From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Arthur Ellis[edit]

Back to the Troubles ArbCom[edit]

Derek Smart[edit]


ScienceApologist's RTV[edit]

ScienceApologist continuing incivility[edit]



Disruptive editing at Talk:Race_of_ancient_Egyptians[edit]

Enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles[edit]

Meowy/IP combination[edit]

NE2/Highways 2[edit]



I am Dr. Drakken[edit]



Highways 2[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2: Does this violate the temporary injunction? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It just looks to me like the editor created subpages for the project for things like participants. I don't see how this is a change in scope or approach; please explain further if you think so. Dmcdevit·t 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the page move - is that a scope change? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the page move. In the first Highways case, the issue was a dispute over preferred terminology between "Roads" and "Highways." Is that also an issue in the current case? If so, then the move should be reverted. If you can point to a section of the evidence page or parties' statements showing that terminology is once again part of the dispute, that would help. If no other admin picks up on this, I will come back to it tonight. Thatcher 13:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeesh that's a lot of moves. The moves definitely expands the scope of the Pennsylvania Wikiproject, (as does this series of edits, as "roads" is a larger set that includes "State highways" as a subset. If you want to get technical about the language, the injunction prohibits change the scope of USRD or of adding disputed cases to USRD or its subprojects, but does not prohibit changing the scope of the subprojects. This seems nonsensical to me. If there is a dispute about whether a certain stretch of pavement should be included in a "Highways" project, surely renaming the project to "Roads" completely changing the playing field of the dispute. On the other hand, no one else has edited the PASH in almost 3 months, so there is hardly an active dispute about the scope of the PA project. Does this intersect in some way with USRD so that the moves have a more significant impact than it appears? Thatcher 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Including articles in a subproject also includes them into USRD's assessment categories, as articles are tagged for a subproject by using the USRD template with a state parameter. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, but this wasn't adding or removing roads, it was changing the name of the PA subproject from "Highways" to "Roads". I'm unclear on what should be done but there have been no strong objections noted here, and since the project was dead for months any objections will likely come from non-PA editors who have not been working on PA highways/roads articles. So I think I'll let this one slide with the option to reopen later if needed. Thatcher 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Highways 2 - again[edit]

Space Cadet[edit]

See all under "Another Eastern European flamer". The answer of the user for the notice was a accusation of racism or nazism against the admin. [56].-- (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

people often lash out when informed of blocks or other restrictions, and admins are expected to have thicker skins. I would be much more concerned about his behavior on articles and talk pages. Thatcher 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Eastern European flamer[edit]




I am filing this request as per the decisions made in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

User:Jaakobou, who's editing behaviour was the initial cause for the RfArb, is back at his usual edit-warring, tendentious editing, POV-pushing and point-pushing.

I must admit, I am currently an involved party in two disputes with him, namely

But this is just disclosure.

What this request is about are a series of edits to relatively quiet, low-traffic articles

  • Doghmush: removal of the word Palestine, claiming that it was not the name used at that time, whereas the article on Palestine itself states otherwise.
  • Haim Farhi: removal of any mention of Palestine, replaced with Israel or Land of Israel, which makes little sense since the context is pre-1948, thus pre-Israeli.
  • Mar Saba: replaced Palestine with Israel when the location, following the coordinates in the top-right corner of the page, is smack in the middle of the West Bank.

All three edits involve articles in which User:Jaakobou had not been involved in during the past 6 months or so and they all involve only the removal of the word Palestine, even when clearly not warranted.

All three edits also represent a clear pattern of singling-out articles containing words or phrases that User:Jaakobou doesn't like. This is WP:TE, WP:DE and WP:POINT in their purest form.

After the first two, I contacted User:Jaakobou's mentor, User:Durova (here) who discussed this with User:Jaakobou, yet to no avail, since the third edit came shortly thereafter.

Despite previous bans, the whole arbitration and mentorship, User:Jaakobou has shown little or no insight and they have had no effect on his behaviour, I would suggest a long, healthy topic ban.

