My little straw poll was deleted as a personal attack. The next step would be a request for comment. Interested in the idea? —  Davenbelle 00:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Your insistance on removing me from wikipedia instead of discussing is ... intresting ... good luck with that. -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your goal is not to discuss. You are here at Wikipedia to introduce your POV in every enteries regarding Turkey. Wikipedia is not the place for that, find elsewhere... stop wasting all of our times, in your attemps to sabotate articles. You're nothing else than a troll. Fadix 01:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fadix. Could you please put your email address in to your preferences on this site? Without the ability to email you privately and confidentially, I am unable to reply to your message to my talk page. Alternatively, you can email me at ultrablue@gmail.com and I will reply to you. - Mark 02:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may have not noticed but wikipedia is more than just armenian genocide, try editing other articles. -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more than articles relating to Turkey. Was it not for your trolling, by now, I'de participate in many articles. I will be investigating on your new alias, I am convinced both of you are the same person. Fadix 23:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I help create Ranks and insignia of Starfleet -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I crated Ranks and Insignia of NATO from scratch. Neither are related to just Turkey. -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Now, are you satisfied, you've been bragging that entry of yours in any given occasion. Do you want a gold medal for it? I give you one, so that you can add it in your member page. Fadix 01:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wasnt actualy braging, just pointing out I have done other stuff. There is no such award. You are welcome to check out Wikipedia:Barnstars -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, thanks for your message. I don't think I want to get involved in the Armenian genocide article just now. I have enough difficult articles on my list and it's not a subject I have done much reading on.

Memo Fadix and Coolcat. Everyone at Wikipedia is thoroughly sick of petty Greek v Turkish nationalist feuding. You are nearly as bad as the Poles, and that's saying something. Adam 04:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a Greek but an Armenian. I assume my etnicity, unlike Coolcat. :) Fadix 16:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of protection is to get it to go away by reaching a concensus/agreement. You can ask if he's willing to tag it with {{twoversions}} instead, which seems like a good solution (I'd be willing to do that). All he's trying to do is get this dispute resolved. If you're going to report him, that's unlikely to happen. Instead of attacking him for this, try to be constructive and get the article unprotected by proper discussion. If you still want to you can open a admin conduct RfC. - Mgm| ^(talk) 07:24, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

