User talk:Angel670/Archive 2

WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan

Your AE complaint has not attracted comments from any admins besides me. It seems likely to be closed soon, if nobody else joins the discussion. The case you tried to make did not leave me eager to take any admin action. The AE discussion felt like a ritual exchange of artillery fire between two opposing factions. Excuse the battlefield metaphor, but that's how it felt, and I did not perceive that any of the parties was interested in problem-solving.

If in your comments you had explained how sanctioning MB could lead to article improvement, it would be more persuasive. Many of us know that evaluating sources on AA topics is a tricky business, and that some sources are partisan and should not be relied on. Consensus of editors can usually sort out these problems, if enough neutral minds are available to look into the issue. Asking for an opinion at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is an option you might consider. It is hard to persuade people who don't know about AA to get themselves to study the matter. If you are willing to open a WP:Request for comment, I could assist you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position but this case is about violation of sanction, not about how sources have to be discussed or content of the article should be disputed and so on. Please don't close the case because I will also appeal to other administrators to join. Could you please tell me who the members of AE committee are? Thank you, Angel670 talk 16:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin may close a case at AE. In your response I perceive yet another salvo in the battle. If at any point you wish to have a real conversation, let me know on my talk page. I won't bother you further. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, battle is when two parties are fighting. Im not fighting, and I do not accept any provocation to battle. You can clearly see that at the ArbCom page. I did not respond any provocation of MarshalBagramyan to dispute around unrelated subjects and have been avoiding any ritual exchange of artillery fire as you put it. My point was very concise and clear. Im not here for battling. That is a reason I took the case to the ArbCom, trusting to the rule of Wiki regulations, and hoping the person who continuously misbehaving at Wiki, ignoring all previous ArbCom sanctions, provoking interpersonal conflicts is going to be punished, and his disrespectful attitude is going to be prevented. I dont feel motivated to contribute at Wiki if someone is attacking me out of sudden, or someone is rejecting any offer of constructive discussion. This simply creates an unhealthy environment. You just take a look at the comments of some supporters of MarshalBagramyan at the ArbCom page and you will clearly understand who is recruiting an army of fighters in Wiki. My request to ArbCom is not to resolve AA territorial conflict, but to prevent someone of continuous violation of Wiki rules. For this I provided sufficient number of evidences, Thank you Angel670 talk 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

When Sandstein placed a restriction on MB, he was hoping to improve the future dialog about the quality of sources in AA matters. His restriction of MB is not sacred; it was just an idea for how to prevent a downward spiral of AA discussions. I don't perceive any interest from you in quality of discussions, and you did not do any analysis to show that MB is preventing improvement of articles. A long-term problem in MB's editing might be worthy of study, but there is no evidence of that. You even included in your complaint a diff showing MB reverting some silly vandalism from an article back in 2010. This suggests you have a desire to score some points, but not much beyond that. Do you prefer that silly vandalism should *not* be reverted from articles? EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, please read the point about that vandalism issue in my report again. It was not a reported element. It was posted in the report to show the difference between an edit and vandalism which he rightfully reverted so that he does not come back and say all he reverted in both cases was due to vandalism.

Lines from the Report:

1. 29 July 2010 (content dispute) and 23 August 2010 - With these edits he has violated his topic ban set on 23 July 2010 for three months by administrator Sandstein which would expire on 23 October 2010, but this was not reported and therefore overlooked. In comparison (to understand why his previous edit I posted before these lines are dispute content and why it differs from vandalism) he made this edit which is clear show of vandalism and can be justified for a revert. Angel670 talk 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I take your point. Do you think that MB's criticism of Azeri sources has resulted in the exclusion of any valuable sources that truly needed to be included in articles? For example, do you think that the following book should actually have been included as a source for Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre?: Tofig Kocharli. К истории Карабахского вопроса.("Towards the history of Karabakh conflict"),Section Khojaly Massacre, p32. Baku, 2009. Do you think this book should be considered a reliable source, and do you think Kocharli himself is viewed as a scholar who can write neutrally about the Nagorno-Karabakh war, without showing favoritism to either side? EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for taking a look at it again. Obviously you misread my note about comparison of vandalism to content dispute. There is plenty of analysis which can be found on disruptive behavior of an editor MarshallBagramyan. Just found this discussion on disruptive editing, obviously from AA2 discussions some time ago. Then I found this discussion of Arbitration Committee where it is obviously User:The Diamond Apex who is MB's sockpuppet. If you go to contributions of this sock editor, you will see he used the same arguments on authors or places of their origin: "they should go altogether, we can't have these articles being written by the Turkish government so that they can propagate their nonsense". Let's even put aside his comments. Being a sock master, how can anyone not see that this person misuses Wikipedia? Is sockpuppetting allowed? I don't think it is and anyone using sockpuppets is surely a disruptive editor.

