This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is turning into a whack-a-mole exercise. Sigh, blocked. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Question
On your latest decision concerning Hittit, you labeled the merge as not a vandalism but said that Hittit called it that just because he disagreed with the merge. I fin this little troublesome for the future edits in a few grounds. The merge was discussed between 3 members who are known to agree on the same issue in 22 hours window. The merge was done with the summary saying "per consensus." This seems problematic to me as it enable any article to be merged with another killing its significance with involvements of very few editors ignoring other ones in a very short time. It's not unlikely that in the future someone reading that verdict concerning this merge goes to Armenian Genocide page and opens a discussion in the talk page of the article and after few hours and discussing it with people who share is own view merges that article with that of Persecution of Christians. On paper it seems completely viable but in logic it's completely unacceptable. Merges should be discussed in length such an article that Hittit was making could very well improve the Persecution of Muslims article by moving information of the certain era that the newly created one was covering. This is exactly what the Armenian Genocide article does as even the word "Armenian" is used only 3 times in the Persecution of Christians article. In the discussion page of the Merging wiki page I find the a person using a 2 weeks to a month time to wait before a merge which seems much more logical than simply 22 hours. I too would see such a merge as vandalism as it exploits the wiki rules to use them in their own favors. Just my two cents. I hope that you can cover this troublesome issue in the future. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That may be true, but calling something vandalism (or disagreeing with it) does not make it so. In particular, one should be aware that vandalism is not a term to be bandied about relating to edits with which you disagree. See WP:NOTVAND. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Replied in my talk page. I'll continue there. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Stifle, sorry for interviening, but would you not see appropriate to note to TheDarkLordSeth that it is the 3rd time he is violating his ban:
...TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) is banned indefinitely from editing Armenian Genocide and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving themselves), broadly construed.
1st: [1], 2nd: [2] on Marshal's case and the 3rd violation is the discussion on your and his pages. Regards, Aregakn (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Aregakn, if you once more harass me in a discussion you have no place in then I'm afraid I'll have to I'll have to file a request concerning your behavior. You show very clear signs of treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Please refrain from such foul acts in the future. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I have asked people that they do not bring up issues about other users on my talk page. If someone has committed an actionable violation of an ArbCom remedy, it should go to WP:AE. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion
Stifle, I do still see you as neutral and constructive so I will admit the sanctions if I cannot convince you on your talk page. Or maybe you can convince me in the need of it :).
I thought I refered to the term "vandalism" the least I could (especially in comparison with many such claims I encountered during my relatively short contribution to Wiki) as I see not many actions can refer to it (also according to Wiki). Can you please point the bases and why it is required? Thank you. Aregakn (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The most recent was item #7 in your complaint about Hittit. The sanction is merely to encourage you not to throw around the term loosely. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Pls come back to my talk when able. Aregakn (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC) And I guess the last time for this subject :). Aregakn (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am a man of my word. I shall do as I said even if I wouldn't like the results to be so. Till the next time. Aregakn (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. I see, you have not changed the sentence of the ruling of Hittit's case, when closing it. I mean the part concerning me. Can you please do so? Regards, Aregakn (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification Aregakn (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Appeal sanctions
Sitfle referring to your decision to impose sanctions I would like to present my objections on several grounds:
1) I am not a party to any current or previous Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitrations or enforcements. The notion that I am being sanctioned under such enforcement provision is the least surprising. I am not certain how you have defined that I am a party to the area of conflict apart from the fact that one of the main opposing editors user:MarshallBagramyan , engaged in disruptive actions against the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 , has already been warned for possible discretionary sanctions under the provision in question in 2009. From what I see in the arbitration log user:MarshallBagramyan has even been indefinitely topic banned in the summer of 2009. The article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 was created end of April 2010 and placing it under the area of conflict is a matter of gross generalization using which a substantial amount of Wikipedia articles could qualify for being in the area of conflict .
2) After all these previous warnings against user:MarshallBagramyan he used the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 as a battleground and initiated an AfD with the intent of obliterating it. Not content with the AfD outcome user:MarshallBagramyan immediately tagged the article for merge/redirect and at 04:54, 6 May 2010 used the edit summary “This article is an abomination and there is no way it is going to stand in its current state”. At 02:40, 7 May 2010 the article was already redirected by user:MarshallBagramyan pointing the topic to Persecution of Muslims and effectively removed from Wikipedia main space. The edit summary used as a pretext for the redirect states: “(Per the discussion, there is a consensus for redirect; please merge the relevant material to other articles)”. The so called "consensus" was achieved by user:MarshallBagramyan him self and 3 other editors, all involved in the AfD delete vote, within less than 24hours. There was a forth dubious account for which I have initiated a Sockpuppet investigation. I removed the redirect with the edit summary: “reverting vandalism”. I used the term “vandalism” on several grounds WP:VANDTYPESPage-move vandalism and Sneaky vandalism. After seeing the actions of the persons behind this disruptive editing one cannot blame me for reverting or using my best judgment to classify these actions as “vandalism”. You interpret that I have used the term “vandalism” as a personal attack I beg to differ, please consult my arguments. Regarding the other edits, where I have made additions to the article and removed the unsanctioned merge, these fall under WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, in the process of which I have stated my changes in the edit summary. Are you blaming me for my desire to work on a Wikipedia article? I deserve to be sanctioned because of that? Should I employ the same edit behaviour and merge articles such as Armenian Genocide to Persecution of Christians or Anti-Armenianism, how about merging Persecution of Serbs or The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913 to Persecution of Christians? If I would do the merging in the same way as it was done to the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 would I be sanctioned? If the answer is YES please tell me why aren’t the editors responsible for merging the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 sanctioned? Or is it so that Wikipedia considers the historical plight of Muslims to be less significant than the plight of Christians and therefore not notable enough to have separate articles? Something to think about.
3) I request an indefinite topic ban against Argekn for wrongfully accusing me of deleting an image of New York Times from the Armenian Genocide article with no reasoning or discussion (his point 7). This is a sheer lie and it has been used in the AE against me which has resulted in sanctions. Misleading admins and other editors must be punishable or?
Based on my arguments I request that all possible sanctions against me are reconsidered. regards --Hittit (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
As a prefix to my response, I must point out that these sanctions are against you and arise from your conduct. If you feel other users are worthy of sanction, you can make a listing at WP:AE.
I am satisfied that the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 is sufficiently related to Armenia/Azerbaijan to be subject to the arbitration remedy, and that you were placed on notice of the existence of sanctions by NuclearWarfare on 19 April 2010.
Merging an article is not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. On the other hand, making misleading edit summaries is disruptive.
Making no judgment of whether or not that accusation were true, if it were, it would not warrant anything more than a polite warning.
Regarding number 3 are you not as an admin required to verify if the claim is true or false...if not how would you know if any of the presented accusations in the AE are true or hold any merit? Doesn’t that form the basis for your sanctioning of editors? I am surprised from your answer and with the lightness you casted doubt on my statement that I have been wrongly accused. Are you stating that there is a possibility I deleted an image of New York Times from the Armenian Genocide article, if not why are you insinuating that that my defence is possibly doubtful? After all you are sanctioning me on my conduct, No?
Regarding your comment that sanctions arise from my conduct not others are you not obligated to show consistency and neutrality in your judgements. If so how is that the serious allegations towards user:MarshallBagramyanAE case (considering his previous warnings and topic ban) were brushed of as merely WP:BOLD and WP:BRD and I am sanctioned for edit summary text perceived as disruptive? If put in my position would you see this as even-handed and unbiased. Afterall aftera a friendly chat with User:Aregakn you reduced his sanction from one year to a mere month. --Hittit (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, this is about you, not Aregakn — bring him to AE if you feel it's appropriate — but you have been far more combative and deceptive than MarhallBagramyan and that has been taken into account in determining the sanctions, which are still very mild. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The above was actually something about you, which you chose to ignore. Regarding the AE if that is your advice for the course of action I will consider. --Hittit (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Stifle I see you have now closed the AE case, as in the case of Aregakn would you be so kind to update the log, indicating that I also appealed but my appeal was in turn denied. thank you, regards --Hittit (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
"Arbitration enforcement is not a place for people who want to reduce the opposition to their position to be requesting sanctions against their opponents to get them out of their way. The low percentage of recent edits that Hittit, Aregakn, and Sardur have made to the mainspace is depressing…".
"All parties hereto are urged to work on editing pages and collegially discussing their edits rather than engaging in tit-for-tat complaining about grievances, real or perceived. If I see further issues show up here, I am very likely to go through the reporter and reportee's edits with a very fine-tooth comb with a mind to imposing substantial topic bans. As ever, read WP:FOOTSHOT…"
Please note this Aregakn is clearly turning Wikipedia into a battleground. --Hittit (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Once again, if you wish to file a complaint against another user, do so at WP:AE. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I reverted that edit because it looked like an addition of random links. I saw several more after that so I didn't revert any more as I decided they weren't obvious vandalism. I am pretty new to Wikipedia and brand new to Huggle so any advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks and sorry for pulling the trigger too quickly on that revert. --N419BH (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I have referred User:Edasent's edits to BLPN, if you are interested in participating. – ukexpat (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Admin warnings
Sorry for bothering you, but I wanted to ask if you are neither going to issue admin warnings. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, the matters I have dealt with recently on WP:AE are closed and I will not be taking further action thereon. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you think there are issues that were not dealt with, open a new AE post. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I got the point, Stifle. There are steps before it should be done so, this is why I am writing to you now. I mean the admin worning:
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page. This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions:
Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.
Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
If you are not willing to make admin warnings about this issue, tell it directly! Aregakn (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Who do you propose should be given this notice? Stifle (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please have a look the User contributions of Hittit [4]? All he does, is ingaging in battles against articles and templates he doesn't like. Disregarding all the requirements for article deletion, he proposed a deletion a good article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Demands_for_Armenian_Genocide_reparations (have a look at the article if u wish to judge it). But more important is his behavior on the discussions. On that discussion he doesn't refer to reasons or rules, but continuously look for just a small reason, as he thinks of them, to delete the article. He is participating in all other "pols" with a determined bias [5]. In the latter link you can see that his "deletion reasoning" is irrelevant to the discussed template. He also doesn't want to discuss changes to articles and never gets to the point and sometimes even falsifies what the sources say [6] "Discussed topics and changed to the article". Summarising all these, Hittit does not contribute to Wikipedia information to add value to it, he has a determined bias in regard of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 broadly inclusive articles, trying to prevent value adding work of other editors with no clear and logical reason, and often refuses to get to the point (or agree) when there are no arguments. Please have a look at his recent actions, that I would see extremely disruptive for Wikipedia integrity and driving editors away from the desire to contribute to it. Aregakn (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Just now, when being more careful in observing his recent edits, one more interesting think I noticed: it appears he is mentioning me (and not only) in an apeal and, accusing in being involved [7], hasn't informed about it so I could put a word (though the admin is handling it properly). These are not said to "neutralise" somebody. I handle the issues properly, I'm sure. But he just disrupts the editors (me and others) from their work and makes them leave the "space". Looking into my statistics, I saw that my contribution to articles and article talk-pages becomes less and Wiki (articles for DEL etc.) and user talk-pages becomes more. Instead of working to create me and others are trying to preserve the good against attacks. This is why I see the warning propper and if he doesn't comply, I shall surely take it to AE, as there'll be no other way to preserve our time and put it into use. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hittit has already been warned of the sanctions and does not need to be told again. Now I must ask you to stop posting here fishing for sanctions. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Not the best wording from your side. And I shall prove it. Aregakn (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Note to Admin
Stfile, as the AE is now closed and you have finalised your ruling I was not planning to add any further comments in your talk page, which I feel has been overcrowded anyway. However, if some one is using your talk page as an AE forum and not addressing accusations directly against me, I will leave a short note of my opinion. I do not agree with a behaviour where one editor is trying to establish partisan relationship with an admin and thus trying to compromise admin neutrality, such as the case of Aregakn above. He added 451 words on your talk page “Admin warnings” before coming out and requesting that you warn me and thus bypassing dispute resolution and AE. I do not agree with this, neither do I agree with him changing/reverting my statements at an AfD discussion (modifying users' comments is a big no no) nor do I agree with his leaving me condescending messages at my talk page. I plan to a great extend not respond and let him cool off. I do not agree however in the way how he approaches admins, all his points have already designed discussion sections. --Hittit (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree either, and as you will see above I have asked him to stop. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Please be notified of an AE Appeal
Please be notified that I have appealed the sanction against me:
I asked over on Black Kite's talk page about an AN3 Report I filed that was archived mistakenly by a bot, without any admin response on it. Black Kite has yet to respond, so I came to see if maybe you were on to help. The user has stated that they have an illness and will not be editing for one to two weeks. I'm not sure if the report should be replied to and finished by an admin now or if it should wait, though it would be considered stale by then if we decide to wait. Please let me know what the proper course of action is. Also, another report was archived by a bot about someone else's case, if you'd care to check it out as well. Thanks. SilverserenC 06:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Anything that gets archived without action is probably stale by definition. WP:AN is probably a good place to bring things like this up in the future if they're getting ignored. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
So it's my fault that no admin took a look at it? :/ SilverserenC 09:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. But blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive, so in the absence of further disruption it is not appropriate to take further action here. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. Sorry for taking up your time. I guess if, after he returns, he continues the same actions, then I will go to AN with it. SilverserenC 09:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't be sorry, it's my responsibility to deal with things like this. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
?
i posted this again because the previous discussion was closed, and now i think this is ready to be created in the wikipedia database, not just in my user. qö₮$@37 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The previous discussion was not closed when you listed the new one (although it is now). Stifle (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Some-one wrote in the discussion about the new format that s/he couldn't figure out how to make a new page. Your response was to ask if s/he had tried the Wizard. Well, I can set up a page, but NOT with a Wizard. As far as I am concerned, they are a stumbling block set up to make it harder to write a page. Kdammers (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I found this when I logged on today. Personally I think it is strange that he is inactive for several days, and the day after he is topic banned he responds.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Stifle, thanks very much for your attentiveness to this matter and your appropriate original sanction of this account. That action by Sciologos (talk·contribs) is a violation of your original sanctions. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sciologos_2. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
About your declination in AN/3RRA, it seems right to inform you I provided to report about it in the appropriate venue, exactly as suggested by you. My complain related to the notice you declined is part of my report at WP:ANI. Sincerely, --Theirrulez (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
