Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

16 June 2005
'''
 * Use of external source to rally support for Vfd: User:Yorik admitted being directed to Votes for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul via a Greek mailing list.


 * Vandalism by possible sockpuppet/supporter of Argyrosargyrou: User:TheAmbassador is a possible sockpuppet of Argyrosargyrou or someone directed here externally, his contributions have consisted of replacing/filling articles related to Turkey and Cyprus with content created by Argyrosargyrou.

26 May - 14 June 2005

 * Possible use of multiple sockpuppets to influence VfDs
 * Votes for deletion involving articles created by Argyrosargyrou have invariably attracted numerous anonymous IP voters and new users with only a handful of edits, and often an editing record confined to voting on articles created by Argyrosargyrou. Without a detailed scrutiny of IP addresses (which I can't do for named user accounts anyway) it's not possible to be certain, but given Argyrosargyrou's previous use of anonymous proxies I believe it to be likely that he is using multiple sockpuppets to influence the outcome of votes. So far this has affected Votes for deletion/Hellenic Genocide; Votes for deletion/Turkish Holocaust Chronological Index; Votes for deletion/Turkish Invasion of Cyprus (possibly); and Votes for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul, which attracted a "vote" from an open proxy in Colombia. Other users have identified the likely sockpuppets and their votes have - as far as I know - been discounted in resolving the votes.
 * (added) Many of the apparent sockpuppets appear to be using names alluding to the current series of Doctor Who showing in the UK, hence User:BigBrother (featured in last Saturday's episode) and User:TheEndOfTheWorld (the title of episode 2 of the present series), as well as individual characters - User:CaptainJack, User:TheSlitheen and User:Jagrafes. Other apparent sockpuppets refer to UK figures, e.g. User:NeilKinnock, User:JohnChaucer (sic for Geoffrey Chaucer). Argyrosargyrou has a co.uk website which gives his address as Northampton, UK. All pretty obvious, really...

13 June 2005

 * Re-creation of deleted articles following VfDs
 * Hellenic Genocide was re-created yet again as The Hellenic Holocaust and The Hellenic (Greek) Genocide, despite Argyrosargyrou overwhelmingly losing a vote for undeletion on Votes for undeletion.
 * Vandalism of user pages
 * User:ChrisO following speedy deletion of the above: ,
 * User:Scimitar following that user's nomination of another article for deletion: ,

2 June 2005

 * Re-creation of deleted articles following VfDs
 * Hellenic Genocide re-created 4 times (3 times via open proxies) following valid VfD
 * See - timestamps 12:50, 2 Jun 2005; 16:02, 2 Jun 2005 from open proxy 202.47.247.146; 17:13, 2 Jun 2005 from open proxy 193.188.105.22; 17:24, 2 Jun 2005 from open proxy 203.157.14.247.


 * Violation of 3RR
 * Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004 (page history) -, , , , . 24 hr block imposed by User:ChrisO.


 * Use of multiple open proxies to avoid temporary block
 * Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004 (page history) -, , , , , etc. Proxies mostly trace to Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong.


 * Refusal to work with other users to seek compromise wording
 * Talk:Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004 -

31 May 2005

 * Attacks on other users
 * Votes for deletion/Turkish Invasion of Cyprus (history) -
 * See also the user page vandalism of 13 June 2005.

29 May 2005

 * Creation of POV forks
 * Following the protection of Cyprus dispute, three very similar POV forks are created: Cyprus problem, Cyprus issue (deleted, then recreated by User:Jnc as a redirect) and Turkish Invasion of Cyprus . All were/are highly partisan, in violation of WP:NPOV.

23-28 May 2005

 * Attacks on other users, false characterisation of edits as "vandalism", "sabotage" etc
 * Cyprus dispute (history) -, , , , , also Talk:Cyprus_dispute/Archive_2 (not all his entries are signed, e.g. "Warning to *", "To *, historical edits unacceptable"; but his edits are easily recognisable), Talk:Cyprus_dispute/Archive_3 etc

23 May 2005

 * Violation of 3RR
 * Cyprus dispute -, , , (resulted in 24 hr block by User:Proteus)

Statement by Expatkiwi
I have had postings on various Cyprus subject sites (for example, see page history for Turkish Cypriot Genocide) interfered with by Argyrosargyrou, and I have also been personally attacked by him on the Cyprus Dispute discussion page. He is not open to any form of compromise language and his entries are heavilly biased. Expatkiwi, 23:42 2 June 2005 (UTC)

Statement by UNFanatic
Actually the aforementioned person committed similar offences with HEAVILY BIASED pro-Turkish entries at times. In addition, Argyrosargyrou revealed through his actions that for some time these articles about Cyprus have been edited unchecked by wikipedians with such Turkish bias. His introduction of the Greek bias facilitated the reexamination of how these articles were written prior to his appearance. In essence, everyone is guilty of perpetrating their point of view in these articles. I do not think he should be removed at all and this forum should be terminated. (UNFanatic 01:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC))