About Kocharli. Tofig Kocharli is a well known Soviet author. The book (К истории Карабахского вопроса.("Towards the history of Karabakh conflict"),Section Khojaly Massacre, p32. Baku, 2009) I cited the quote from in relation to Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre is on the conflict history. In the book he just mentions the fact of massacre corroborated by other sources as well including Antero Leitzinger, Caucasus and an unholy alliance, Kirja-Leitzinger, 1997, p. 55. But this is not the point. The point is that how is it that the works of Armenian author Bagrat Ulubabyan are considered reliable and unbiased when works by Azerbaijani authors are not? This is what the unfairness is.

That is the reason MB has been sanctioned with restriction and that is the reason there are penalties for it. When the penalties are not implemented in clear evidence of violation, how can we trust fairness of the arbitration committee? Angel670 talk 19:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

'Tofig Kocharli is a well-known Soviet author.' Do you know of any other scholar (not from one of the disputing countries) who respects the work of Kocharli on the history of the Nagorno-Karabakh war? If he is merely echoing Leitzinger, that is noted but is not very interesting. You do not have to leave a message on my talk page, I am watching this one. I am running out of ideas since I am not convincing you in the slightest. If you have read Kocharli yourself that would be of interest. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand why you should be trying to convince me to accept bullying, and why you should ignore my complaint in favour of the other party who keeps violating the rules constantly. I actually provided several neutral sources for duscussion on the talk page of M&G article. The disturbing fact is that ALL the extra sources offered for duscussion had been so easily overlooked, ignored or dismissed by MarshallBagramyan in the exactly same fashion as works of Charles Van der Leeuw because the latter worked in Baku (do you find such a justification good enough for defamation of the author? Do you see it matching previous style of MB to dismiss the sources and it's authors?). It's also interesting that the attention of MB went further to Kocharli expressed in an offensive comment, again about the place of his pubication. Sorry, I fail to understand why don't you want to see MB's approach is not an improvement of the article nor it's a constructive way of discussion, but humiliating another editor and her sources because they are not matching POV of MB.

Since the main works of Kocharli were in Russian, he's well respected in the post Soviet countries. The fact of this massacre is undeniable and uncontested. The slight fact that it was not as much recorded by international journalists, governments and NGOs as much as Khojaly Massacre does not signify lack of notability among academic world. At those times, the Mutalibov government which tried to strengthen its grip on the power and did not help Azerbaijani villages to defend themselves against Armenian paramilitaries, did everything to suppress information about atrocities of Azerbaijani civilians at last culminating in Khojaly. Now these facts are being disclosed, more uninvolved foreign authors investigate. On the talk page of M&G I did provide another source, a book in German by Prof. Rau Johannes Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt (1988-2002) by Verlag Dr. Koster, published in Berlin in 2003. ISBN 3-89574-510-3.

Please refer to the quote from the page 80 and see the text below in original German:

Am 10.2.1992 begannen schwer bewaffnete armenische Aufständische Nagorny-Karabachs in Richtung Schuscha zu marschieren. Am 11.2.1992 okkupierten sie die azerbaidschanische Siedlung Malibeyli. Die Bauernhofe wurden geplündert, fast alle bewohner massakriert, die zerstorte Siedlung in Brand gesetzt. Uber eine Woche blieb diese "Herausforderung" unbeantwortet.

and its google translation:

On 02/10/1992 heavily armed Armenian rebels in Nagorno-Karabakh started to march in the direction of Shusha. On 11/02/1992 they occupied the settlement of Malibeyli of Azerbaijan. The farms were looted, almost all inhabitants massacred, and the rest of the village was set to fire. About one week this "challenge" remained unanswered.

