days, if at all, before action is taken. A temporary topic ban for Krohn would give everyone concerned some breathing space, some time to adjust and get some positive runs on the board for both Krohn and Digwuren. Martintg (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my, and I suspect Termer's unease with premptive measures could be allayed if Krohn willingly took the topic ban. Any chance?--Tznkai (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• None, based on those blog posts. For the same reason (the blog posts) I do think a pre-emptive six months off EE articles is a good idea. Moreschi (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, after first sign of trouble, lets say an attempted edit warring by Krohn, have him banned from "EE related" subjects indefinitely, instead of limiting his editing privileges preventively. So far nobody even can tell if he plans returning to WP. But up to you, keeping good faith and helping the guy to ease his transition back into Wiki-world, so that WP community would act like an anger management program for his benefit... I wouldn't have any problems with it in case you really think that easing someone's anger issues is something that the WP community should take care of.--Termer (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the Digwuren's return will become a nightmare similar only to Molobo's last return from his year long block. That said, he served his time and perhaps his return may prove my assumption wrong. That said, restricting Petri in any way before he commits any violation seems overboard. If any of them would return to their old ways, the blocks should be swift. But they served their time and both should be given a chance to demonstrate that their editing is not a concern anymore. --Irpen 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be great if Krohn willingly took a topic ban. But if he refuses, what does that say about his intent, given his recently published views on his blog and past performance. If I had an axe to grind and I intended to wield it, I would certainly object to any such measure too. Martintg (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor has an axe to grind, then he does not like a topic ban. Petri Krohn does not like a topic ban. Therefore, Petri Krohn has an axe to grind (and deserves a topic ban). Affirming the consequent. Do you think all editors who do not want a topic ban have an axe to grind? Ask yourself: "Would I like a topic ban?" This is no approval or disapproval of a topic ban for Petri Krohn (I do not know him, a topic ban may or may not be a good thing here and I don't have a crystal ball), just an attempt to get the logic back on track. Sciurinæ (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, however external evidence provided above has established he has an axe to grind. There is no need to prove a premise via logic (or logical fallacy), empirical observation has established it as fact, hence your observation regarding "Affirming the consequent" is not wholly applicable here. I mean, would you spend your spare time writing poisonous blogs and letters to newspaper editors about the "fascist apartheid regime of Nazi-glorifying X-onians", while being banned from Wikipedia for making poisonous edits about the same "fascist apartheid regime of Nazi-glorifying X-onians"? Don't tell me this is not axe grinding. Martintg (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that remark of his would be offensive. Wouldn't it still be worth a thought that he managed to avoid Estonian-related areas by himself for three months until he was blocked (correct me if I'm wrong) without needing a topic-ban? I think Irpen's comment above appears to wrap it up quite nicely and fairly. Sciurinæ (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some say his avoidance of Estonia related articles back then was an attempt to remain under the radar while an active ArbCom case in which he was subject was in progress. As for Irpen's opinion, he has a tendency to doggedly defend disruptive editors such as Ilya1166(User:Miyokan) [43] and User:RJ CG(who btw is currently serving a 2 month ban) against admin intervention [44] [45] while at the same time attempting for the umpteeth time to sanction a very productive editor [46], so I would have to question his judgment. That said, perhaps someone could ask Krohn if he was willing to voluntarily restrict himself from editing Estonia-related articles. As it stands, his off-wiki activities have destroyed any notion that his future edits could be considered NPOV. Martintg (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His motivation for avoiding Estonian-related articles doesn't matter at all. The point remains that he did so without needing a formal ruling to do so. I don't see where Irpen is defending him - on the contrary, please read his comment again - and it wouldn't matter. It makes more sense to address what Irpen said than who he is supposed to be. Sciurinæ (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point. You seem to be saying: having avoided the topic area in the past without need for a formal ruling he could thus similarly avoid it again in the future? If that is the case, mutatis mutandis: having disrupted a topic area in the past he could thus similarly disrupt it again in the future. Is this what you are saying here? I was responding to your personal judgment that Irpen's comments were "fair" with my own personal judgment that Irpen's comments were not fair, citing his obvious partisanship. If my prior comments regarding Irpen came across as a personal attack, then I apologise. Martintg (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that he may not be the paradigm of a lemming that needs an extra leash after a block for behaviour about 14 months ago to not jump off a cliff when the block is over. If he gets disruptive again, I'm sure you will be the first to point at it. I do not see where I'm making a judgment about comments of Irpen in general (I would never blindly trust anyone's every word, not even Jimbo's) and I clearly said "Irpen's comment above". Making up an additional story about how you were just doubting my general approval of all of Irpen's comments in all affairs (which I don't have) makes it much worse and you're still trying to drive home the message about "Irpen's obvious partisanship". This comment ends the topic for me: "Restricting Petri in any way before he commits any violation seems overboard. If any of them would return to their old ways, the blocks should be swift. But they served their time and both should be given a chance to demonstrate that their editing is not a concern anymore." Sciurinæ (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin is it absolutely necessary to repeat the same unfounded accusations of bad faith of Irpen on all the possible forums, over and over again. It is sort of taxing, you know Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, can we all keep this current request on topic. If you believe I've repeated "the same unfounded accusations of bad faith of Irpen on all the possible forums, over and over again", and I don't believe I have, you can post the relevant diffs in the appropriate forum and if other eyes concur, I will stand corrected and issue an appropriate apology. Martintg (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logic here makes my head hurt. Firstly, Martintg quotes Krohn's off-wiki comments to conclude that Wikipedia is not the venue for such promotion of personal viewpoints. (No, it's not and off-wiki forums have in fact been the venues for them.) And secondly, Martintg cites Krohn's "really nasty slurs on-Wiki", that the ArbCom already sanctioned him for. And with this "evidence" he wants a topic ban? Seriously? Let Krohn (and, indeed, Digwuren) return and do something actually sanctionable before sanctioning him. Good faith is to be presumed after an editor has served his "sentence", and, as Tznkai points out, permanent damage can hardly be caused in the minutes and hours before an admin is at hand.