The concensus and agreement to be made was on the article that was asked for comment and peer review AND mediation. I wonder how one can get a dispute resolved by locking the article on edits made by a login registered only to edit the article in question. Go read the article, the word Armenian genocide has been replaced by "Armenian relocation" a racist website slandering people was added, and charges and claims that are even not supported from the other side were added. I reported all those things to Tony, he ignored it, he claims that article is better, if this is not offensive, I wonder what it is? How can an admin just lock an article on an edit made by someone being suspected to be Coolcat by many, because all the things he was after, have been realised by such an edit from someone that JUST REGISTERED to make those changes, and that a day after Coolcat has claimed that he know technology and could use another alias without be catched. I don't want to report Tony for his general behavour, I want to report him to get the decision reversed, because he just don't want to hear it, after I have shown him how the edits were just obviously wrong and not only limited to POV but beyond. Fadix 15:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, just so that you are in no doubt, I do not claim that the article currently there is better. Protecting a page does not involve endorsing the current version. Your accusation that the page was edited by an alleged Coolcat sock is, for the purposes of the page protection, not relevant. It appears to have been a good faith attempt to improve the article, whoever made it. It may well be flawed--I can't think of a single Wikipedia article that couldn't use some improvement and even factual correction--but I'm protecting it in an attempt to encourage all involved to discuss the article content instead of attacking one another. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 15:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was NOT good faith attempt, how am I supposed to take that? Someone just register and right away the first thing he does is to edit every points Coolcat wanted. More so, when there are claims that are presented as fact, and not with a neutral point of view by reffering to who says what. The original article was not like that. Your claim that it was in good faith does not hold water. Torque site is claimed to be by Turkish and Western scholars, and when I have justified the justification of the deletion, and torque was not able to say anything about it. The Armenian Genocide entry head title was replaced to "Armenian relocation." Anyone writting such a thing and lying about Torque website as well as a second meating at Vienna, when it was later reported to be just a pathetic lie, won't do it in a good faith. If someone was to do that in an article you've been participating, and an admin was to abuse his powers by locking the article on such a version I wonder what I would have done. If you read the exange with the editor, you'll see that he has never supported his edits... And your new decision of two versions doesn't satify me, because this was a CLEAR mistake you have done, the version of the edit CAN NOT be locked on, it is NOT a valid version, while the genocide theses was presented as a version, the edit present a lie about Armenians massacring Muslims in their villages in 1914, not as a version but as a fact, even though one of the leading figures of the Ottoman Departement II, the same departmenet charge to build anti-Armenian propaganda to justify their decision, has published a booklet admitting that those propagandas were build up to justify the destruction of the Armenians. But of course, it doesn't take a PhD in history or someone knowing the event to know that the way the article was edited WAS NOT good faith. I wonder what people were to do, if I were to change a Toyota cars entry, by reverting the word car with the word ship. Your refusal to correct the situation does not let me any choices Tony, and what I find more disturbing is that you havn't even shown any opening to correct your mistake. Not only the locking of the article was asked by Coolcat, but the locking on his version was asked by him, and now that the article was edited in the version he wanted, you lock it on it. Fadix 19:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I asked the article to be locked so that parties be encouraged to discuss it. I was not happy with the version of the article originaly. You should not declare everything the oposition claims as "lies lies lies". I ask you to provide evidence to the material you are adding. -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion, take a day of and chill. I know the speed of progress is very disapointing for you. The article will not change as it will stay locked. Just clear your mind for a day. It helped me when I was outraged by the level of reverts I had to deal with. Currently the results are very positive. -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How unsincere you are. I provided evidences for my article with 160 pages. When I present them, you claim this is not about "proving" anything, and when I present positions view, you want evidences. As for lies, lies and lies from the opposing view. That they were lies or not, I had no problem including them in the section of the Turkish government, and I even included it before you deleted it, because you wanted all the article to be the turkish government point of view. Fadix 22:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I urge you to STOP your personal attacks directed at me at tony and at anyone else to a complete stop. This is my last attempt to talk to you to comply. I woupld prefer a civil tone. Declaring me of things is agains wikipedia policy. -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shish, Mr. Coolcat claiming that I am attacking Tony, to make that as if I was attacking many people. Face it Mr. Coolcat, another member in March 29 has again viewed your POV in the ASALA website. Harming Wikipedia IS ALSO against Wikipedia policy. Fadix 22:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fadix - please drop me an email re: Armeniapedia.org -- RaffiKojian 04:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Raffi, I kind of lost your email address... email me at liartracker@yahoo.ca

May I learn about your academic background regarding Armenian genocide and your relation to Turkey? Cezveci 08:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I have studied the subject for over 5 years. Why? Fadix 21:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you want me to do more than this?

As I said when I protected the page, I'd like you all to discuss the article and reach agreement about what the article should contain. This is to ensure that when I do unprotect it you won't all drift back to an edit war. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you expect me to reach any agreement with nationalists that are here to dissolve an article just because it indirectly involve Turkey? Again, I have shown you exactly where there has been POV... you don't need to know the subject, reread an compare the tone of those changes with what the article was before it. There is no way to have any agreement with genocide revisionists, it is like trying to agree with Irving, Zundel, Rassinier, Faurisson etc. regarding the Holocaust. I have proposed to have a section for each versions with their critics, and giving as much space for each as it is accepted in the Academic world, they have refused. I proposed and made MANY concessions... not one of them satisified those nationalists... and now you give them satisfaction by locking the article on their POV weeks before the day of the commemoration of the genocide. This is both insulting and irresponsable. I have done everything, asked for a mediation, did any possible concessions as it is humanly possible... the article was asked for comment and perr review, and you come here and lock it on an article edited by an ultra nationalist. Fadix 21:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fadix, User:Coolcat has deleted criticism of himself on Talk:Armenian Genocide; your criticism.

