EtienneDolet responded at the ANI (the full discussion can be seen here). 

He begins by saying that the POTD was never meant to commemorate the Genocide. But that is plainly contradicted by his first original attempt at a "blurp" for the image, which simply says: "Today is the 100 year anniversary of the Armenian Genocide" (note the clumsy English). An examination of the various revisions of the caption makes it perfectly clear that his intention indeed was to commemorate the Genocide and that his intention moreover was to use the occasion to make a historical point about its extent, rather than to remember the victims.

At that time the Turkish government was sending its condolences to the Armenian people. Wikipedia on the other hand was engaged in a process of soapboxing the Turkish people's culpability. The Turkish government might well have felt aggrieved with good reason if Wikipedia had been allowed to proceed.

EtienneDolet ignored the central issue C1cada was raising, regarding the "eight years of genocide", and instead pivoted to a discussion of C1cada's Talk page contributions at the article. He describes C1cada as "disruptive", but the reality was that C1cada was merely standing his ground in the face of EtienneDolet's obdurate refusal to concede the slightest ground on his part, even over matters of fact. 


"Scenes like this were common all over the Armenian provinces in the spring and summer months of 1915. Death in its several forms---massacre, starvation, exhaustion---destroyed the larger part of the refugees. The Turkish policy was that of extermination under the guise of deportation."

Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (1918)

Single purpose editing and ownership issues at Armenian Genocide threaten the reputation of Wikipedia

Single purpose editing and ownership issues at Armenian Genocide threaten the reputation of Wikipedia. Étienne Dolet is most at fault and should justify his editing before his peers.

Picture of the Day for 24 April 2015 (i.e. today as I write) commemorates Armenian Genocide Day. The image originally suggested, a map used in the Armenian Genocide article, nominated by Étienne Dolet, was quickly found to have issues of copyright and authenticity and discarded in favour of the image used today. The caption was agreed by Étienne Dolet with the POTD administrator [Chris Woodrich, Crisco1492]. Possibly because of a misleading lede in Armenian Genocide, the administrator erroneously used the phrase "eight years of genocide" in the caption. Whereas many people, including myself, might well think the massacres over eight years were genocidal in nature (I happen to believe the massacres were genocidal over the whole period 1894-1923), what is recognised as genocide are the atrocities over the period 1915-1916 coinciding with the notorious death marches promulgated by state decree. To have continued with "eight years of genocide" might very well have provoked a complaint from the Turkish government. Yet my attempts at both the article Talk page and the Template Talk Page to address this issue with a reasonable edit avoiding the phrase "eight years of genocide" were met with heavy resistance from Étienne Dolet, quoting walls of OR text in support of his thesis that the genocide extended over eight years. It was only when the POTD administrator corrected his edit that the issue was resolved, apparently because Étienne Dolet was not prepared to accept liability for the edit on his own account. At no point, and I do think this is significant, did Étienne Dolet address my suggestion that the point of the POTD was to commemorate the victims of the massacres and that it wasn't necessary to seek to make historical points about the duration of the genocide.

The passage in the lede at Armenian Genocide I suggest responsible for the error reads as follows;

The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ...

In the first place it suggests the genocide lasted over the whole eight year period, but there is also an obvious difficulty in that the passage suggests the "genocide" after World War I was also carried out in two stages (i.e. involving death marches; these in fact ceasing in 1916, although it is another defect of the article that this important fact is not mentioned). I traced the origin of the edit on the Talk page: it is essentially a copy edit problem arising from an inadequate grasp of English. Finally there is a Wikipedia MOS issue in that the massacres after World War I mentioned in the lede are not given adequate attention in the article, save for a single mention in a single sentence in a paragraph whose section heading refers to the casualties in 1914-1918 i.e. during the war and not after it. I addressed all this at Talk:Armenian_Genocide#1920-1923_reprise. I said the issues needed attention, but that I was unwilling to spend yet more time on the article. Nevertheless I made it clear that if the issues were not addressed I would eventually do so myself. I subsequently introduced a new section "Massacres after World War I" and made an edit in the lede. These were peremptorily reverted by Étienne Dolet less than two hours later on the grounds they needed consensus.