Cheers and kind regards, pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:25

Its a basic content misunderstanding. Pedro has not made discussion attempts to understand why I believe one thing and he believes another. Doghmush family used a Turkish source using the word Gaza and not using the word Palestine (I verified this by contacting a Turkish speaking wiki editor). Palestine is a term not used to refer to Gaza by the Ottomans at the early 1800s - the used term was 'Damascus Wilayah' and Jerusalem Sanjak'.
I am more than puzzled at the (unreferenced) edit warring accusation since Pedro made an edit on Gilad shalit which was not agreed upon in the mediation [63] but I have not reverted him and continued discussions.
Also, me and Pedro are currently discussing issues on a Gilad Shalit mediation, and Pedro's assertions have been less than accurate there and here also. He has a clear mis-perception of rules (Sample: asking a page be reverted to his version and protected [64]) and is attempting to silence others rather than discuss.
If anything, Pedro has been in violation of the Decorum principals with some of his comments and actions. Most notably the "assumptions of bad faith" and "incivility".
p.s. Pedro, if you believe I've made an error, please explain your position on the article's talk page using relevant sources, not the AE noticeboard. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the three edits cited by Pedro and I don't believe this merits a topic ban. In response to this discussion, I've looked into the issue of the Ottoman terminology for Palestine and it isn't a simple matter to determine what territories were regarded as part of Palestine at that time (see my edit here). I think some confusion can be excused here. On the second issue, this edit is certainly sloppy work by Jaakobou - it's plainly anachronistic to refer to Napoleon trying to conquer "the land of Israel" - but by itself it doesn't merit a block or topic ban. On the third issue, this edit is plainly wrong; as this map shows (see top right), the location is well outside even the territory that Israel claims. Assuming good faith, this error shows that Jaakobou needs to take more care with sourcing - if you're going to put something in an article, you need to be sure that it's right, so the lesson is always check your facts first. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I admit to my error on the Mar Saba article; Not knowing its accurate location, assuming that "Palestine" is not an actual recognized country and replacing it with Israel, who if I'm not mistaken is internationally responsible for the area. Considering the now known location, I think the edit made by ChrisO [65] is well and neutral. Hoping this is a sign that we're leaving our old disputes in the past.
p.s. I've started discussions for the Haim Farhi article, and you're invited to participate. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
p.p.s. we can all be wrong at times. Chris, I've added a reference and reinserted [66] your removal of the Kidron Valley [67] from the Mar Saba article. I promise that you won't see your error on the WP:AE noticeboard with any tendentious editing charges. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. :-) I'm still confused though, could you address my query on Talk:Mar Saba? (And since further discussion on that topic isn't germane to this page, I'd suggest that this thread be closed.) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada[edit]

There seems to be an edit war going on here, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, where it seems users are edit warring. It seems tag-team reverting may be being used in this case. Yahel Guhan 05:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Some diffs please? Thatcher 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
my bad. The following users are tag team- edit warring largly seems to be against User:Michael Safyan.
User:Bless sins: [68] [69] [70]
User:Tiamut: [71]
User:Al Ameer son: [72]
User:Michael Safyan: [73][74][75] Yahel Guhan 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • With the exception of a logged out editor using a public terminal to avoid scrutiny (possibly), the article seems to have calmed down for now. Please report if it flares up again. Thatcher 12:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Could someone explain how this could be construed as tag-team edit warring? I made exactly one revert, which I discussed extensively before making and afterward. Additionally, Michael Safyan, Bless Sins and Al Ameer Son were all engaged in discussion over the issues as well. How is this tag-team edit-warring rather than colloborative editing exactly? I need to understand what it is that is wrong about the behaviour of editors here (specifically) so as to avoid repeating similar mistakes (if any) in the future. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, again[edit]

Free Republic[edit]