See: [1] [2]

—  Davenbelle 12:30, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

What should be done, do you believe it must be posted at the arbitration talk page? I guess now you see what he don't want others to see, and how he has droped his request there claiming a change of my attitude. He don't want others to know about all the concessions I made, and how he refused them wanting the entire article to represent the Turkish government point of view. Fadix 14:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Tony has condoned it as deleting "sniping and bickering" on my talk page. I don't think it is as simple as that, but I would urge you to keep your posts above that sort of criticism. I would suggest that the discussion not be conducted in terms of national POV; it is not Armenians vs Turks, it about fact vs denial. User:Cookcat has been well advised as to what behaviors are acceptable, thus he skirts criticism of his agenda by being technically in compliance with "the rules". — Davenbelle 14:24, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

p.s. You may want to visit the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates and, well, get one. —  Davenbelle

Tony as an admin, has locked the genocide entry in modifications made by a new alias that just appeared to make them as Coolcat wanted them. And even after showing him how they were in bad faith, he hasn't done anything at all. Had Tony read that persons post, he'll see that that person call a Turkish human right organization as being racist against their owns, and has even in the article passed Torques site as a one from Western and Turkish scholars. How do you expect me to trust Tony after such an incidences, when he don't even want to correct the situation? Fadix 14:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In his role as an admin, Tony has no authority over content; admins do have authority to act in cases of misbehavior by users. Thus admins react to things like personal attacks and view POV as, well, opinion. All admins are also editors and edit stuff as any user may. Suppose, for example, someone wanted to seek "equal time" for the notion that Poland started WWII by attacking Germany in September, 1939 (The Germans did claim this at the time). It's absurd, of course, but if those denouncing the idea also resort to personal attacks on whomever, they are then open to criticism. And admins, when protecting a page, are authorized to protect on a version that whomever is flaunting the rules the most doesn't like; the point being that it may serve to modify behavior. It may also result in locking an article in a state that is highly inaccurate; thus protection itself is considered harmful. The Genocide Denial POV being pushed here is awful. One consolation you should consider is the fact that long standing controversies like that over Armenian Genocide serve to educate people. I'm sure there are many people right here on Wikipedia that had not heard of this atrocity before this latest round. —  Davenbelle 15:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

But Tony doesn't even see Coolcat aim, and don't see Coolcat psychology of changing subject of interests everytime he is accused, to present projects and say: "Looky, I have a project that has nothing to do with Turks." Besides, Tony knows exactly where are the obvious offensing materials in the article he has locked... the guy choses an article by a new aliases just registering for the edit, against a member... he directly offensed me with such a taking of position, regardless of it is said that it is not taking of position, I consider accepted such edits like "Armenian genocide" for "Armenian relocation" weeks before the commemoration day as highly offensive and irresponsable. Tony, took position for Coolcat against many other members. Fadix 16:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with a lot of the criticism of Coolcat's point of view. However, Fadix, you seem to have adopted an attitude that people who go in and alter the article are unwelcome. I think that's unhealthy, and the atmosphere that has grown up on that article--not all your fault--is not conducive to good editing. Protecting the article on the twoversions template gives you a chance, if you want to take it, to discuss how the article can be improved so that, without being inaccurate, it is no longer a football to be kicked around as it has been for weeks now. I'm interested in seeing some real debate, not this Armenians vs Turks stuff. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 16:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please read carefully Tony, I will again, explain you, this time by trying to be clearer.

Am I rude on members? Possibly. I have never denied it, but when I am respected, I will turn this respect back, when someone treat me well, he is treated well as a result, and this regardless of his position. When I came here, the article was entirely POV, there was hardly anything beside the section about the post genocide evolution of things, that wasn't POV. No one had any problem with that. In fact, I was the one that was the initiator of the Wikipedialization of the article, I don't want to sound arrogant here, but this is true, and I believe that this is so obvious that I don't even need to justify myself regarding why I believe it.