Furthermore: it's ridiculous for Martintg to get on his high horse about keeping "this current request on topic" when Alex—very properly—asks him to stop insulting Irpen in this very thread. Martintg, Alex's reproach is on topic with jam on the top, and I join him in it. This is an appropriate forum, so you might see about issuing that apology right here. Bishonen | talk 07:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Points well taken and I can refactor some of my statements above if that is desired. Getting back to the central issue, I still have nagging doubts. My point in presenting data on his external blog activities was to show that his anti-Estonian sentiment that was core to his disruptive behaviour 14 months ago has hardened in recent months. By analogy, we wouldn't allow somebody with strong views and an extremist anti-semite blog edit Jewish related pages on Wikipedia. While in theory blocks could be issued swiftly, previous experience has shown that Petri Krohn enjoys some support within the community, so in practice blocks could be extremely difficult to achieve if his supporters come out of the woodwork and engage in pages and pages of debate with no result.

I don't see what Petri Krohn could possibly contribute to Estonia related articles, other than the same fringe viewpoints that led to his ban, the same fringe viewpoints he continues to strongly hold as demonstrated by his blog and the same fringe viewpoints that will lead to future conflict if he is permitted to edit Estonia related topics. A topic ban covering all articles covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia would be immeasurably easier to enforce compared to having to plead every case of disruption after the event, which experience has shown turns into a sh!t fight when supporters get involved. It's not like the Estonia topic area is huge compared with the rest of Wikipedia and a topic ban would ease the blood pressure for all involved, particularly since Petri Krohn's recent one week block for incivility on Finnish Wikipedia in May 30, 2008 [47] (English translation here) is cause for concern. Anyway, I guess if no consensus develops here, I'll ask ArbCom if they will vary the remedy. Martintg (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UT

Martintg, I am not in the business of extracting apologies as the basic meaning of the term apology makes an extracted one meaningless. What you posted already, a text-book non-apology apology, just proves the point. I must say I am puzzled by your obsession about myself (as well as Alex Bakharev) that you have been demonstrating for years [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] but your continuing to comment on either of us here does not help you make your case any more convincing.

