Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:21, 7 October 2007

Statement by uninvolved Tariqabjotu

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a whole lot the arbitration committee can do about the seemingly interminable issues that surround articles on Western Asia. This is an issue that goes beyond Hajji Piruz, Atabek, et, al. and (of course) beyond Misplaced Pages. Ultimately, from what I have witnessed, the issues here seem to come from persistent assumptions of bad faith. Instead of merely talking calmly to other editors, there is a tendency to ascribe issues to their nationality or personality. Someone has to bring up alleged ulterior motives. And alleged cabals of editors. This should never have arrived at this point, but alas there are some who just cannot see a trivial matter for what it is – trivial. Unfortunate indeed. -- tariqabjotu 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Trivial" was the word used! There is nothing trivial about Misplaced Pages revealing itself as its true form - a medium for the propagation of lies; material that normal acholarship would not touch with a bargepole. There is something seriously sick with any person who wants to be an administrator for such a vile organisation. The problem is with them. It is NOT with those that this supposed arbritration are going to punish - they are either the propagandists pushing at an open door or concerned individuals offended by such in-open-sight lies.

Review?

Arbitrators' opinions seemed to indicate that this would merely be a review of the original case, but instead it's been opened as an entirely new case? hbdragon88 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Originally, the case was filed involving just two editors, both of whom were parties to the original case. At that point, two arbitrators accepted a suggestion I made that if the case was accepted, it be as a review. Later, however, the request was expanded to include more than a dozen other editors, several of whom were not parties to the original case. It would be unfair to these new parties not to give them a full opportunity to present evidence and workshop proposals, so I as a clerk checked with the arbitrators and we were instructed to open it as a full case. (It is good to know, though, that someone other than us notices these things.) Newyorkbrad 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the thorough and very fast response to my query. hbdragon88 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, please do not remove your former user names. It is relevant to this case, as this was the name you were using before you officially changed it. --Grandmaster 04:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I didn't change my name, I slightly modified it. Vartanm's stats shows zero contributions, there is no point of having it there. VartanM 12:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a point in having it there, as it contains your previous block log, while your current user name does not. It is a normal procedure that everyone's previous user name is shown in the list, so please stop removing it. --Grandmaster 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of the block log. I thought all of my information was forwarded to VartanM, the cause of this seems to be a bug. I never tried to conceal or deny the fact that was blocked. Besides Arbitrators already know about my 3 hour block (its in your evidence), they also know that I was fairly new to Misplaced Pages, and didn't know about the 3RR rule. Instead of arguing and revert waring it is probably better if we ask clerks opinion about this. VartanM 20:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you are removing your previous user name. When you officially change your username, your block log does not transfer to the new name, so your old name links are important info the arbitrators should be aware of. Let's ask the clerks. Grandmaster 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't officially change my username. I already asked the clerk. --VartanM 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You did and I can prove that. So please restore your userlinks as Penwhale recommended you. --Grandmaster 04:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please prove me that I officially changed my username. Changing lower case "m" to an upper case "M" doesn't qualify as "officially change your username" If I changed "Vartanm" to "VartanMamikonian" that would qualify as official name change. I already added the link to my block next to my name and told Penwhale that he can re-add the userlinks, if he thinks they should be included. VartanM 05:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gradmaster, I'm not gonna fall into your provocations, this actually made me laugh. Go ahead you have my permission to add the userlinks back. I don't care anymore VartanM 07:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you actually wanted me to do? Remove it? So you can tell me not to touch your evidence space? Or report me for removing your evidence? --VartanM 07:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We consulted the clerk and he told you that the links to your former username should remain: --Grandmaster 08:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I expected you to assume good faith and let the clerk do it himself if he thinks it should stay . I see your actions as a personal attack against me. Vartanm is not a former VartanM, not a single letter changed in my name. VartanM 16:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough. You are foolish to edit-war on an arbitration case page. I've restored the name and I expect this edit war to be over. - Penwhale | 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm being misunderstood, I have no problem with the userlinks, or the name Vartanm being there. It's the word "formerly", how can it be formerly if its the same name? Also your shouting isn't gonna help anyone. VartanM 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For the MediaWiki software, VartanM and Vartanm is different. Therefore it is still considered formerly. And no, I'm not shouting. - Penwhale | 04:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone change AndranikPasha's status. He was unblocked and is under a supervised editing. VartanM 16:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I should be WP:BOLD and do it myself. Or is that only applies to the mainspace articles? --VartanM 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This page says on top: Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. So the log of blocks can be edited by anyone, including you. I don't think there should be a problem, if you make a factually accurate correction. Or you can ask one of the admins personally to fix this. Grandmaster 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't want to take the chance of editing it. And its not really that big of a deal to bother the administrators. I'm sure they have more important things to worry about. VartanM 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)