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Just do what Thatcher says. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Meowy has been placed on revert parole and other restrictions in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ruling: [76] which limited him to 1 rv per week. Recently he violated his parole by reverting Shusha pogrom using both his username and IP, for which he was officially warned: [77] Since that time he violated his parole at least 3 times on the same article. This edit removed the fact about Armenian revolt in the city, supported by 4 third party sources: [78] Following User:EI C’s advice with regard to my previous report, I duly warned Meowy about the consequences of his actions on talk of the article: [79] But it had no effect, after that Meowy reverted the article twice more: [80] [81] Note that the last rv is accompanied by an incivil comment, claiming that the other editor is engaged in vandalism. It is also of interest that Meowy makes clear in his edit summary that he is aware of violation, but does not consider his action to be a revert. Even if we consider first removal of sourced info by Meowy to be just an edit, the last two diffs cited by me are clear self-admitted reverts in violation of his parole. Grandmaster (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Both times Meowy just reverted what can be considered as a editwarring with the elements of obvious vandalism [82][83] (according to WP:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia") by two users (User:Parishan and User:Atabek) who never show any interest to the topic reseach or didnt any significant addings, just reverting to Grandmaster's POV version with only purpose to support dubious and propagandist view of porgoms' denial. They even didnt previewing what they're adding, so Meowy have no any other way to return the article to a correct form except to delete the elements of vandalism (the double-addings of the same propagandist text to the lead). Will Atabek and Parishan be warned for their behaviour? Andranikpasha (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please mind WP:AGF and do not accuse other editors of vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism, and there's no justification for repeated deletion of sources that Meowy happened to dislike and for which he was officially warned just recently. Grandmaster (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Its not a content dispute, but a fact of technical (factual) bad edit repeating the same denialist text twice (and without any real discussion or consensus) and if Im calling these reverts "editwarrings with the elements of obvious vandalism" its because of my tolerance (Im discussing only edit's not users despite at least one of them, Atabek, didnt look what is he reverting: is it good?)! After this you're going to support these edits and oppose Meowy's corrections: what about the same WP:AGF? Let other users look on this and this and consider what are these? Andranikpasha (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind if someone looks at it. Meowy introduced a strong POV into the intro, and his edit was not acceptable. But more than that, he removed 4 third party sources, and Atabek was absolutely right by restoring them. But most importantly, Meowy made at least 2 clear reverts after being officially warned, and his comments leave no doubt that he was aware of consequences. Admin attention to this issue will be much appreciated. Grandmaster (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
And here's another content deletion by this user without any discussion at talk: [84] Grandmaster (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope, and expect, any administrators will look carefully at the activities that have being going on both the article and talk page for Shusha pogrom. As I fully explained on the talk page, I removed Atabek's edit because I considered that it fell under the category of vandalism. That editor has simply copypasted in a previous edit, complete with its error (the error being that two thirds of it just repeated what was contained in the paragraph that followed on from it). Atabek's edit resulted in the article's introduction appearing amateurish and silly-looking (thus compromising Wikipedia’s integrity as a credible source of information) and that is why I removed it.
Grandmaster's complaint, as usual, contains more wind than truth. The time-period between my first revert and the second one is more than a week, so I have not broken any revert parole. I would also argue that the second edit is not a revert anyway because it was also done to remove vandalism (though I accept that Parishan's edit was probably not a deliberate attempt to vandalise the article, and the error just arose due to a mistake in his edit). Atabek does not have that "made a mistake" excuse because I had already pointed out the error in the talk page: Atabek appears to have ignored that, suggesting a disinterest in both accuracy and discussion by that editor. Meowy 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, your calling of my edit a vandalism [85] in this case is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, especially given the fact that you, and not me, removed a large portion of material sourced with references in your edit. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I consider the result of your edit to be vandalism. Whether the aim of your edit was vandalism will depend on how you answer this question. Can you explain why, when it was clearly pointed out by me in the Talk page, you reverted to an edit of which 2/3rds was simply duplicated material, duplicating almost word for the content of the paragraph that folowed on from it? I did not remove "a large portion of material": the text you removed contained 72 words, and links to other Wikipedia articles, the text you replaced it with contained only 46 words, and three less internal links, when the duplicated words are discounted. Meowy 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster has claimed in one of his above postings that I "introduced a strong POV into the intro". Admins can decide for themselves which version is more encyclopaedic and neutral, and more suitable for the introduction section of an article. Is it Grandmaster's the pogrom occurred "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt", or is it my "had as its background a conflict over competing claims of ownership of the region by Armenia and Azerbaijan" complete with links to Wikipedia articles on the wider conflict and the republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia. "Revolt" is clearly a POV word, used by Grandmaster because it implies rebellion against an established authority (i.e. Azerbaijan), However, Azerbaijan had no such authority over Shusha in 1920 - ownership of the territory had yet to be finalised. Meowy 00:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Revolt" is the word used even by Armenian sources with a strong bias, such as You had no problems using that source in the article, but did it very selectively. But I do not refer to any sources representing sides of the conflict, I used 4 perfectly neutral sources, which you deleted. However this is not about content dispute, which is not dealt with here, this is about the fact that you reverted the article at least twice within the last 3 days, and made personal attacks on other editors calling their actions "vandalism". This is a repeated violation of your parole, which occurred soon after you were officially warned for similar actions on the same article. Grandmaster (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster, this is not a good place for content dispute, and your misinterpretation of Armenian sources is already proved at article's talk page so pls stop represent your denialist view as something recognized by Armenian sources. That's not true and have no deal with bad editwarrings by Parishan and Atabek!Andranikpasha (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Meowy, the vandalism has a specific definition, so your comments are not appropriate. I haven't removed any material but only added back large portion with references which you removed without agreement and in violation of parole! AE is not a place for content discussion but for specific reports of ArbCom violations. There is also a talk page of AE, where your points could be presented. I personally see no reason why contributors are given opportunity to open lengthy discussion threads on formal AE or RFCU reports to distract attention from the report of disruption but concentrate on time consuming content disputes, which obviously lead no where in terms of AE. It seems though as a result AE became dysfunctional enough to the point of not enforcing even the ArbCom paroles. Atabek (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Atabek, adding of nonsence text (see the description of obvious vandalism) is surely a violation of Wiki policies. So I see no any justification for your "addings", and as you even dont want to recognize it was a mistake by you and Parishan, an admin opinion on your "edit's" welcomed!Andranikpasha (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Meowy blocked for 31 hours for violation of revert parole. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, User Meowy asked the same question, which I already posted here: "I would be grateful if you would pose the following questions to Moreschi. Has he looked at the edit which I removed, and if so does he think that the removed edit was an acceptable edit given that most of it repeated verbatim the content of the following-on paragraph? Also, does removing vandalism, even if it is inadvertant vandalism, count as a revert? My understanding was that it did not." My understanding is the same. So Ill be glad if you represent your opinion on Parishan's and Atabek's reverts. Andranikpasha (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have looked at this. No, he was not reverting vandalism. Vandalism is stuff like "WE ALL HATE KURDS" or "LOL PENIS", or adding gratuitous links to in the middle of George Bush. This is quite a strict definition: it is one you would be best off sticking to. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Emphatically endorsed. Disputes over content are not vandalism no matter how much you disagree with it. Thatcher 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
?? Im asking about repeated part in the lead, not content disputed! If I readd the lead of George Bush once again to have 2 leads at same time (a double lead), will you call it a content dispute, not an obvious idiotism? According to you if anyone copies "NKR is a de-facto independent republic" from the lead of NKR and readdes to the same lead once again, its nothing but... disputes over content. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