If Petri is a xenophobe, as you allege, and his edits would show that, he should be banned or, at least, topic banned. That's if he chooses to return. Same should apply to Digwuren, you, me, anyone. We should not tolerate xenophobic edits anywhere in Wikipedia. But what you suggest is not to punish him for any wrongdoing, but to punish him for an intent to make bad edits that you allege he has. This reminds me of the worst excesses of Stalinism when survivors of the horrors of the Leningrad Blockade were arrested by NKVD after the liberation of the area for the intent of treason as the treason charge was not used to the citizens whose place of residence was never occupied by the Nazis. This is the most ridiculous AE proposal I've ever seen. --Irpen 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, your first 3 diffs (the first two have nothing to do with you) are all from August 2007 in the lead up to the Digwuren ArbCom which dealt with those issues with zero findings against me and thus the matter is now stale; the 4th diff I expressed my genuine surprise as did User:Folantin, why aren't you beating on his door; the 5th diff shows I placed a neutral notice on a talk page, so what; the 6th diff I merely make an observation that you were attempting to re-open a discussion without any comment as to why; and your last diff (from this current thread) actually contains an apology before Alex, Bishonen or yourself waded in to continue this. Alex's assertion that I stated "the same unfounded accusations of bad faith of Irpen on all the possible forums, over and over again" remains unproven. I'm not continuing anything, but you evidently are.

As to the subject at hand, I don't see it as topic ban as "punishment" against Petri, but rather a restraining order for the benefit of the other editors. I think the community's right to a peaceful collaborative editing environment outweighs Petri Krohn's right to promote his particular fringe view of history or of a people. You say remedies would be swiftly applied, but history has shown, any discussion about Petri Krohn quickly descends into a mud throwing exercise. The guy for some reason evokes strong emotion, so a Estonia topic ban would be a way to preempt that and give the rest of us a break. Martintg (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marting, I have no interest in proving anything to you. I expressed my puzzlement about your such a long-term obsession. Diffs speak by themselves to anyone who cares to click. You offered a non-apology apology and I simply explained why this apology talk does not interest me. As for Petri, I suggest you leave his conduct for others to judge and rather concentrate on moderating your friend Digwuren and help him not to go back to his old ways if he chooses to return. ---Irpen 01:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we do not have preventative sanctions, right? If Petri is so obsessed, he will be sanctioned again. I noticed however that he was able to edit not only Estonian subjects.Biophys (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If he is obsessed and his edits would show it, he will be sanctioned again. But since the times of Stalinism are over, we do not punish merely from our assumptions of people's intentions. --Irpen 02:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Border officials the world over stop the entry of thousands of travelers at border checkpoints every week, purely based on their assumptions of people's intentions. Just as gaining entry to a country is a privilege for a traveller, so too is accessing Wikipedia as an editor. There is no comparison with "stalinism". Martintg (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I may be missing something obvious here, but it seems to me extremely unlikely that Petri Krohn will be able to contribute collaboratively on return, if he does return, so all we need to do is wait. If he resumes disruption then he will most certainly be speedily blocked. But we might be pleasantly surprised (note: this probably falls into the "pigs might fly" category, but who knows). Guy (Help!) 12:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, can anyone who reads Finnish comment on what he's up to on fi.wiki? That might offer a clue as to his conduct here once he returns (which, at least given his activity level there, is at least likely). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Petri Krohn is editing Estonia related articles on Finnish Wikipedia, specifically about the Bronze Soldier, the article that led to his ban. (English translation here). Martintg (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have anything resembling a consensus here?--Tznkai (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and no. In regard to a "pre-emptive" topic ban, no consensus. However there appears to be unanimous consensus that Petri Krohn will be speedily blocked should he resume his disruptive POV pushing. So this may as well be closed and moved to the "Resolved" section on those terms. Martintg (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]