 * You are just as guilty as Argyrosargyrou in this. And FYI, I don't go around personally slandering or tearing apart entries with caustic comments. Expatkiwi 02:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by snchduer
I have repeatedly tried to talk to Argyrosargyrou and to spark a discussion, but earned nothing but insults and contempt in return (e.g. and Archives of Talk:Cyprus_dispute). He does not seem to be open to any compromise, and stubbornly wants his views to be spread on wikipedia. Any view that differs from his does not seem to be acceptable to him, and he obviously thinks this gives him the right to break all wikipedia rules and standards of interpersonal behaviour. - Snchduer 11:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Group efforts
There have been accusations of group efforts to deny access to Argyro, which make me write these extra lines. The group that Ank99 is talking of - we were trying indeed to uphold and improve a version which IMHO was considerably better than his, though, by wikipedia standards, it is still quite far away from being a good NPOV article. We were doing this because Argyro was trying to turn the Cyprus_dispute page into (or to keep it at) an article featuring almost only the Greek Cypriot POV. Had he been willing to discuss and to contribute more wisely, I am sure his point of view would have been heard and integrated. But accusing everybody to lie and to spread Turkish propaganda is certainly not helping to keep a calm discussion.

However, here the ArbCom afaik will mostly not decide about whether Argyro's article version was POV or not (which indeed is not always easy to recognise for sb who does not know much about the Cyprus issue), but whether or not his behaviour violated wikipedia rules and guidelines. - Snchduer 09:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by E.A
Argyrosargyrou has used Wikipedia as nothing more than to spread nationalist and racist views against Turkish people. Wikipedia is only one part of this, he seems to dedicate websites outside of Wikipedia to labelling Turkish people as nothing more than human right abusing murderers. He has continued this in Wikipedia with articles such as Hellenic Genocide, Turkish Holocaust Chronological Index, as well as heavily editing and abusing articles such as Cyprus dispute. This article had to be protected following his inability to cooperate, so he went and created Cyprus problem, Cyprus Issue and Turkish Invasion of Cyprus all containing the same content. He has abused all the Vfd procedures with sockpuppeting and resorted to using open proxies to avoid a 3RR (which he has already violated).

Argyrosargyrou has no intention of using Wikipedia to create good articles with the cooperation of the community, he only sees it as an opportunity to spread more anti-Turkish sentinment which seems to blind him. --E.A 13:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by ANK99
All statements here except user UNFanatic statement are of pro Turkish or Turkish Cypriot POV so they cannot be considered impartial and are not offering good advice. It is true that most articles where Argyrosargyrou was trying to add a pro Greek Cypriot POV were for long and painstakingly been edited with the opposite sides views. His attempts alarmed these individuals who mounted a concerted effort (I dare say) to deny him expressing his views. I have experienced a similar attempt trying to edit Cyprus dispute. See and an immediate revert by Snchduer without any warning or discussion. So Argyrosargyrou is not the only one that has violated Wikipedia rules here. In my opinion he has been trying in vain to record his POV and his contributions have been attacked repeatedly. Users E.A, Snchduer, Expatkiwi have been trying to run over him in any of his attempts. I disagree with denying him access. This forum should be terminated since it is another attempt to silence a POV contributor. I should mention that the Cyprus Issue in general IS a hotly debated controversial issue (not only in Wikipedia) and a NPOV is practically non existent. --Ank99 06:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sources:
 * For Ank99's edit (which was actually made on Argyro's POV version):
 * For discussion about his edits (which he simply left after some while):
 * - Snchduer 19:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to Ank99 statement:

Ank to make out that there is some kind of conspiracy to suppress the GC POV is rubbish. The only reason so many people have slammed Argy for his edits is because of the uncompromising and insulting nature he goes about doing them. Out of all these people i am the only the TC here and my edits have contained nowhere near the POV extremes of Argy. What i do realise however is a group of GC's or people of Greek origin such as yourself and UNFanatic who are backing every article Argy produces, this can be seen in the Vfd pages on most articles he has produced. He shows no ability of compromising on any issue, or of acting in good faith. This is why his actions are being discussed. --E.A 19:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have never supported Argyrosargyrou methods. Please provide evidence to the contrary.
 * "Group of GC" - who is in this group? UNFanatic, me and who else? And we have entered into this discussion only after YOUR efforts to ban Argyrosargyrou.
 * You should review the articles and find who has been so active on them supporting POVs that have been tested and failed in the UN Security Council, the European Courts, contrary to directives and norms in the EU, contrary to the charter of Human Rights and contrary to long standing treaties and international agreements. Then you should reexamine who is a fanatic.
 * Can you show me a place where YOU have been willing to compromise?

--Ank99 08:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisO
For the record, as this request for arbitration appears to have attracted partisans on both sides of the Cyprus dispute, this is not about the political views of Argyrosargyrou. As the evidence makes clear, it is about his conduct: specifically his revert warring, violations of the 3RR, use of open proxies and attempts to evade a temporary block. The evidence for all of these is clear and compelling. I note that neither he nor any of his supporters has even mentioned any of these issues, let alone attempted to justify his actions.