I have added the title of this source to the talk page previously. This one also went ignored. If you want, I can send you a scanned page of the book. Angel670 talk 08:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still hoping for an answer to what I asked above: "..do you think Kocharli himself is viewed as a scholar who can write neutrally about the Nagorno-Karabakh war, without showing favoritism to either side?" I would also like to know if his work has been reviewed by any scholars who are not from the region. Your response above does not seem very well organized. I would like to get very specific answers to my questions. If you don't know if Kocharli's work has been reviewed by Western scholars, you can say so. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I already replied to you with specific details, 99% of which you seem to ignore because of your rather obvious intentions to dismiss the whole violations of a ban and restriction. But that's OK. I'll take this case to arbitration presenting all of the facts. Thanks for your time and Happy Holidays! Angel670 talk 18:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is frustrating to go in circles. Please tell me which Western scholar has commented on Kocharli's work. If you mentioned it above, tell me where. I am trying to remedy the lack of genuine dialog regarding ARBAA. You are responding like someone who is not listening to what is actually being said. Does quoting passages from a German book by a different author, who does not mention Kocharli, qualify as an answer to my question about Kocharli? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Answering your particular questions about Kocharli, yes, in my opinion he is a prominent historian whose works can not be and should not be ignored, instead considered good sources for contribution to articles on the history of Nagorno Karabakh conflict, and not only, because his research is not restricted by NK topic only. As every historian he validated all the information provided in his books with extensive references, and no one so far has negatively criticised his works. And, of course, Kocharli has been cited in the works of Western scholars. I can send you some works where he is cited if you want.

To clarify what's neutral and what's not neutral, and what can be used and can not be used in Wiki articles, I would like to draw your attention that in the AE case MarshallBagramyan is trying to justify dismissal of the Azerbaijani historians with the words of Russian historian Viktor Shnirelman who, according to MB, warned against Soviet historians. Taking this as a ground MB is dismissing Kocharli, i.e. all Azerbaijani historians, however, MB does not mention that Viktor Shnirelman criticized and dismissed as a historian particularly an Armenian historian Bagrat Ulubabyan. If Shnirelman's criticism is a ground for MB to dismiss Azerbaijani historians in Wiki articles, why then MarshallBagramyan is contradicting to his own argument, and adding, as well as encouraging others to add works of Bagrat Ulubabyan to Wiki articles? I would like to hear your opinion on that, please.

Having said that, and trusting you want to help, I would like to ask you to help me to open RfC on M&G because I personally don't understand the reason some users in the talk page want to dismiss all the sources, labeling them non-neutral. Looking for your input. Thank you, Angel670 talk 05:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly encourage you to open an RfC on the M&G article. I am not sure how easy it will be to find outside participants, but it's worth a shot. See the instructions at WP:Requests for comment. You should decide how to phrase the issue in the RfC that you wish to get comments on. That's an important step. You can see how one of the RfC listings appears at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All#History and geography. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for guidance. I opened RfC and would like to invite you to join the discussion, please. Angel670 talk 18:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been some commentary about the RfC at User talk:EdJohnston#FYA. While I imagine that you and the editor who opened that thread might have opposite views about Nagorno-Karabakh, it might not hurt to explore where you could have common ground. It is much less painful to discuss sourcing than article content. If you want to join the above-named thread on my talk page to discuss the RfC, you would be welcome. In national disputes it is sometimes very hard to start a proper discussion. Those from either side who are willing to do so should get a lot of credit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, thank you. I think it is best if a neutral party reviews and comments on RfC rather than discussing it on another editor's page which had not produced any results before hence leading to RfC in the first place. Thanks for follow-up. Angel670 talk 19:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)