Now coming to Coolcat, Coolcat started editing the article without discussing, and then, when I was asked to make concession I have entirely planned to change my article and proposed something that not a single neutral person would refuse. I proposed to present each views and their critics. Western views of the event, its critics, the Turkish government view of the event, and its critics, the international community view, the differences and their critics etc. And I even engaged in that by adding a section regarding the Turkish government version that I was to more work on etc. This, Coolcat has refused, he deleted it, and decided to merge everything. I said to myself, OK! Well, if the other party don't want that, I will try to work as he want it, I then tried in this merging to present who says what, and here again, Coolcat has refused. He wanted to delete informations in what regards the defenders of the different positions, and wanted the Turkish government version and Academics version to be included without saying who says what. When I corrected him, he edited the entry and claimed that one version was supported by Armenia, and the other by Turkey. Which BTW is entirely false. What he fails to understand is that there is a differences between presenting views as they are, and belief of what those views actually are. If I claim that the Turkish government claim A, and that it claims B, this is not only POV, but is beyond POV. As I said, I don't care if the position is not shared by me, I have no problem including it, but who defends that position, why, and the critics by the other positions for each, should fairly by described.

I made many concessions and tried to work on the merging and the edits, the reason why the article was not moving is that I find hard to spend hours and hours of my time and documenting, footnoting the materials, when the other party will edit it, and is not ready to make a single concession. Mind you here that the concession has nothing to do with what I disagree on regarding the other position, as I said, I was ready to add it, it was ME, that added the Turkish government section, before Coolcat has deleted it, preferring to get the entire article as what the Turkish government version is. What the other party is not interested in, is to write who believes what, they want to merge every positions and present two positions and suggesting that the two positions are equally valid theses.

If you take a look at the edits that you have locked the article on, some are even not supported by the other parties documents, such as a said attack in Muslim villages in 1914 by Armenians. Or that Torques sites claimed to be a Western and Turkish academics website. I have given many examples like that. My problem here with the article is not because it present the other view, but that it does not say who says what, like my version of the article was mentioning... not only does it not say that, but there are some that are just personal lies, like what it is claimed of torque site etc.

My patience has limits, I have tried to discuss about the matter, when I was documenting, Coolcat claimed it was not about “proving” but presenting the views, when I was doing just that, he then required “proves” when I decided to prove, he then reverted at his initial claim, and said that it was not about proving etc.

What do you expect me to do here? I am facing nationalists that will try to get the article dissolved and do everything to not get a neutral article, they will even modify and reinterpret what the word neutral means. I am at a point, that I just want Coolcat out, he is not ready for any concessions, he is not ready for any discussions, he has no purposes here other than dissolving the article, and those charges against him, I have supported them, I don't believe them to be attacks, but accusations that are grounded. There is no way to discuss with the other party, because the other party is not here to discuss but to impose, and now it seems that I am the one that appears to be the one that want to impose, when me above any other people had made most of the concessions, when the other party has made NONE!!! For those reasons, I believe that Coolcat doesn't own my respect, he is harming Wikipedia. Fadix 16:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summary

Thing is, Fadix, that you came to me March 26th [3] alleging that Coolcat had performed vandalism on the Armenian Genocide article. You told me "I wan't this guy out of the Armenian Genocide section and EVERY entries regarding Armenians" You threatened to go to University history faculties and get a petition to "slap it on his face."

On that day, Coolcat had performed only these edits: [4] which you had just reverted:

• Changed "related deaths among the Armenians" to "related deaths of Armenians"
• Changed "and causes such as famine and disease," to "along with famine and disease"
• Removed "The statistics regarding how many Armenians perished varies and there are no official numbers, but most Western sources advance a million and over."
• Changed "What is refered as the Armenian Genocide is the second most studied cases of what is called genocide and is often compared with the Holocaust" to "What is referred to as the Armenian Genocide is the second most studied cases of what is called genocide and often draws comparison with the Holocaust."
• Changed section heading "Armenians in Anatolia" to "Armenians in Anatolia"
• Changed "conflict with the central authority. This" to "conflict with the central authority—this "
• Changed "of Armenians in the west. Most of these lived" to " of Armenians in the west, most of whom lived"
• Changed "to this day, as it was the communities in Eastern Anatolia that suffered the most heavy fatalities." to "to this day. The communities in Eastern Anatolia suffered the heaviest fatalities."
• Changed the paragraph:
  • "Before World War I the Ottoman Empire came under the government of the Young Turks. At first some Armenian political organizations supported the Young Turks in hopes that there would be a real change from a variety of Abdul Hamid's policies towards the General and Armenian population. There were even Armenians elected to the Ottoman Parliament, where some remained throughout World War I."
  • to
  • "Before World War I, the Ottoman Empire came under the government of the Young Turks. At first some Armenian political organizations supported the Young Turks, in hopes that there would be a significant change due to a variety of Abdul Hamid's policies towards the general and Armenian population. In this respect, many Armenians were elected to the Ottoman Parliament, where some remained throughout World War I."
• Changed "Late in 1914, the Armenians were accused of treachery and siding with the Russians, and plans for a forcible evacuation from the front to what today is Syria was made." to " Late in 1914, the Armenians were accused of treachery and siding with the Russians, and plans for a forcible evacuation from the front to what is today Syria were made."
• Changed "what today is Syria" to "what is today Syria"
• Changed "fatalities are disputed. The numbers range from 200,000 to 1.8 million as mentioned earlier. The official German and Austrian documents record that the total may be over a million" to "fatalities are disputed; the numbers range from 200,000 to 1.8 million, as aforementioned. Official German and Austrian documents record that the total may be over a million"
• Changed "most Western scholars accept the million or over contention." to "most Western scholars accept the contention that one million or more died."
• Changed "and claim that" to "claiming that"
• Changed "The majority of of the camps were situated mostly near the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers, and some was only temporary transit camps. Other camps were only used as temporary mass burial zones, like those of Radjo, Katma, and Azaz that were closed in Fall 1915." to "The majority of the camps were situated near the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers, and some were only temporary transit camps. Other camps were only used as temporary mass burial zones—such as Radjo, Katma, and Azaz—that were closed in Fall 1915."
• Changed the paragraph:
  • "Even though nearly all the camps (all major ones were) were open air, according to records, some were not. Other camps existed, accoding to the Military court, there where irregular Red Crescent camps that were used to kill by morphine injection, (two of Saib (Health inspector) colleagues, Drs. Ragib and Vehib testified during the court) and where the bodies were thrown into the Black sea. In other instances, according to records, there were some small-scale killing and burning camps, where the Armenian population was told to present itself in a given area, and burned en mass. Other records from the Military tribunal, suggest gassing installations existed as well. For instance, during the Military tribunal, testimonies in the effect that Dr. Saib and Nail, an Ittihadist deputy, were heading two school buildings used as child extermination camps. Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation. The Children were sent there under the pretext to take baths, but were poisoned instead."
  • to
  • "Even though nearly all the camps, including all the major ones, were open air, according to records, some were not. Other camps existed, according to the military court, that were irregular Red Crescent camps used to kill by morphine injection (two Saib (health inspector) colleagues, Dr. Ragib and Dr. Vehib, testified during the court) and from which bodies were thrown into the Black Sea. In other instances, according to records, there were some small-scale killing and burning camps where the Armenian population was told to present itself in a given area, and was subsequently burned en mass. Other records from the military tribunal suggest that gassing installations existed as well. Other tribunal testimonies put forth that Dr. Saib and Nail, an Ittihadist deputy, were heading two school buildings used as extermination camps for children. Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation. The children were sent there under the pretext of taking baths but were poisoned instead."
• Changed the section heading "The Special organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa)" to "The special organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa)"
• Changed the References section to use the "Book reference" template.

Examining the changes made and your reaction to them, I formulate the opinion that you were crying "wolf!"

You again reverted some Coolcat edits on 31 March, referring to those as "vandalism".

Another user (which you allege was a Coolcat sock) made some edits which you then reverted.

It was at this stage that I observed a pattern of obstructiveness and false claims of vandalism. Such behavior is contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines and policy. To give you (and others) the opportunity to discuss changes to the article properly and stop making emotive accusations and edit warring like this, I restored the last edit that you had reverted, and protected the article. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 17:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal

March 26th was few days ago, and this was a continuation of his policy of merging materials. The vandalism in question was the merging two paragraphs, in his attempt to merge under the banner of correcting and editing, from which many edits were just not needed. He used the same trick at Armenia entry, under the pretext of “correcting grammar” and other such entries. That you don't see this trick of his is amazing. Besides, I think you have misunderstood my “threat.” Had you followed this cases closely, you'll understand that the petition was in reference to his denial that most Academics recognize the genocide. The “slap” in his face was just about that, to show him, that in the Academic world, it is really “most” when he deny it, after that he has claimed that publications are not evidences, which of course is ridiculous. Fadix 17:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for the other user, I have clearly shown how the article was vandalized, there is no such thing as Jurispurdences when the Jursiprudences is till under debate. This means you can not use one cases, without paying closer attention to it, and suppose that my claims of vandalism is not supported, without even bothering to check what I have asked you to check. You just have used Coolcat arguments and repeated them here. Fadix 18:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Query

Well you say it's amazing that I "don't see the trick of this". Perhaps it's rather subtle. Could you show me which two paragraphs are merged and why this changes the meaning so radically as to merit the name "vandalism"?

Could you also clarify which section you're referring to when you say "there is no such thing as Jurispurdences when the Jursiprudences is till under debate." I've looked in the article for the word jurisprudence and I don't see it.

And be careful, there, you seem to be accusing me of bad faith, as you have previously accused Cool Cat. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 18:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explanation

Camps

The camps section, those cuts were done to add more materials, he has merged it and packed them. To make such changes, they must be based on valid reasons, not personal tastes... many of those changes did not need to be made, they were made, like others(including Armenia entry) after Coolcat was accused to edit articles he did not like. He just made them to claim making grammar changes. Besides, I was not the only reverting such changes he claimed to be only grammar, he did that in other articles about the same time. He is just trying to officialize the article to claim having worked on it with irrelevant changes.

Jurisprudence

Coming to Jurisprudence. My uses of the word has nothing to do with the article, but your uses of my charges against Coolcat to judge my further claim of vandalism against the new member.

Cezveci edits

Again, it seem that you are missing the entire point. Let me clarify yet again for you.

Armenian genocide REPLACED WITH Armenian relocation. He replaced what the name of the article is about with such a term. This IS vandalism.

“Following Ottoman Empire's entry in WWI, the Imperial Russia has invaded Eastern Anatolia, where the Armenian and Muslim communities were interleaved.” This is recorded inaccurate information, soon during the War the Ottoman Empire tried to invade and was defeated in December 1914-January 1915. Not only this information is POV, but it is even presented no0t as a position, but as a historical truth.

“Taking advantage of common religion and recent discomfort of the Armenian community in Ottoman Empire, Russia was promoting Armenian nationalism and there were many Russian-Armenians in the Russian army. Late in 1914, Russian supported and tranied Armenian militia started treachery and attacking on muslim villages.” There was no such thing as an Armenian attack of Muslim villages in 1914. Not only does he do it in a POV way, but he does present it as fact.

He added “Eastern front” for the Armenian population movement, as to claim that only these Armenians were moved, when this claim is even not supported by Turkish materials. Not only does he do it in a POV way, but present it as fact.

“There are a number of Turkish scholars who support the theses of genocide, including Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay. Despite being protested strongly by some Turkish nationalists, these scholars freely express and publish their opinions in Turkey.” This was an edit in reference to the Turkish new penal code, that makes it possible to condemn someone to 10 years of prison, who support the theses of genocide. While I refer to that, Mr. New aliases delete it and makes a POV presented as fact.

“However, the Armenian propagandists falsely claim that confirming the so-called genocide is a crime subject to imprisonment in Turkey. Orhan Pamuk, a famous Turkish novelist, has also recently told the press that he believes that a million Armenians were killed in Turkey.” Not only does he ad “so-called” before the word genocide, but he even makes statement to “Armenian propagandist” which is simply untrue and offensing.

He replaces the “Turkish” government, for “Ottoman” government, when the treatment is about the current theses of the Turkish government.

He adds Torques website and claim it to be a site from “A site by some Turkish and American scholars.” When I have in countless occasions justified the deleting of that site. And he add another site, which present the same materials as another link that is already there.

He adds: “ 1975: ASALA, a terrorist group that claimed recognition of genocide by Turkish government, was founded. Backed by some western countries, the group has killed several civilians and Turkish diplomats in various bombings and assasinations until the early 80's.” The way it is worded make it seem, rightly as something that is unrelated with the article.

“ March 1, 2005: Two Armenian historians withdrew from the second Vienna Armenian-Turkish Platform meeting to be held in May, which was arranged for document exchange between Turkish and Armenian historians.” This information has been known to be a complete fabrication, the historians that have allegedly redrawn, have testified, that they have never engaged in those meetings in the first place, and that there was no first meeting as claimed. Halacoglu lied about Akcam refusing, and I was there during a Symposium, when Akcam said exactly what happened and what was his real answer.

“ March, 2005: Poltical parties in Turkey came togerther made a declaration to invite Armenia to bring together a committee of historians from both sides to clarify the historical accounts in cooperation. The Armenian foreign minister rejected the invitation immediately, stating that "the genocide is a matter of politics, not history".” This information is not accurate, the Armenian foreign minister has never made such remarks, this add-on, actually has no place here.

Conclusion

As one can realize, my claims of vandalism against this member, that BTW modified it the way Coolcat wanted it, is supported, while I have reported this to you, you have positioned in favor of Coolcat and even going as far as accusing me.

Perhaps, shall I go before the dates which you report and start showing the other attempts of coolcat? Fadix 19:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to explanation

I hope this is okay. I added some section headers to try and organize things a bit. If they get in the way please remove them.

On the camps section, you say " those cuts were done to add more materials, he has merged it and packed them." But in the camps section all he did was correct some spelling and grammar! He fixed wikilinks so they worked. He made sentences of indifferent English into good English.

You have a point on the "jurisprudence" section. Having seen incomprehensible, unsupported charges of vandalism from you I *am* predisposed to ignore your claims of vandalism without some pretty good evidence.

We've been through the Cezveci edits and I think you're right, it's not a good version. But I didn't protect the article because I thought you were destroying good edits, but I knew that you already had gotten into that bad habit and that you appeared to be reckless about doing so.

I don't see much point in discussing Coolcat's alleged wrongdoings since you still seem to think that you did nothing wrong on your revert of 26th March.

Now I think we're pretty close to having a good consensus that Coolcat won't be able to make out that there's a debate about whether mass murder occurred. A number of people have weighed in and Coolcat hasn't really rebutted them. I've had to remove a *lot* of nonsense concerned with attacking Coolcat in order to get down to that point. Please try to bring the discussion to a reasonable conclusion and suggest a form of words such as "all/the vast majority of scholars are agreed that hundreds of thousands, probably around a million, Armenians were killed as a result of these relocations and there is no room for doubt that these deaths were foreseeable and preventable, and therefore deliberate." All Coolcat can then do, I guess, is a bit of handwaving, and he'll be unlikely to find many supporters unless he does come up with new, verifiable facts that neither you nor I know about yet. At that point you'll basically have a consensus that for a form of the article that cannot leave the reader in any doubt. At which point, the purpose of the protection having been served, the article will be made editable again. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, my problem with Coolcat edit was not about the correction of the grammar, but rather the changes of wordings in many cases, when they were not needed, and above all, in the Camp section, merging paragraphs, when I separated them on purposes. If you follow the history of his edits, you'll see that he has done nothing to kill this suspicion I got against him, but only then, this time he has claimed a grammar edit. I may have overreacted about that, but I was preparing materials for the camp section, and those divisions of paragraphs were there on purposes to be clarified and added more, when I came in, I saw Coolcat having again merged those paragraphs and I was really furious, because he did again a change that had more to do with taste than purposes, while he started at the same time editing other entries to show himself as someone that would as well do “grammar corrections.”

As for Coolcat, believe me, I've been dealing with revisionists for years, they will never accept, more nationalists will come in, and it will only be a start again of what they consider a ball game. There is no way to get a consensus, and my suspicion is by experience, how much evidences I will be presenting, nothing will convince them, never will they accept it. And here was why I was quick asking for mediation, because I though it was the only way. My proposition still stick, and I believe it is the only way to write the article. Present what Western historians believe, why, and the critics, what the Turkish government believe, why, and its critics etc. important elements, and their critics, if there is any. But this has not satisfied them. But I still believe this is the only way to get the majority to agree on, and since Coolcat do not agree on this, I wonder how he can ever participate in such discussions. As of late, after being shown that most historians recognize it, and according to what he wrote, seems he accepted it, now he claims that he does not want historians as evidences but archival records, like if historians write their works based on nothing. Fadix 00:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)