History review

  1. The background is that there is a long-running dispute over sources, particularly a source by Waal. The worst offenders seem to be Andranikpasha, Atabek and Grandmaster.
  2. Meowy made several edits including rewriting the intro. [86]
  3. Parishan added back part of the old introduction restored deleted parts - see talk. By adding back text copied from a prior version, Parishan actually duplicated the content of Meowy's rewrite. The text is almost identical, and every reference and footnote is identical:
    500[14][dubious – discuss] to 30,000 Armenian[15][4][16][17][18] and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths,[19] and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh[20]. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians"[4]
  4. Meowy reverted, Reverting the badly executed edit of the previous editor - see talk page
  5. Atabek readded the extra paragraph references readded
  6. Meowy reverted, Vandalism by previous editor removed - nb, I do not consider this action to be a revert.
  7. On the talk page, Atabek and Grandmaster criticize Meowy for removing a source by Waal and for removing "the mention of the fact that the events started with the Armenian revolt in the city along with 4 third party sources supporting the fact." This is true but the edits in which Meowy did that were #1 in this series on 25 Jan and the addition by Parishan and the revert by Atabek did not fix it because they were adding back the wrong section.


  1. This is not vandalism. It is incredibly sloppy, and bad editing, but it is not vandalism. Meowy's edit summary referencing vandalism was misleading and needlessly provocative. A neutral edit summary about removing a duplicated section would have been better.
  2. Parishan's first addition of the duplicate paragraph is an excusable mistake.
  3. Atabek's second addition of the paragraph and Grandmaster's comment on the talk page shows that they were not actually reading what they were editing.