Wikipedia has plenty of contributors who have a strong POV. They do not attempt to forcibly impose their POV by breaking most of Wikipedia's major rules and in the case of Argyrosargyrou, breaking the law as well (the unauthorised use of other people's computers is illegal in many jurisdictions). That is what this RfA is about, not whether Argyrosargyrou's political views have any merit. -- ChrisO 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Parties to this discussion are overwhelmingly in majority also parties in the dispute. Any scan of edits of articles partaining to this dispute will easily reveal this. Therefore this is not ONLY a dispute of Argyrosargyrou behaviour. Such behaviour was triggered by a group effort to deny him access to WP. This does not mean that I condone such behaviour. One though should have an all around view of events on deciding on a dispute. --Ank99 07:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Phlogistomania
I have in previous statements been willing to give Argyrosargyrou the benefit of the doubt and assume his good faith. This assumption has particularly been strengthened by his edits actually containing relevant new material, despite being surrounded in despicable anti-Turkish rhetoric. Furthermore, to a certain extent, his accusations of a pro-Turkish POV in certain articles (and sections thereof) were not unreasonable.

We should also consider the articles unrelated to Helleno-Turkish conflicts which he has contributed to. Aside from to what extent they read encyclopaedically, he has contributed some material of interest and value. I could therefore see a lot of merit in trying to let this dispute cool off, although that would depend firstly upon Argyrosargyrou assuming the good faith of others (I think we can all understand where his paranoia comes from, but AGF is fundamental), and secondly that something is done about making the articles in question conform more closely to NPOV.

However, I was not previously aware of for how long this dispute had been going on. What is notable is that this all stems from a simple violation of 3RR. Although it by no means serves to excuse Argyrosargyrou's actions, one can understand his frustration at this rule: it is naturally conservative in operation, and therefore is a useful tool against someone trying to make a bad edit, but wholly fails to guard against the (much less likely) scenario of there being a trenchant upholder (or upholders) of a previous bad version of an article. The ideal, difficult as it may be, would be a total rewrite from scratch of Cyprus Dispute to the quality of a featured article candidate.

Nevertheless, at some point I have to acknowledge that my assumptions are overly optimistic. Although I have my reservations about some of the rules of Wikipedia (note, however, that I could not suggest anything better and am not advocating any rule changes), the facts of the case are clear: Argyrosargyrou has flagrantly and systematically flouted the rules. In order for him ever to be able to contribute here, he must agree to abide by the rules, and, moreover, actually abide by them. I sincerely hope, therefore, that he will decide that he wants to behave like a civilised member of this community. Phlogistomania 00:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * There was never an argument that Argyrosargyrou is in violation of WP's rules. There is though the opposite side: of a concerted effort (such it seems) of a group of contributors to pass their POV at all costs, including banning users from contributing. How can one be protected from such group violations when even the RfA's are driven by the same group? --Ank99 06:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Scimitar
I should begin by saying that I have no connection (to my knowledge) to either side in the Cyprus dispute, and am only aware of this page because I was irritated by Argyrosargyrou's holocaust comments on the VfD page cited by ChrisO.

I would like to submit that, having reviewed the evidence, Argyrosargyrou seems to have a consistent pattern of incivility and poor decorum. Furthermore, I would like to note that this does not extend solely to the Cyprus dispute.


 * Timeline of Ancient Greece Talk Page

I could quote at length about the statements Argyrosargyrou makes, but I think his tone is evident from the above link. In short, Argyrosargyrou is rude, over-the-top and condescending to another user because that user suggested that a novel by Pausanius might not be historically accurate. To become so heated over a minor issue from 3000 years ago shows, in my opinion, an utter lack of self-control and an inability to display common courtesy on the part of Argyrosargyrou.

This is not to say Argyrosargyrou's opponents have been blameless; I note vandalism to his user page on May 30 (subsequently reverted by UNFanatic). However, I also note that even his allies in the Cyprus dispute suggest an increase in civility. In any case, it seems clear to me that Argyrosargyrou's comments and actions go well beyond simple partisan disagreement, and are not suitable for Wikipedia. Scimitar 17:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Sarg
Exactly like Scimitar, I have nothing to do whatsoever with the Cyprus dispute. Five months ago I had never even thought about the Cyprus issue beyond the lines of "it's an island were Greeks and Turkish have constant conflicts".

However, I was shocked to read one of the incredibly POV articles made by this user when it was being voted for deletion. And his childish and stubborn behaviour has continued to this day, getting even worse with the recent "Attack of the 50 feet sockpuppets" at Votes for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul.

I want it to be clear that the issues behind Argy's articles are probably valid. I don't know for certain, since, as I've already said, I'm not an expert in the topic. However, every conflict has two sides, and usually both sides commit horrible attrocities. Thus, the articles could be developed to include both POVs, but Argy's partisanism is only achieving two things: 1) Avoiding a proper treatment of the topics and 2) Making a lot of people waste their time.

So, as a summary, the topics are valid, but this user needs to learn to behave. Sarg 19:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)