Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Argyrosargyrou

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)), its subject may request for the page to be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Please note that this RfC has been superseded by a Request for arbitration. Comments from other parties are welcomed. -- ChrisO 20:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This dispute is with user Argyrosargyrou about his disruptive behaviour on wikipedia, while editing and while contributing on Talk pages, for personal attacks against various users, and for attempted disruption of a VfD page. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description[edit]

On the Cyprus dispute article, Argyrosargyrou has blocked so far all attempts to come to terms on a version of the article that can be agreed on by all sides. He tried to instate the version that can be found on the page of the Republic of Cyprus government, which as a part of the Cyprus dispute cannot be possibly neutral, thereby violating NPOV guidelines on wikipedia as well as copyrights of the webpages.

Intermittently, he tried to open a parallel page entitled "Cyprus Issue", which was first closed for copyright violations then redirected to the original article. When Cyprus_dispute was finally locked to end the editing war between Argyrosargyrou and everyone else, he tried to open another parallel page on Turkish invasion of Cyprus, again copying the RoC government page.

He has created "mirror" articles on several other topics when unhappy with the progress of the main article. Hellenic (Greek) Genocide is an attempt to circumvent copyright violation and VfD processes on Hellenic Genocide. Cyprus problem and Cyprus issue have been created to shortcut the editing process at Cyprus dispute. Turkish Invasion of Cyprus is another example of this behavior.

All attempts to discuss with this user have proven futile, he continues to designate all users who disagree with him as Turkish nationalists, Turkish apologists or accused them of vandalising the page. He does not even try to contribute in a productive or result-oriented way, which is proven by his tries to instate parallel articles to the Cyprus dispute one as well as his contributions to Talk pages. Ample evidence can be found on the Cyprus dispute Talk pages and its archives, as well as his contributions.

He also tried to disrupt the VfD/Hellenic_Genocide page, as can be seen here.

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Cyprus_dispute
  2. Talk:Cyprus_dispute/Archive_2 (some unsigned contributions by Argyrosargyrou, but the style is recognisable; ample evidence), for example
    1. Quote: "LOL.. Neither Expatkiwi, Snchduer, and RickK are contributing from a neutral standpoint. Snchduer, and RickK have all shown from their contributions here and elsewhere that they are behaving like apologists, with RickK going so far as to demand that the page on the Hellenic Genocide be deleted. EA. is a Turkish Cypriot nationalist and like RickK wants the history of the Hellenic Genocide suppressed so its no wonder he is doing the same on the history of Cyprus. And you accuse me of saying my view of history is the only acceptable one. I am saying that Expatkiwi, Snchduer, RickK and EA. are all on the side of Turkey and that balance is needed which none of them have provided. Snchduer has deleted all the historical facts and figures I added so as to equate legality with illegality and EA continues to reputedly sabotage the page by reverting to earlier pro-Turkish edits. --Argyrosargyrou 17:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)"
    2. Warnings to all users who edited except for himself to stop spreading Turkish propaganda; example: Quote: "Stop using this page as a Turkish propaganda site. The history of Turkish aggression in Cyprus WILL be given like it or not. Your attempt to remove it and introduce a Turkish biased propaganda account is sabotage." (from "Warning to E.A")
  3. Talk:Cyprus_dispute/Archive_3
    1. Quote: "Stop Vandalising this article and discuss the facts. I have discussed the edits I want made above and in previous threads. Expatkiwi has expressed his bias towards Turkey both here and in other pages, E.A is a Turkish Cypriot nationalist and RickK is an apologist, that wants the page on the Hellenic Genocide removed, just like you are. (...) --Argyrosargyrou 20:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)" (comment by snchduer: Argyrosargyrou has hardly ever tried to discuss edits)
  4. For the NPOV policy: Argyrosargyrou's version of the Cyprus dispute article, which is largely identical with Aspects of the Cyprus Problem from The Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office - for comparison: A detailed Cyprus Problem site from The TFSC and Turkey and Balanced and impartial internet site on the conflict

CROSS-EXAMINATION by the defence

The Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office is considered to be a neutral source on the substantive humanitarian issues of the Cyprus dispute which is between Tureky and the RoC, the EU and the UN, and is also public domain infromation. The United Nations Security Council has declared the Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus ILLEGAL. This is not a point of view, but a point of FACT. The issues of the ethnic cleansing of the Greek Cypriots, the Turkish destruction of Cyprus cultural heritage, the Missing Persons, Turkeys proven crimes against humanity, and the Illegal Turkish Colonisation of Cyprus in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention are all POINTS OF FACT that have been accepted by the UN, the EU and the European Court and Commission of Human Rights. --Argyrosargyrou 10:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Most of the users articles and edits have centred around creating a negative view of Turkish people to an extent i deem racist. These articles include Hellenic Genocide (up for deletion), Turkish Holocaust Chronological Index (up for deletion), Cyprus dispute (currently protected from his edits, from which he earned a 3RR ban) - he tried to work his way round this by creating: Cyprus issue (deleted), Cyprus problem (deleted) and now Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. His contributions seem to be part of a larger picture of a campaign on the Internet to smear the name of Turkish people:
  2. Argyrosargyrou's attack on Feco (cf. heading)
  3. NPOV, nationalism: Argyrosargyrou's try to edit the Turkish Cypriot genocide page (disputed topic)
  4. personal abuse: namecalling on "Turkish Cypriot Genocide"
  5. Ignored the Vote for Deletion consensus on article Hellenic Genocide and created it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellenic_Genocide&oldid=14582972
    This article has been speedily deleted in accordance with the speedy deletion policy. -- ChrisO 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    The article has returned again, this time from an anon IP. I've just marked it for speedy deletion. Feco 16:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Also created article Hellenic (Greek) Genocide to maintain POV content.
    This article has been speedy-deleted as a recreation of Hellenic Genocide. --Kiand 16:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Allegedly trying to push through his view on Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004 using multiple IPs, thus trying to evade the WP:3RR rule: article history - user contributions; remarkably, the editing comments of the anonymous users are identical to those by Argyrosargyrou!
    Worse than that: he's illegally using open proxies, mostly in a number of East Asian countries. I think this has gone far enough - I'll raise a request for arbitration on this joker. -- ChrisO 17:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CROSS-EXAMINATION by the defence

Oh yes.... So publishing the Reports of the European Commission of Human Rights on Turkey's human rights abuses carried out during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus at http://www.argyrosargyrou.fsnet.co.uk/humanrig.htm is a campaign to smear the name of Turkish people. Oh is it. And I suppose mentioning the Nuremberg trials concerning the NAZI holocaust is also a campaign to smear the name of German people. Somehow I don't think so in either case. I cite this distortion of the facts by taking offence at any mention of human rights as another tactic used by Turkish apologists to slander their opponents. Since this is personal abuse directed against me and filthy lies this page should be deleted. --Argyrosargyrou 09:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
  3. abuse of VfD process
  4. disruptive behaviour
  5. 3RR violation

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Cyprus dispute: how to proceed
  2. Cyprus dispute archive 3: Past tries on solveing the editing war
  3. Cyprus disput archive 2: How to edit
  4. Cyprus dispute archive 2: This sums up the Cyprus dispute (anonymous replies by Argyrosargyrou)


Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Snchduer 20:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. E.A 22:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Expatkiwi 23:30, 29 May 2005
  4. RickK 04:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Sarg 21:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Feco 22:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mgm|(talk) 08:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ChrisO 17:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC). Yet another tiresome ultranationalist - it won't be long before he gets banned at this rate.[reply]
  6. Klonimus 09:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC) I don't think banning is appropriate, just a few month block on editing anything related to cyprus or turkey. Klonimus 09:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Scimitar 22:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Kiand 14:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC). User has been issuing violent personal attacks and probably heavily sockpuppeting.

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

RIGHT TO A DEFENCE[edit]

This is nothing more that a anti-Hellenic hate page directed against me. It is nothing short of personal abuse and on these grounds I demand that it be deleted immediately. It was not set up under the proper procedures and on those grounds it should be deleted. It was set up in order to pursue a content dispute by the Turkish apologists who have signed it, nameley Snchduer, E.A, Expatkiw, RickK. All of these people along with Feco have voted for the deletion of the Hellenic Genocide page and are therefore engaged in a campaign to cover up Turkeys crimes against humanity. Feco has abused his privileges in order to pursue his dispute dispute and placed a 3 false copyright violation notices on pages I have created including the Hellenic Genocide page which uses Public Domain text which was published in 1978 as public domain and is also by default out of copyright under the 25 year US no-renewal law, the page on the author Leonidas Koumakis who has written about the Hellenic Genocide for which I have permission from the copyright holder HEC.GREECE.ORG to use the biography and the page on the author Thea Halo who has also written about the Hellenic Genocide which contained a biography about her used in good faith under the fair use law. This is a deliberate attempt to use Wikipedia privileges in order to impose Censorship so as to conceal a historical event that these Turkish apologists do not want to be known. This is a typical tacktic used by Turkish apologists in general. Another tactic that these apologists are using is being used in the "Cyprus dispute" content dispute that they have initiated. They have excluded all historical facts and figures from that page which relate to the substance Cyprus dispute and have tried to equate legality with illegality. They have insulted Greek Cypriot refugees and their families such as mine by equating brutal and savavge Ethnic Cleansing of Greek Cypritos carried out by Turkey which has been proven by the European Court and Commission of Human Rights with a UN voluntary transfer of Turkish Cypriots to the occupied areas at the instance of Turkey. They will not allow the biased page they have created to be modified in any way from their biased view since they keep Vandalising the page every time I try to include any historical facts and figures no matter how neutral the source may be, even Turkish sources, which show them to be wrong. Because they have ganged up with each other to keep reverting the page every time I try to render it neutral and include the historical facts I have had no choice other than to create an alternative page on the illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus based on public domain information obtained from the Cyprus government.

This page should be deleted at once.--Argyrosargyrou 09:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CROSS-EXAMINATION by the defence Comment on point 4

The Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office is considered to be a neutral source on the substantive humanitarian issues of the Cyprus dispute which is between Tureky and the RoC, the EU and the UN, and is also public domain infromation. The United Nations Security Council has declared the Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus ILLEGAL. This is not a point of view, but a point of FACT. The issues of the ethnic cleansing of the Greek Cypriots, the Turkish destruction of Cyprus cultural heritage, the Missing Persons, Turkeys proven crimes against humanity, and the Illegal Turkish Colonisation of Cyprus in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention are all POINTS OF FACT that have been accepted by the UN, the EU and the European Court and Commission of Human Rights. --Argyrosargyrou 10:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

CROSS-EXAMINATION by the defence Comment on point 4,2

Oh yes.... So publishing the Reports of the European Commission of Human Rights on Turkey's human rights abuses carried out during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus at http://www.argyrosargyrou.fsnet.co.uk/humanrig.htm is a campaign to smear the name of Turkish people. Oh is it. And I suppose mentioning the Nuremberg trials concerning the NAZI holocaust is also a campaign to smear the name of German people. Somehow I don't think so in either case. I cite this distortion of the facts by taking offence at any mention of human rights as another tactic used by Turkish apologists to slander their opponents. Since this is personal abuse directed against me and filthy lies this page should be deleted. --Argyrosargyrou 09:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--Argyrosargyrou 09:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC) --~~~~~~~~[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Why there are so many contradictions with Turkic people and issues involving them? Have you ever heard about German issues (for example)? Turkic people are very much affraid on Genocides recognitions, because they still deny this crime. There are too many Turks in the world. If they all come here one day, they will vote to delete all articles, which they don't like. This is what pan-turkism is all about! Seems like this unusual activity of Turkic people in Wikipedia and on some other Internet sides (mainly, on forums) is dirrectly supported by Turkic governement.- User:Solomon

possible sockpuppet- The above comment is signed by a User:Solomon but was created by User:Dionis according to this page's edit history. User:Dionis has only contributed to the family of articles involved in this dispute. Dionis contributions Feco 15:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Dionis' only actions are votes to keep on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hellenic Genocide and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Turkish Holocaust Chronological Index, a revert to Argyro's version of the Hellenic Genocide and this very contribution. - Snchduer 16:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. You have to prove your point. Turkey has commited a number of Genocide crimes. And all of you, who actively deny these facts, are crimunals too. 72.25.94.60 18:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Another possible sockpuppet - the comment above is the anon user's only recorded contribution to Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 19:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feco and Snchduer are both directly involved in the dispute so what are they doing posting comments here ? The same can be said about ChrisO. --Argyrosargyrou 15:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cautiously support Argyrosargyrou. It is an irony that there are people here who claim to uphold the neutral point of view but here are very skilled in writing pro-Turkish viewpoints into articles, just like Argyrosargyrou is skilled in including his viewpoint. I support him because he has a right of freedom of expression just like anyone else. I use the word "caution" because of the manner that it has occured from both sides, me included. I apologize of course for my actions but I cannot apologize for a point of view and neither should Argyrosargyrou for that matter. Therefore I make a proposal for an Opposing Viewpoints page on this issue. Split the page in half and along each and every issue supply the points of view for both sides without getting all hyped up about being proturkish or progreek or whatever. The article should not include name calling. Perhaps there will be some convergence of views. (UNFanatic 18:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Delirium 00:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Given that the accusers in question are ultra-nationalists who are spewing out extremist fringe articles like Turkish Cypriot Genocide (a term that gets a mere 9 google hits, and that not even the northern Cyprus government uses), I would take any of their claims with a grain of salt. --Delirium 00:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sinistro 17:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Audiatur et altera pars. "Let the other side be heard", whether it be Cypriot or Turkish, provided it is done in a civil manner. Readers can then decide for themselves.Sinistro 17:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Phlogistomania 14:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) - I think both sides need a good read of WP:AGF
  4. --Ank99 06:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) This is obviously a group effort with a strong opposite POV trying to silence the other POV. The Cyprus problem is a problem of POV so let both views be heard.

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Note, first, that freedom of expression is not relevant here; Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not Speakers' Corner. Secondly, and relatedly, NPoV doesn't mean presenting two sets of exaggerations, bigoted interpreattions, and misrepresentations, and letting the reader decide; it means presenting the facts, and letting the reader know about differening opinions. Argyrosargyrou considers that anyone who doesn't agree with him is prejudiced, but his position is so extreme that almost everyone turns out to be prejudiced. Anyone who knows me and my background would find the idea that I'm a Turkish apologist to be ludicrous; only someone whose views are distorted by hatred and prejudice would accuse me of such a thing. Wikipedia isn't the palce for hatred and prejudice. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question to more experienced users/admins: Should the accused user (Argyrosargyrou) edit the "Evidence of disputed behaviour" section, or should his answers be limited to the "Response" section? - Snchduer 12:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Argyrosargyrou&oldid=1086093040"