  1. Meowy is unblocked but warned not to characterize content disputes as vandalism. Even sloppy edits can be well-intended.
  2. For persistent edit-warring over the Waal source, Andranikpasha is banned from editing Shusha pogrom for two weeks. He may make suggestions on the talk page.
  3. For persistent edit-warring over the Waal source and for failing to actually read either their own edits or Meowy's talk page comments about the duplicated paragraphs, Atabek and Grandmaster are banned from editing Shusha pogrom for 3 weeks and banned from commenting on the talk page for one week. (Since they won't actually take the time to read and comprehend others' comments, their own privilege to comment is temporarily suspended.)
  4. Andranikpasha, Grandmaster and Atabek are reminded that during their bans they are not to instruct other editors to edit on their behalf, called proxy editing. Evidence of proxy editing will result in blocking for both the editor directing the edits and the proxy making them. Thatcher 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Thatcher. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. The entire point of Meowy's rewrite was to remove any mention of the fact that there was a revolt of Armenian militants in the city, which led to the clashes. This is supported by all sources, including the Armenian ones. In particular, I added 4 third party sources that supported that fact. Meowy in his rewrite removed all of them and any mention of the revolt. I don't understand why I was edit warring and Meowy was not? Last week he was deleting Hutchinson encyclopedia, violated his parole and got warned, this time he was deleting references supporting the fact of the Armenian revolt, any mention of which he removed. How this is not edit warring and why do you think his rewrite of intro without any consensus on talk was acceptable? I do not agree that I did not read the other party's comments, I read them, but I was making a different point. I told him to not to remove sourced info and discuss his changes with other involved contributors first. Now Meowy achieved his goal, he got to remove the info that he did not like and escaped any punishment for violating his parole (twice already). I think what is actually needed is some sort of mediation. Would you like to help us out to resolve the problems with the sources and content disputes on that article? You've done that before, and I would appreciate if you would help us again. Grandmaster (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite Im banned too, I think this decision is justified and we all need to calm down a little:) And Grandmaster, Meowy is known as a neutral user at Shusha pogrom and what he done is rather a NPOVing than a radical POV pushing (you know the Armenians supported the first version with only 20,000 and anti-Armenianism at the lead, and Azeris support "revolt, +500 of Armenians, and 15,000 for Azeris" so what he done is NPOVing. Mind that another Azeri user who actively reverts is Parishan, a person who's edits Im sure need admin attention. And I'll also be glad if Thatcher help us resolve the problems at Shusha pogrom, so he is always welcomed! Andranikpasha (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster, I have commented here on the Hutchinson Encyclopedia. This whole answer was on the entry from that encyclopedia about Karabakh from where the quote came from. Neither you nor Atabek replied to that. As long as I do not edit the namespace or revert you, everything is OK. Because when I actually comment in the talkpage, I am totally ignored until I go on and do as I said, remove it. Did you actually read my comment? If yes, don't you see that this entry from the Hutchinson has made obvious mistakes which you also know they're mistakes? As far as inverting the figures of casualties for the NK war(recognized figures). Should I go on and use its mistakes in the NK war article and others? Meowy's edits were accurate, what you are doing there amounts to revisionism. Shushi pogrom is part of the Ottoman backed policy of destruction of the Armenians in Transcaucasia, recognized as majority position. De Waal is not a credible source there, his work compares the Armenian Genocide (which he considers as claims) to a claim of 2.5 million Azeri having allegedly being killed by Armenians. It is a matter of fact that De Waal has used the lowest ever estimates he could find for Shushi. We've been telling you all this time that De Waal is a political source NOT a historical, his Institute for war and peace reporting receives financial supports from such pleces as the US Department of States. De Waal has been used as a sole source for claims on several articles and several users have already told you that you need a better source then a modern journalist writing about history. VartanM (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Meowy introduced strong POV into the intro, at the same time removing 4 neutral sources about the Armenian revolt in the city, which started the events. He did that 3 times within the last 4 days, despite his parole. I don't see how this is acceptable and why he is allowed to edit the article, while others are accused of edit warring. I never violated my parole, and Meowy violated it twice within the last 2 weeks on that article. Still somehow he is not edit warring? I think the admins need to check thoroughly what was going on there. And whether you like Thomas de Waal or not, it is a neutral and critically acclaimed source on the history of Karabakh conflict, which cannot be removed. Same with other sources. I explained that countless times on talk, and I cannot repeat the same thing over and over again. And de Waal is not the only source providing that figure, Armenian scholar Richard G. Hovannisian provides the same number. The article can be edited by anyone, but removal of sourced info is not acceptable. Whether you like a particular source or not, it is there to stay as long as it fits the criteria of WP:RS. My sources are a lot better than Cox, Zubov, (?) etc, used by Andranikpasha and Meowy as references. Grandmaster (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No any Wiki rules support that a "view" what happened before a topic needs to be included to the article's lead. You can have that dubious "supressed revolt" at the article's text, but not directly in the lead! All this time you want only 100% Azerbaijani denialist view to be represented, despite this tragic event is rather related to Armenians (it was an anti-Armenian pogrom, its a tragic calendar date for Armenia and Karabakh, not Azerbaijan, the only Stone of Memory is made by Armenians) but after this all you're the only side who protests all the NPOVings happened untill now and support unconsensused lead as a reliable one. You're calling Meowy's corrections "removal of sourced info which is not acceptable" then how you accept this undiscussed removal of sourced info by you? why did you delete this source (Samuel Lussac, Le Haut-Karabakh, un «processus de paix gelé»? // Regard sur l'Est, 01/01/2008(in French)) without any explanations? Andranikpasha (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatchers analysis covers the recent events fairly well, but doesnt address the diff that Grandmaster pointed out.Jan 26 The way I see it, this diff is Meowy's second revert on this article within a week (the first being on the Jan 22 - see WP:AN/AE(Archive13)#Meowy/IP_combination - a stern warning by El C)

To help see the revert, I have recreated revision 186933708 (Meowy "I've rewritten the top half of the introduction...") in my userspace as revision 188329706. Note that there are no differences between revs 186933708 & 188329706. I then remove the additional blank line that Meowy added[87], and then if we diff between the revision 186924389 (which preceeds the Meowy "rewrite") and my revised edition of his "rewrite", we end up with the actual changes. In essense, Meowy removes "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt", with the references "Tim Potier", "Benjamin Lieberman"(ISBN 1566636469), "Croissant" (ISBN 0275962415), and This phrase has recently been removed by Andranikpasha, restored by Grandmaster, and now removed by Meowy. Meowy's removal of this phrase, and the sources, is what sparked this recent edit war. Note that while the Tim Potier source does appear further down in Meowy's edition, the phrase and the other three sources do not appear anywhere. When others tried to restore this phrase and sources, Meowy removes them again twice(Jan 27&Jan 30) which makes it four reverts within 8 days. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

John, common rewriting is not a revert, and we have no rules... for 8 days. The editwarrings during the mounts are took part there particularly by your obvious and open support to Azerbiajani side, when you made some dubious edits and an unconsensused moving [88] you done just as an user (that are your words), supported Grandmaster to keep the "POV-title" tag there, and after that all you collected an irrelevant "evidence" on me for being used by Azeri users against me [89]. So if you're asking for an attention to Meowy's activities at Shusha pogrom, your too much biased edits [90][91][92][93][94] (a reliable source deletion), etc. need an attention (temporary banning?) too, as you was the person who started the real editwarrings. Andranikpasha (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that one effect of this edit was to remove the claim that the pogrom started as a revolt along with its 4 sources. As far as I could tell this was the first time Meowy had done this (although several other editors had done so before, as you note). Has Meowy previously removed this part of the intro? Thatcher 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Meowy hasnt removed it, but it has been removed once by Andranikpasha since Meowy joined the fray on January 17. Meowy's efforts on this article have caused editing to heat up quite a bit, but the resulting progress has been reasonable; it is the display of disregard for the parole restrictions that is causing the unnecessary angst. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I even dont sure if Meowy knows that I previously removed that sources as he removed (rather rewrote the whole lead while I simply deleted them as a denialist misinterpretation for the lead) them with a different purpose to have less disputted, more neutral (for the both sides, as Im not a supporter of de Waal and Hunchington to be keeped) lead. but will the users who call these events clashes be satisfied? Andranikpasha (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave things as they stand, then, at least for now. I would point make some additional comments, for the benefit of the parties. First, an article intro that says "either 500 Armenians and 15,000 Azeris or 20,000 Armenians were killed" is bad writing, and a sign that the editorial process has broken down. If the only sources are partisan you state, "partisan Armenian sources claim A while partisan Azeri sources claim B" and then analyze it in the main body. Preferably you discard partisan sources and report whatever neutral historians agree, and if you can't agree on who the neutral sources are, you file an RFC. (Constant bickering that A or B are not really neutral sources leads nowhere except to more bans at this point, frankly.) Finally, if the editorial process is broken down and can't be reconstituted by the current editors, we can ban them all and start fresh. Let's avoid that. Thatcher 13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
One question. Me and Atabek are banned from the article for 3 weeks for restoring the quote from Thomas de Waal to the article, right? I checked the history of the article. Both me and Atabek restored it twice each over the period of 2 months, last time over 2 weeks ago. At the same time, Andranikpasha deleted that source from the article about a dozen times (!). However for the same action done almost 5 fold Andranikpasha is banned from the article for 2 weeks, i.e. 1 week less than me and Atabek. Why is such different treatment for different users, and why the user who did more reverts than the other two combined gets shorter ban? I would appreciate a clarification on that. Also note that I never reverted Meowy, while Meowy reverted the article 3 times in violation of his parole. Grandmaster (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the sources, is it OK that Meowy deleted the fact that there was a revolt in the city along with all the sources and does he get to keep the article the way he likes? The way I see it, nothing stops him from deleting any other info that he does not like now. Grandmaster (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a content dispute. Content disputes are meant to be addressed by discussion, not reversion. Based on the fact that Meowy has not previously removed the revolt information, I am holding him to a lesser standard than editors who have removed it several times. Obviously he will not be held to the same lesser standard next time. Thatcher 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Thatcher, previous report on Meowy was closed with "stern warning" to Meowy. [95] This violation also results in a warning. How many warnings does one person get and why no one else gets away with a warning? Grandmaster (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Thatcher, may I know why myself and Grandmaster are being banned from article for 3 weeks, while Andranikpasha reverted the article multitude more times than myself and Grandmaster combined, Meowy removes the reference that does not fit his POV many times. And what justifies Meowy is claiming my edit as vandalism, when I did NOT remove any material but added sourced material removed by him? Given that you claimed above that it's not appropriate to call my edit vandalism and then blocking me and unblocking Meowy, you simply contradict yourself. And with imposition of ban to even comment on talk page while leaving Andranik with permission to do so, it seems to me that your action is essentially taking a stance to simply have one-sided POV to be reflected at Shusha pogrom. I have known and appreciated you as neutral admin on these and other topics in general, but this action is far from being NPOV. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See result #3 above. Not only were you edit warring over Waal, it is obvious that when trying to revert Meowy, you did not actually read the edit you were reverting, or the comments on the talk page. You simply reverted to Parishan's version without realizing that Parishan had mistakenly added back the wrong text. In fact, it looks like a coordinated effort, which would be bad. If you aren't reading your own edits, why should you be privileged to edit at all? Meowy's 3RR last week has been dealt with. He has been warned about characterizing content disputes as "vandalism" and blocked for half a day, but, given the sloppy duplication of text, I would probably have given him a pass on that second revert anyway. Thatcher 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, what do you mean by "wrong text" in Parishan's edit [96]? Is that wrong text per Meowy's POV on talk page? I believe I have a right to revert to any text within my 1RR parole as long as I do provide a justification for the edit. It's impossible to revert war with 2 edits in 2 MONTHS! on a page. And what do you mean by coordinated effort? How would I be tag team editing if I only edited the page on January 8th and January 30th. But even ignoring all these facts, check the history of Shusha pogrom - [97] and who has most reverts per this page. Yet the top reverter is getting 2 weeks ban with permission to edit talk page, while I get ban for 3 weeks without permission even to express my view. Plus you have already given Meowy a pass on prior instance of parole violation, this is a second time. Any reason for dichotomy? Atabek (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Andranikpasha and why does he get better treatment despite reverting the article more than anyone else? Grandmaster (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Because I'm not counting reversions. The editors most involved in the edit war over Waal get two weeks. You and Atabek get an extra week for your absurd failure to actually read what Meowy had written and what Parishan's edit had actually done. Thatcher 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
But I did not even revert Meowy. Grandmaster (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The "wrong" version[edit]

It is apparent that Atabek and Grandmaster still have not read the edit that Atabek reverted and Grandmaster criticized on the talk page and reported here. I will quote the entire opening paragraph from Parishan's edit [98].

The Shusha pogrom of 1920 [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] were pogroms during the Armenian-Azerbaijani War in 1920, when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt[10][11][12][13][dubious – discuss] in the town of Shusha (named Shushi by Armenians) in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. These events took place from March 22, 1920 to March 26, 1920, and resulted according to various estimates in 500[14][dubious – discuss] to 30,000 Armenian[15][4][16][17][18] and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths,[19] and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh[20]. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians"[4]
Estimates of casualty figures are uncertain and varied: 500[21][dubious – discuss] to 30,000 Armenian [15][4][22][23][24] and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths,[25] and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh[26]. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians"[4]

The duplicated text is green in the first appearance and red in the duplication. Do you still fail to comprehend? You may have disputed the removal of Waal and the reference to revolt, but that is not what you added back. Parishan made a mistake and added duplicate text instead of restoring the disputed text. Atabek reverted to Parishan's mistake. Grandmaster criticized Meowy and reported a 1RR violation here. Neither of you seems to have actually read what you were fighting about. Article ban extended to 4 weeks. Thatcher 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I am not disputing the erroneous duplication in my edit reverting to Parishan's version, however, [99], where is Benjamin Lieberman reference removed in Meowy's edit? Where is Conciliation Resources reference? What was Meowy fixing in his edit?? I read exactly removal of these references while reverting. So instead of reverting me calling my edit vandalism, Meowy could have just removed duplication and restored references!
Also I asked you to answer as to why Andranikpasha edit warring on the page is restricted for 2 weeks, while I am restricted for 3 and now 4 without permission to post on talk page, and being called "persistent" edit warrior with only 2 edits on January 8th and January 30th. Extension of uneven handed article bans is not a constructive and neutral way of dealing with this conflict. Atabek (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So you disputed the removal of 4 references by Meowy, reverted to a version that did not contain the references you wanted, and then expected Meowy to fix your mistake? Amazing. Thatcher 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


  • OK, I'd rather be right in the long run even if I have to correct myself. It has been pointed out to me that Parishan's edit (and Atabek's reversion) contained both some duplicated text as well as a restoration of the disputed "revolt" material and sources (now in blue text above). So, that means that Grandmaster and Atabek were partially right in their description of the edit, although it would have been far better to fix the mistake than repeat it. And Atabek's suggestion that it was Meowy's responsibility to fix makes more sense, even though it is still silly and an attempt to displace his own responsibility. On the other hand, it means that Meowy was not only repairing the duplication, which could have been viewed as an exception to 1RR, he was also making a content reversion. Since this was Meowy's first incident with this particular dispute (Waal) and another admin suggests he is did good work in repairing copyvio damage, I'm going to apply a 24 hour block for the 1RR violation but not the 2 week topic ban. He was already blocked for a while so I will tack on enough time to make it up to 24 hours total. Obviously any further 1RR content violations will be sanctionable as well. Thatcher 02:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have some points I'd like to raise. I can't read Atabek's mind - so why should I be expected to return the edit to what he had intended to do rather than what he had actually done (especially since his edit entirely removed the NPOV text that I had previously worked upon). Secondly, what do you mean when you write "this was Meowy's first incident with this particular dispute (Waal)". I have not been disputing anything regarding De Waal. Thanks to their inexplicable refusal to actually read the edit, Grandmaster and Atabek claimed that I removed the De Waal reference - but as I said in my reply to him, it is clearly still there. All I removed was the duplicated reference! Thirdly, where did this discussion continue after the above section was archived? Has material been blanked from here or from the AE talk page?: Meowy 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the above (because don't want to start things up again into some pointless argument with Atabek and Grandmaster) but I'd appreciate if you were to answer me through my talk page. Meowy 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
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)

Eleland (talk · contribs)[edit]