Presently editors may not even correct obvious errors of fact such as the extent of the historical Armnenian homeland or the date when the Turkish republic was created, without first bringing it to the talk page for "consensus". Étienne Dolet has accused me of complicity in the Armenian Genocide and threatened to block me. Étienne Dolet has been editing for some eight years solely on Armenian related topics. I edit at Wikipedia mainly on Mathematics, privacy issues, and European Union law. I came to Armenian Genocide because I edit at Perinçek v. Switzerland, a decision at the European Court of Human Rights presently on appeal, whose crux concerns whether freedom of expression extends to denying the Armenian Genocide.

I am frankly affronted by Étienne Dolet's discourtesies to me. If they are not addressed at least to the extent that he apologises to me and restores my edits, I shall quit editing Wikipedia.  c1cada (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

He seized on C1cada's objection to the way he used the word massacre (as a verb). EtienneDolet had wanted to include the sentence: "The rest of the Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria and subsequently massacred." That the events were indeed a massacre was recognized very early, for example by Winston Churchill. Henry Morgenthau, the American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, remarked in his 1918 memoir: "it really represented a new form of massacre". But what actually happened to the deportees is not known with any great accuracy. Vahakn N. Dadrian, author of the definitive history of the Genocide simply remarks:"The vast majority of the deportees perished through a variety of direct and indirect atrocities perpetrated during the deportations" (p. 219).

Many died of starvation and exhaustion among other privations, including rape (one of the few expansions at the article C1cada made that EtienneDolet allowed to stand), and there were extensive killings as well. But no native speaker of English would say they were all subsequently "massacred", because that implies a direct act. That's just the way English is. Eventually C1cada's suggestion prevailed: "The rest of the Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria without adequate provisioning, the greater number subsequently dying of starvation and other privations". EtienneDolet quotes that as an example of C1cada's "disruption".

EtienneDolet wanted to use the word "massacre" in this way to emphasise that the deportations were a deliberate act of genocide (the Turkish position being that the deaths were accidental). But international law recognises that "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" constitute an act of genocide.

The simple fact of the matter is that the editors at the article lack, for whatever reason, the skills and motivation to improve the article. C1cada actually wondered whether the article was under the control of Turkish functionaries tasked with keeping the article opaque and incomplete. His central point about the "eight years of genocide" was that it fuelled the denialists claim by providing them a target.

What is worrying is that Wikipedia felt there was no issue here. The ANI was closed as not needing action.

For the record, this is a snapshot of C1cada's edit linked directly above. For this he was banned from editing at the article and ultimately banned from editing Wikipedia by the wiki-cunt Aaij.

Armenian Genocide

Wikipedia's Armenian Genocide article is in the curious position of being a Core Article that has never proceeded even to Good Article status. Even the 2015 centenary commemoration of the Genocide was insufficient to persuade its editors to bring it to scratch, these editors apparently lacking either the skills or the motivation to put that into effect. When our editor C1cada tried to correct some straightforward errors of facts, for example relating to the extent of the historic homeland of the Armenians, and to expand the article's coverage of the events after World War I, he was taken to task by EtienneDolet, who deleted his edits on the ground they "lacked consensus". When C1cada took to the Talk page to achieve that consensus, EtienneDolet nevertheless deleted his edits anyway and took him to an Arbitration Enforcement process, remarkable for its meticulous detail. C1cada was subsequently banned from editing at any Armenia related article. The impression EtienneDolet sought to give was that Cicada was a "denialist", but nothing of the sort was true at all.

EtienneDolet has been editing at Wikipedia since 2006, exclusively on Armenia related topics. His original moniker was "Proudbolsahye", i.e. "proud Armenian living in Instanbul", but he changed his moniker in 2014 to EtienneDolet. The significance of that change is not clear. He gives no indication on his User page, which simply redirects to his Talk page, of his background or expertise. Early edits, which often give a clue to an editor's background have been revision deleted, and it seems clear that he makes a conscious effort to conceal his identity. Given his numerous early edits on Armenian schools in California, coupled with their semi-literate nature, our impression was that he was a teenager living in California, the "proudbolsahye" an adolescent fantasy.

It is noteworthy that EtienneDolet himself has recently been sanctioned by an Arbitration Enforcement process for his pro-Russia point of view editing. Presently (19 January 2017), he appears to have ceased editing as a result.

Cicada is no longer with us and none of have adquate expertise to comment on the issues he highlighted. But C1cada did raise them at an ANI (Administrators' Noticeboard), as far as we know the only time any of our editors have ever resorted to such. We reproduce this below, bolding some passages we think of interest: