User talk:Xaghan/block archive


 * I'm consulting with the blocking admin to see if what you say is true. Regardless, though, you certainly were not editing according to Wikipedia policy; you were edit warring over a very touchy POV issue: unwise for anyone but especially suspicious for such a recently registered user.  Mango juice talk 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, the blocking admin was a checkuser and confirmed that he did not find any other accounts. So you didn't abuse multiple accounts.  Thus, I have changed your block to an indefinite block for being a single-purpose account for POV pushing and edit warring.  If you want to eventually be unblocked you'll have to address that concern.  Mango juice talk 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems a little bit unfair - someone with an edit history of less than a week can't be properly judged to be a single-purpose account. There isn't any doubt that what this editor was doing was disruptive - but he/she exists in the real world. Maybe it would have been better in the longterm to have had all of his unsustainable and unreasonable views confronted by other editors. As it is now, he will probably have left with a grudge, muttering "Armenian conspiracy", and with the delusion that his opinions were right because he was being unjustly silenced. Meowy 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for showing my original ban was a mistake. I am disappointed however, that instead of rectifying the error, which clearly now was made on the whim, you chose to come up with another reason to maintain a ban. Please show me how my contribution, little that they were, was POV pushing? If you check the article the changes i made were not to push a point of view but rather to maintain neutrality on a topic, which like you admit is a touchy POV issue, where there existed terminology that was sympathetic to the subject. The subject matter being in dispute. To keep the sympathetic term is POV pushing. I chose not to edit the content, even though Wikipedia encourages us to be bold. I would like to remind you that the subject in question is a criminal matter. Which i am sure you are aware off as you have already said you recognise the "touchy POV" nature of the subject. Seeing how the accused denies the accusation this is therefore an alleged crime. Following Western standards of criminal justice, this criminal allegation can only be resolved under the judicial counsel of qualified persons who will judge the evidence of the accusers, determine their credibility and reach a verdict that will decide if the valid evidence is consistent with the accusation and if the accused is guilty of that offence. The dynamic nature of the issue is always subject to change. Although there has been no trial as of yet, due primarily to the resistance of the accusers, it is inevitable that it will happen. The reach of Wikipedia is in the millions. This adds greater responsibility to the sites admins to ensure neutrality on articles related to the topic. An outcome that is not sympathetic to the POV pushed by admins can lead to repercussions for those persons. This is not a legal threat and i hope you dont consider it to be but it should be good enough reason to pay greater attention to this and other similar ongoing criminal cases. This is the reason why these topics that allege genocide is different to, for example, the Holocaust. The Holocaust has been proven by a qualified judiciary and the guilt of the accused found. A denier of the Holocaust is a fair description for such a person seeing how the sympathy of the term denier with the subject is without doubt. Any article using the term denier in the context of the Armenian allegations can not or should not be used, if Wikipedia is to maintain her NPOV policy, since the term is sympathetic to the subject which is in doubt. The accusation of edit warring is also unjustified. I'm sure wikipedia expects its admins to carefully scrutinise accounts when they consider banning or repealing a ban. A proper look would show my actions follow procedure as outlined by Wikipedia guidelines. As it was obvious there was a disagreement to my edit, i tried, in vain, to take it to the talk page. When that wasn't forthcoming, reviewing my history, you will see i tried to get the opinion of two other more established users on how to proceed to prevent an edit war from happening. Not for a third opinion, I didn't believe it was necessary since no discussion had taken place yet, but for advice on how i should proceed since it is all new to me. It is unfortunate that my, very short, experience on Wikipedia is so much different to that which is outlined by the sites principles. I must however express my thanks to the people over at #wikipedia-en-unblock. Their neutral, constructive and non judgmental approach to my queries came across as honest and true to the sites values. They are a credit to the foundation. Xaghan (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See what I mean - Xaghan thinks he has been banned for his views rather than for his actions. Meowy 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, in our "WP:BRD" process, discussion is supposed to occur after the first revert. I see you did raise this on the talk page, but you also did revert again after Meowy had replied to your post and before other opinions had arrived. These types of changes should not be rushed. Each person needs to do a little research in order to come to an informed opinion. An Edit War doesnt help the researching.

If you would like to be unblocked, I recommend that you indicate here that you will follow BRD more closely in future, and will not revert while there is an ongoing discussion on a talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am happy to see that instead of accusations against me that were unfounded, such as using multiple accounts and POV pushing, it is now one of correct detail. I can concede that I have not followed the BRD procedure to the letter, even though my intentions were in good faith to the rule. I can only put that down to inexperience as you can see i have always maintained a willingness to support and follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Perhaps it was out of frustration that my original edit was being reverted by those other users, despite attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page without their cooperation, and with poor reasoning. For example the last revert of my edit by Gazifikator had a reason[] that had nothing to do with the dissagreement nor the article topic. This incident has taught me to be more patient. Whereas at the start of all this i felt a sense of urgency because of the lack of debate from the other users and their uncompromising insistence that a specific word should only be used, now i have learnt that disputes can take time and rushing for an edit is not a successful approach. I may have made a mistake but one quality i have is observation and quickly learning from them. John, I have a query. You said that according to the BRD procedure discussion should take place before any more edits, should that not also apply to other users who revert an edit without discussing the issue on the discussion that has already been started? Either way, i am sure we can all hope to put this silly dispute behind us, learn our lessons from it and all continue to contribute towards making Wikipedia the greatest encyclopedia in history. I thank you for your input, we can agree i'm sure that our intentions are amongst the truest out of all the actors involved, even if for me personally it wasn't expressed properly. For that i can only apologise. I made a mistake. We all make mistakes and I am also thankful for the error since making the mistake early on in my involvement with the site has given me the opportunity to learn from it. Xaghan (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On balance, I'm still concerned that if you are unblocked you'll return to the same kind of editing you were doing before. How are you going to alter your approach if you are unblocked?  Mango juice talk 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I was oblivious to the fact that there was a deadline for a response. Surely you have the ability to check when my last login date was to see that i had not seen your question in order to respond? I would think that because of the unprecedented harshness of my treatment and the long drawn out process it has become it would be understandable if I didn't check in daily. Having read your question now and given it some thought I find I am having a little difficulty understanding it. Could you please elaborate? Particularly what you referring to when you express your concern that i might return to the same kind of editing. Was it the particular edit i made that you dont want to see? Or was it the reverting the reverts of other peoples reverts of my edit you are concerned about? If the first then my crime would be to choose careful wording to keep the article in line with the WP policy of NPOV, surely common sense must prevail? If the latter, havent I already said that although i haven't literally broken rules I accept that it could be considered the spirit of the rule was broken and for that I apologise? Haven't I stated my reasons why? I can only repeat myself. Remember it takes two to tango. I have never once in this dispute took on a victim mentally, its not my nature, but now its getting crazy. I now find myself having to request again to be unblocked.

Don't take the decline over a lack of reply as anything bad. Having an open request to be unblocked puts you into a category that is checked by many administrators, and so if they are waiting on you to respond it is normal for them to decline an unblock request, pending your response. Think of it as taking you off the list for an organ transplant once one has been secured for you. You might not have it yet, but it will prevent the next one that comes up from being assigned to you, and help others. Similarly, his prevents the request from taking up uninvolved administrators time. It should not be taken in a negative tone, and should have no influence on your subsequent request. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)